Pete Hegseth has the combat leadership experience, academic pedigree, and profound love of country necessary to make our military great again. I served with him in the 34th Infantry Division and succeeded him in leading Concerned Veterans for America, and I wholeheartedly endorse his nomination to be our next secretary of defense.
President Trump knows that the Pentagon is in desperate need of reform, and the best way to accomplish that is to send a true outsider to run the show. The Make America Great Again movement has no better outsider to fix our broken military than Pete Hegseth, and he will also be a true loyalist to President Trump’s agenda.
Hegseth’s leadership will ensure our military returns to the basics of defeating our adversaries, rather than pushing a social justice agenda. Our military is in the midst of a readiness and recruitment crisis, and reform is needed fast. Hegseth and I served as infantry rifle platoon leaders in combat. Warfighters don’t have the luxury of being distracted by frivolous matters during combat operations. We focused on what I called the Big Four: shoot, move, communicate, and stop bleeding. Transgender surgeries and understanding white rage didn’t quite make the list.
I served as the executive director of Concerned Veterans for America (CVA), succeeding Hegseth, who brought this group to national prominence. Contrary to media reports based on anonymous sources, I can confirm that Hegseth was not fired. It was common knowledge within CVA that he was going to Fox News. This is nothing more than another tired media attack from an apparatus hell-bent on destroying his nomination.
The media have falsely portrayed CVA as a dysfunctional organization under Hegseth’s leadership, but the executive team and strategy I inherited from him were world-class. The proof is in the policy victories we helped President Trump deliver for veterans by reforming the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2017 and 2018.
The president agreed with our strategy. I quickly deployed the CVA grassroots army, which Hegseth built, to pressure Congress to pass these critically needed reforms. Our volunteers made thousands of citizen contacts by knocking on doors, hosting phone banks, and calling their members of Congress.
In less than six months, President Trump signed the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act. This would allow the government to fire bad and underperforming VA employees, especially the ones who allowed vets to die on secret waitlists. The next summer, President Trump signed the VA Mission Act, which provided vets with a choice in their health care.
Thanks to the policy vision of Pete Hegseth and the leadership of President Trump, these reforms brought the VA into the 21st century and likely saved thousands of lives.
That is the Pete Hegseth I know — a warfighter and visionary who loves his country. He will make a tremendous secretary of defense.
Mark Lucas is the executive vice president of the Article III Project. Lucas served as an infantry officer in the Iowa Army National Guard and was awarded the Combat Infantry Badge and Bronze Star Medal in Afghanistan during the deadliest year of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the president the authority to pardon offenses against the United States, a power intended to provide fairness and avoid prosecutorial abuses. Alexander Hamilton envisioned this clemency as a tool to “restore the tranquility of the commonwealth.” But in the hands of Joe Biden, the pardon power looks less like a tool for justice and more like a sledgehammer wielded to shield a crumbling empire of corruption.
Biden’s recent pardon of his son Hunter has spotlighted the blatant hypocrisy of the Left’s use of clemency. After years of moral grandstanding, claiming the high road on justice and accountability, Democrats are now orchestrating mass pardons to shield themselves from the fallout of their own malfeasance.
Pardons as Preemptive Damage Control
During Trump’s presidency, Democrats practically dared him to issue preemptive pardons for his family, projecting their own propensity for guilt on the former president. When Trump pardoned Jared Kushner’s father, the media spun it as though he had pardoned Kushner himself. That narrative stuck, fueling the perception of Trump as corrupt, even as his actual record on pardons tells a different story.
Trump, notably, did not pardon his children or any close associates preemptively or otherwise. Why? Because they weren’t guilty of anything. Contrast that with Biden, whose pardons aren’t just reactive—they’re preemptive damage control for an administration rife with misconduct.
Leaks suggest Biden is for a laundry list of allies, including Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, Anthony Fauci, and members of the January 6th Committee. These aren’t minor players; they are key figures in the systemic abuse of power targeting Donald Trump and his supporters. The January 6th Committee alone violated so many laws it could be a semester-long case study at any law school.
Then there’s Fauci. A pardon for Fauci essentially extends to the entire health bureaucracy—NIH, FDA, CDC—that oversaw the disastrous COVID-19 policies. Lockdowns, vaccine mandates, suppression of dissent, and the mishandling of public trust—it’s no wonder Biden would want to sweep this under the rug.
A Record-Breaking Abuse of Power
Historically, presidents have used pardons sparingly, often to right specific wrongs. Franklin D. Roosevelt holds the record with 2,819 pardons and 3,796 total acts of clemency, largely for people convicted under Prohibition laws. Barack Obama granted 1,927 acts of clemency, including a controversial commutation for Chelsea Manning.
But Biden’s pardon spree could make FDR’s record look modest. Biden’s administration isn’t dealing with isolated cases of injustice—it’s mopping up the collateral damage from years of systemic corruption.
Consider the scope:
The FBI: With over 37,000 employees, including 10,000 special agents, the agency’s involvement in targeting Trump and MAGA supporters is well-documented.
The CIA and NSA: These agencies, with a combined workforce exceeding 50,000, played their parts in surveillance and misinformation campaigns.
IRS and FISA Courts: From targeting conservative groups to enabling dubious investigations, their roles can’t be ignored.
Biden’s pardons could easily extend to thousands of individuals across these institutions, creating a tsunami of public outrage. This isn’t about restoring tranquility; it’s about cementing a legacy of corruption while protecting a broken system.
Democrats: Masters of Projection
The hypocrisy is staggering. Democrats who lambasted Trump for imagined abuses of power are now actively orchestrating the largest clemency cover-up in history. When Joy Reid and Adam Schiff criticized the idea of preemptive pardons, they framed it as an admission of guilt. Yet here we are, watching Biden prepare to issue blanket pardons to his political allies without a shred of irony.
Biden is now considering preemptive pardons, including one for Adam Schiff.
That makes this clip one of the best ever. 🤣
December, 2020. Joy Reid and Adam Schiff discuss family member and preemptive pardons. 🤪 pic.twitter.com/9oorNUFT79
Hunter Biden’s pardon set the tone: a sweeping, decade-long absolution for crimes ranging from tax evasion to illegal firearm possession. The message? Rules are for the little people.
Trump: A Study in Contrast
Trump’s approach to pardons highlights the glaring differences between the two administrations. While Biden’s pardons shield the guilty, Trumps were measured and purposeful. Trump used his clemency power to address specific injustices, such as Alice Johnson’s over-sentencing or the persecution of Michael Flynn. More importantly, Trump didn’t shield himself or his family. His restraint underscores the integrity of his administration compared to the flagrant abuses we’re witnessing now.
Rebuilding Trust in Justice
Biden’s pardon spree will leave a lasting stain on America’s institutions. But it also presents an opportunity for renewal. When Trump returns to office, he will face the monumental task of rebuilding trust in law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This starts with accountability. Anyone receiving a Biden pardon should be immediately dismissed from public service. A pardon may erase legal culpability, but it doesn’t absolve moral or professional failure. The system must be purged of those who abused their positions for political gain.
Restoring faith in justice won’t be easy, but it’s essential. Americans need to believe that no one—not even the president—is above the law.
The Firestorm to Come
Biden’s mass pardons will ignite a firestorm in the American psyche. The fallout will resonate for decades, exposing the depth of corruption in our government. But it also serves as a rallying cry for reform.
The Left’s strategy of weaponizing clemency to protect their own has backfired. Instead of tranquility, they’ve sown chaos. And as the dust settles, what America will see is the scattered carcasses of Democrats who participated in this farce.
Justice must prevail, not as an act of revenge, but as a restoration of the principles that made this nation great.
It appears no liberal Christmas is complete without the ultimate stocking stuffer: an actual stocking to wear over your face while rioting. While not yet selling face coverings for anonymous violence, Crooked Media, co-founded by former Obama staffers Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor, is selling a line of Antifa items for liberals wanting to make a statement against any “Peace on Earth.” (As of this posting, Antifa items were still being sold on the “Crooked Store” site). You can now proudly wear your “Antifa Dad” hat to signal your support for political violence and deplatforming. It is the ultimate naughty gift list for putting the slay back into your Sleigh Bells.
These liberal hosts and their “POD SAVE AMERICA” show have been featured on various shows and courted by figures like Hillary Clinton. There is no apparent backlash for their support of one of the most violent groups in the world, which routinely attacks journalists and anyone who holds opposing views. Imagine the media response if a conservative site started selling “Proud Boy” items. Yet, Crooked Media is now offering liberals the chance to buy “ANTIFA” onesies for babies, a T-shirt for toddlers reading “ANTIFA” and other items.
Just to make sure that everyone understands the support for the violent group, a spokesperson for Crooked Media told Fox News Digital that the clothes it has listed on its website “are not a joke.” The spokesman added that “all toddlers are antifa until their souls are broken by capitalism.”
“Antifa originated with European anarchist and Marxist groups from the 1920s, particularly Antifaschistische Aktion, a Communist group from the Weimar Republic before World War II. Its name resulted from the shortening of the German word antifaschistisch. In the United States, the modern movement emerged through the Anti- Racist Action (ARA) groups, which were dominated by anarchists and Marxists. It has an association with the anarchist organization Love and Rage, which was founded by former Trotsky and Marxist followers as well as offshoots like Mexico’s Amor Y Rabia. The oldest U.S. group is likely the Rose City Antifa (RCA) in Portland, Oregon, which would become the center of violent riots during the Trump years. The anarchist roots of the group give it the same organizational profile as such groups in the early twentieth century with uncertain leadership and undefined structures.”
Despite the denial of its existence by figures like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), I have long written and spoken about the threat of Antifa to free speech on our campuses and in our communities. This includes testimony before Congress on Antifa’s central role in the anti-free speech movement nationally. As I have previously written, it has long been the “Keyser Söze” of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association. Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray has repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifa’s work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated, “And we have quite a number” — and “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction.”
Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence, and its website was banned in Germany.
Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”
It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.
Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”
Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
Now, liberal families can bring a small part of that political violence into their homes for the holiday to pledge that there will be no peace or silent nights so long as opposing views are heard. Antifa has gone retail, and there is no better way to celebrate political violence and rage than your Antifa onesie.
With tensions rising after the election, the embrace of organizations like Antifa will only fuel calls for violent action. Liberal figures like ex-Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz have even conveyed support for the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan.
It is not the time to go full naughty list to celebrate a group that regularly beats reporters and others with opposing viewpoints. While this may appeal to your own special smash-mouth Santa, tis the season for political violence.
US Representative Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., a member of the US Representative Jared Moskowitz D-Fla., speaks to the press after touring the shooting site at the Butler Farm Show Grounds on August 26, 2024, in Butler, Pennsylvania. (Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)
DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s plans to cut waste, fraud, and abuse within the federal government’s nearly $7 trillion budget through President-elect Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency is beginning to attract support from a notable group: Democratic lawmakers.
Democratic Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz is the first Democratic lawmaker to join the House’s Department of Government Efficiency Caucus helmed by Republican Reps. Aaron Bean of Florida and Pete Sessions of Texas, according to a Tuesday press release.
“Today. I will join the Congressional DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] Caucus, because I believe that streamlining government processes and reducing ineffective government spending should not be a partisan issue,” Moskowitz wrote. “I’ve been clear that there are ways we can reorganize our government to make it work better for the American people.”
The Florida Democrat is asking the Department of Government Efficiency to examine the Department of Homeland Security’s budget and has suggested that the commission recommend establishing the Secret Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency—currently under DHS control—as independent agencies, according to Moskowitz’s press release.
“For the people at DOGE, if Vivek and Elon are listening, you need to look at Homeland [Security Department],” Moskowitz said during a House Oversight Committee hearing on the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Nov. 19, where the Florida Democrat advocated for DHS reform.
Moskowitz’s Democratic colleague California Rep. Ro Khanna has also voiced support for the Department of Government Efficiency, particularly regarding the commission’s potential to trim the Department of Defense’s nearly $900 billion budget.
“Let me provide an area where there could be bipartisan collaboration. I mean—the defense budget which is nearly a trillion dollars,” Khanna told CNN’s Jim Acosta on Nov. 25 in an apparent endorsement of the efficiency department. “There has been tremendous reporting about the waste, fraud and abuse within that budget. The Pentagon hasn’t passed an audit—it has failed the last six or seven audits.”
“If they find areas of truly wasteful spending across the government, they will get support,” Khanna added.
On the other side of the Capitol, independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders echoed Khanna’s support for the Department of Government Efficiency reforming the DOD’s budget.
“Elon Musk is right,” Sanders wrote in a post on X on Sunday. “The Pentagon, with a budget of $886 billion, just failed its seventh audit in a row. It’s lost track of billions. Last year, only 13 senators voted against the Military Industrial Complex and a defense budget full of waste and fraud. That must change.”
The Republicans who joined Sanders in voting against the fiscal year 2024 national defense authorization act included Vice President-elect JD Vance and Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Mike Braun of Indiana. Most Republican lawmakers, including Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, incoming chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, advocate for increased military spending.
The Senate Department of Government Efficiency Caucus, led by Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, currently contains no Democratic members.
The Department of Government Efficiency has no statutory authority to reform the government’s budget and is planning to collaborate with the White House Office of Management and Budget to provide cost-cutting recommendations, according to an op-ed published by Vivek and Ramaswamy in the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 20. Given that Congress appropriates the money that constitutes the president’s budget, the Department of Government Efficiency will likely need congressional support to accomplish the commission’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government and eliminate wasteful spending.
Sanders and Khanna’s offices did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s inquiries about whether the two plan to join the House and Senate Department of Government Efficiency caucuses.
One of the campaign mantras by Leftists is that tariffs don’t work. Nothing works if you allow an idiot to manage it. And you’d be hard-pressed to find a competent person in the Biden administration. Actually, almost any Democrat administration for that matter.
As usual, Leftists dismiss solutions that work because they’re too busy clinging to their ineffective policies. And when your specialty is chaos, solutions are the last thing you want. Remember when Democrats screeched that President Trump’s plan to impose 25% tariffs on goods was essentially a tax on Americans? Turns out, Trump doesn’t use tariffs as just a revenue tool, but in fact as a strategic weapon.
Trump’s tariffs weren’t about economic isolation—they were about leveraging America’s market powerto negotiate better deals and, more importantly, to protect U.S. interests.
A Masterclass in the Art of the Deal
Does anybody miss the idea of a President Kamala? Only the more ardent Democrat (idiot) would want Harris as POTUS, while watching President Trump work. To witness Trump at work is akin to watching Bobby Fischer play chess with novices.
Each tariff threat is calculated and targeted, crafted to address specific grievances while opening pathways to resolution. No blanket strategies, no one-size-fits-all nonsense. Every country is handled based on its unique relationship with the U.S., its trade practices, and—most importantly—what America needs to maintain its edge. This isn’t policy-by-template; this is The Art of the Deal in action.
Take Canada and Mexico, for instance. Trump recently turned his attention toward these two neighbors with a bold ultimatum: curb the inflow of migrants and drugs or face the economic hammer of a 25% tariff. Both nations immediately scrambled to the negotiating table, recognizing that this wasn’t just posturing—it was a genuine warning backed by action.
Canada’s Hasty Retreat to Florida
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been known for his progressive rhetoric. But even he couldn’t ignore the gravity of Trump’s tariff threats. Just days after Trump floated his proposal, Trudeau flew to Mar-a-Lago, bringing along Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc. According to reports, Trudeau’s visit wasn’t just a diplomatic courtesy call—it was a desperate attempt to stave off Trump’s wrath. Trudeau had high-tailed it to Trump’s Florida base after the president-elect threatened to slam America’s northern neighbor with a 25% tariff on its goods, accusing Canada of being lax on immigration and drug enforcement at the border.
Fox News’ Peter Doocy reported on the exchange Monday, citing two sources who sat at the same table with the leaders during their meal.
“We are told that when Trudeau told President-elect Trump that new tariffs would kill the Canadian economy, Trump joked to him that if Canada can’t survive without ripping off the U.S. to the tune of $100 billion a year, then maybe Canada should become the 51st state and Trudeau could become its governor,” Doocy reported.
Imagine the scene: Trudeau, fresh off his plane at Palm Beach International Airport, knocking on Trump’s golden door to plead Canada’s case. The stakes? Canada’s economy could take a massive hit from tariffs, particularly in sectors like fuels and vehicles. All toll, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada is over $50 billion.
Mexico’s Patriarchal Predicament
Meanwhile, Mexico’s Leftist female president finds herself in an unenviable position. Trump’s no-nonsense approach threatens to expose the vulnerabilities in Mexico’s governance, particularly its inability to control drug cartels and illegal migration. Mexico’s leader knows that public humiliation by Trump could shatter her domestic credibility in a patriarchal society. Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum says Canada “could only wish they had the cultural riches Mexico has” following a threat by President-elect Donald Trump to impose tariffs on both countries over the flow of migrants and drugs into the U.S.
Trump’s discussions weren’t about “cultural riches”, and they weren’t limited to tariffs. The discussion involved restoring accountability. Trump has made it abundantly clear that if Mexico doesn’t step up, America will act unilaterally—and decisively. Border partners carry a far greater responsibility, particularly given America’s border issue that ebbs and flows based on the party in office.
Why Tariffs Work: The Bigger Picture
Critics often claim that tariffs lead to higher costs for consumers, but that argument ignores the broader benefits. Trump’s tariffs on China, for example, reduced the trade deficit and brought billions back into the U.S. economy. In the same vein, the proposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada serve a dual purpose: curbing illegal migration and fighting the scourge of fentanyl and other deadly drugs. When you understand that in 2023 illegals cost America $182 billion. Given our trade deficit with Mexico was roughly $130 billion in 2022, you can see the magnitude of illegal immigration in comparison.
The tariffs aren’t just punitive—they’re preventative. They incentivize countries to clean up their acts, knowing that the alternative is economic pain. And let’s not forget, the revenue generated from these tariffs can be reinvested into American infrastructure, industries, and workers. If Mexico expects to continue to enjoy the benefits of America’s economy, then they will capitulate. Or else.
America’s Economic Champion
Elections indeed have consequences. And the American voter knows who we needed as a country for our survival. Imagine the economic toll we would continue to suffer if Trump hadn’t been re-elected. In a budget where trillions are mentioned without flinching, it’s nice to watch a leader who understands how to bring billions back into the economy, and simultaneously cut government waste, abuse, and spending.
When you add all these incremental items together, Americans could see trillions returned to the treasury. A strong America allows for even better negotiations with other countries. Trump doesn’t just talk about putting America first—he does it, one tariff at a time.
More countries will get in lockstep with Trump or get kicked out of the band.
Next, we will discuss how President Trump plans to dismantle BRICS.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is under fire today for seemingly dismissing medical concerns over the risks of puberty blockers and gender surgeries for minors with a comparison to taking Aspirin. In the oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, Sotomayor pointed out that there are risks to any medical procedure or drug. However, the analogy belittled the concerns of many parents and groups over the research on the dangers of these treatments. It also highlighted how the Biden Administration and liberal justices were discarding countervailing research inconveniently at odds with their preferred legal conclusion.
The Biden administration is challenging Tennessee’s law banning gender-changing drugs and procedures for minors. That state cites studies that indicate serious complications or risks associated with the treatments for children.
While the conservative justices acknowledged studies on both sides of the debate over risks, the liberal justices seemed to dismiss studies that were inconsistent with striking down the law as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. That issue produced a difficult moment for Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar when Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito confronted her about statements made in her filing with the Court.
Alito quoted Prelogar’s petition to the Court that claimed that there was “overwhelming evidence” supporting the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments as safe with positive results for children. Justice Alito, however, cited extensive countervailing research from European countries showing significant risks and potential harm. The World Health Organization has recognized these risks and lack of evidence supporting these procedures and researchers in Finland recently published a study showing that suicides among kids with gender dysphoria are extremely rare in contradiction to one of the common arguments made for adolescent treatment.
Alito also cited the United Kingdom’s Cass Review, released shortly after her filing. The Cass study found scant evidence that the benefits of transgender treatment are greater than the risks. He then delivered the haymaker: “I wonder if you would like to stand by the statement in your position or if you think it would now be appropriate to modify that and withdraw your statement.”
🔥🔥🔥Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito presses Elizabeth Prelogar on the experimental nature of "gender-affirming care."
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Chase Strangio (who has previously argued that children as young as two years old can identify themselves as transgender) seemed to later acknowledge that very few gender-dysphoric children actually go through with suicide but insisted that the procedures reduce suicidal inclinations.
Justice Sotomayor seemed intent on defusing the problem with the opposing scientific research in her exchange with Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice. In his argument, Rice stated that “they cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners, so it becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefits versus risk. And the question of how many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left to the legislature.”
That is when Sotomayor interjected: “I’m sorry, counselor. Every medical treatment has a risk — even taking Aspirin. There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that is going to suffer a harm.”
According to studies, aspirin can have potential side effects that are largely quite mild. The studies cited by the state are raising far more serious risks and medical changes, including irreversible double mastectomies, genital surgeries, sterilization and infertility. There can also be long-term effects in bone growth, bone density, and other developmental areas. Those risks have led European countries to change their policies on the treatments pending further study.
Rice: "How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?"
The point is not that the justices should resolve this medical debate, but that it is properly resolved elsewhere, including in the state legislative process.
Sotomayor’s aspirin analogy seemed gratuitously dismissive for many and reminiscent of the response to scientists who questioned Covid protocols and policies from the six-foot rule to mask efficacy.
Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (who is now nominated to lead the National Institutes of Health) and others were vilified by the media over their dissenting views on the pandemic and efforts to show countervailing research. He and others signed the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration that called on government officials and public health authorities to rethink the mandatory lockdowns and other extreme measures in light of past pandemics.
All the signatories became targets of an orthodoxy enforced by an alliance of political, corporate, media, and academic groups. Most were blocked on social media despite being accomplished scientists with expertise in this area.
Some scientists argued that there was no need to shut down schools, which has led to a crisis in mental illness among the young and the loss of critical years of education. Others argued that the virus’s origin was likely the Chinese research lab in Wuhan. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called any mention of the lab theory “racist.”
Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.
Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — both positions were later recognized by the government.
Others questioned the six-foot rule used to shut down many businesses as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that the 6-foot rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did the rule result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, the media further ostracized dissenting critics.
Again, Fauci and other scientists did little to stand up for these scientists or call for free speech to be protected. As I discuss in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the result is that we never really had a national debate on many of these issues and the result of massive social and economic costs.
For scientists attacked and deplatformed for years, Sotomayor’s statements were painfully familiar. They also cited European and countervailing studies that the media dismissed as fringe views or conspiratorial viewpoints. In the same way, Justice Sotomayor’s analogy seemed to treat those raising these concerns (including parents) as akin to questioning the risks of aspirin. The import seemed to be that stopping taking aspirin based on minor concerns would be ridiculous and so too are objections to gender changing treatments and procedures.
The fact is some analogies are poorly chosen or misunderstood. However, the thrust of the comments from the justice were dismissive of the science supporting Tennessee and the 23 states with similar laws. That is roughly half of the states which want to adopt a more cautious approach. No one was arguing against adults being able to opt for such treatment, but these states do not want children to be subject to the treatments in light of this ongoing debate.
A.F. Branco – RINOs and Democrats are Kavanaughing the Trump nomination for Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, with a lot of anonymous accusations right out of their dirty playbook. The military complex swamp monsters are terrified of this guy.
“Bullsh*t. 100 Percent Bullsh*t. Actually… Horsesh*t.” – Will Cain DESTROYS NBC’s Latest Bogus Anonymous Hit Piece on Pete Hegseth
NBC News, known for its many Trump conspiracies and fake news reports, published a disgusting hit piece against Pete Hegseth, President Trump’s nominee for Defense Secretary. The knives have been out for Pete since his nomination since he is not a member of the military-industrial complex and does not believe in blowing trillions of dollars on losing war war after war and surrendering to 8th-century barbarians. Hegseth scares the hell out of the Deep State so they are trying… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
A three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal government has the authority to deport illegal immigrants even if local leaders try to impede the process. The case arose after King County Executive Dow Constantine issued an executive order in 2019 that instructed county officials to prohibit “fixed base operators” (FBO) on a county airfield from servicing flights chartered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to deport illegal immigrants who are lawfully removable. FBO’s “lease space from the airport and provide flights with essential services, such as fueling and landing stairs,” according to the ruling.
The Trump administration sued because the order impeded ICE from enforcing the law and removing illegal immigrants. The administration argued that the order violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and a World War II-era agreement that gave the federal government permission to use the King County airport.
The three-judge panel affirmed both contentions. The panel ruled that the executive order was a violation of the Supremacy Clause’s intergovernmental immunity doctrine because it “improperly regulates the way in which the federal government transports noncitizen detainees by preventing ICE from using private FBO contractors at Boeing Field.” The court also held that the executive order discriminated against the federal government by “regulat[ing] them unfavorably on some basis related to their governmental ‘status.’”
King County said it would not appeal the ruling, according to The Seattle Times.
The incoming Trump administration has vowed to solve the border crisis and deport illegal immigrants who are draining taxpayer resources, while hordes of so-called “sanctuary cities” nationwide oppose enforcement of federal immigration law and go so far as to refuse to comply with ICE authorities.
Tom Homan, dubbed the incoming “border czar,” has already warned sanctuary city officials not to resist or impede the federal government’s deportation activities.
“It is a felony to knowingly harbor or conceal an illegal immigrant from immigration authorities. Don’t test us,” Homan said.
One Democrat, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, has already vowed to mobilize police and residents “stationed at the county line” to “keep” federal immigration authorities “out” of the city. Johnston likened the hypothetical to Tiananmen Square but later tried to walk back the comparison.
Homan responded to Johnston’s open defiance, saying he is “willing to put [Johnston] in jail.”
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2
The Democrats find themselves in a mess of their own making—and what a glorious mess it is. They’ve managed to redefine political self-sabotage, creating a masterpiece of ineptitude that would make even the most bumbling bureaucrat blush. Let’s recap their genius strategy: after Biden’s stumble-filled tenure, they thought the solution was to parachute in Kamala Harris—the candidate nobody wanted. The woman who polled at a whopping one percent in her own party’s primary now carried the banner of “saving democracy.” Irony, thy name is the Democratic Party.
A Billion-Dollar Blunder
Kamala’s campaign wasn’t just a train wreck; it was a bullet train flying off the tracks at full speed. In a compressed timeline, she burned through $1.5 billion. Imagine the fiscal irresponsibility she could achieve with a full campaign cycle. Her penchant for turning campaign funds into Monopoly money is well-documented, but this time she truly outdid herself.
And for what? To lose spectacularly while leaving the Democratic coffers emptier than Hunter Biden’s alibi folder. The MSN article sheds light on this debacle, and it’s a doozy. It turns out that instead of crafting a message to connect with actual voters, the Democrats treated Harris’ campaign like a giant piggy bank for their wealthy consultants, donors, and advisors. Everyone was taking their skim, and Kamala was the unwitting ATM.
The Elite Bubble and the Working-Class Void
Faiz Shakir, Bernie Sanders’ senior advisor, hit the nail on the head when he described the Democrats’ elite bubble. This is a party that loves to talk about the working class but wouldn’t dare let them anywhere near the decision-making table. Instead, they hand the reins to billionaire donors like Reid Hoffman and corporate types like Tony West, Harris’ brother-in-law and Uber’s chief legal officer. Because nothing says “fighting for the little guy” like having billionaires whispering sweet nothings in your campaign’s ear.
Hoffman, Cuban, and their ilk didn’t just fund the campaign—they steered it. According to reports, they watered down policies that might have resonated with actual voters, like a billionaire tax. Their advice? Tone it down. Don’t rock the yacht.
The result? A candidate with no coherent ideological framework, propped up by charisma alone, and a campaign that hemorrhaged money while alienating the very base it claimed to champion.
The Fallout: A Democratic Winter Is Coming
Let’s not sugarcoat it: Kamala’s campaign was a disaster for the Democrats, and the ramifications will echo for years. Their donors are disillusioned, their coffers are depleted, and their credibility is in tatters. The party of “fiscal responsibility for thee but not for me” now faces the grim reality that even its wealthiest backers are questioning their investments. After all, why pour billions into a party that can’t manage a basic campaign, let alone a country? MSN wrote:
According to Faiz Shakir, a senior advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt however, the problems with the Democratic Party’s structure and the way it runs campaigns go beyond just media consultants and the party’s love of paid ads. The core issue, as Shakir puts it, is that the party-political operations are a closed loop with well-off consultants, politicians and donors all taking advice from each other with little outside input.
“We have a working-class problem in the Democratic Party and when you have wealthy consultants talking to wealthy donors who are all living in an elite bubble, it can become detached from what messages will resonate with people who aren’t in the elite bubble,” Shakir said. “You can be a good person with good character trying to do the right thing to try and help Kamala Harris win but when you are surrounded by monied interests you have to figure out how you don’t become bubblized.”
(…)
Tobias described a dynamic where campaign staff and candidates are hesitant to publicly push back on the assertions of billionaire donors like Hoffman, even if the campaign doesn’t intend to let them direct policy.
Tobias indicated that the apparent influence of the super-wealthy has a dual effect. It undermines the Democratic Party’s support from its traditional base by steering policy discussions away from economically populist ideas that go against the interest of the wealthy, while simultaneously helping support candidates who are charismatic but don’t come into politics with a consistent ideological framework.
The influence of billionaires was directly early in Harris’ bid for the presidency when moguls like Mark Cuban warned the Harris campaign that a billionaire tax, for example, would be too aggressive, according to the Washington Post. Other business executives, like Tony West, the chief legal officer at Uber and Harris’ brother-in-law, also served as advisors and, according to the Atlantic, helped steer the campaign away from criticism of corporate power.
In Tobias’ opinion, the Democratic Party needs to put forth candidates who either outright turn down business executives with divergent interests from working-class Americans or candidates who will at least force them into a position where they are not influencing policy or the campaign. He says the seats at the table currently occupied by people like West, Cuban and Hoffman should instead be occupied by people that, at the very least, represent popular constituencies, like the president of the AFL-CIO.
The MSN article rightly points out the Democrats’ need to reconnect with their working-class roots. But Democrats haven’t cared about the working class since unions stopped being their ATM. Until they stop treating billionaires as political demigods and start listening to the people they claim to represent, their woes will only deepen.
Trump: The Wild Card
And then there’s Trump. Like a hawk circling a wounded rabbit, he’s watching the Democrats flail with glee. If Trump performs as expected in his second act, the Democrats are staring down not just one or two lost election cycles, but potentially four. A political winter is coming, and the Democrats are woefully unprepared.
They can’t rely on their old tricks anymore. Trump’s ability to expose their hypocrisy—like their claims of defending democracy while coronating Harris—has resonated. The contrast between Trump’s America-first policies and the Democrats’ donor-first priorities couldn’t be starker. And voters are noticing.
Lessons in Leadership (or Lack Thereof)
In the end, Kamala Harris put Democrats in a major pickle for two reasons: (1) she lost, and (2) she spent money like a crackhead who hit the Power Ball.
If there’s one takeaway from this fiasco, it’s that leadership matters. The Democrats bet the farm on Kamala Harris, and it backfired spectacularly. They didn’t just lose; they exposed themselves as a party more interested in appeasing elites than addressing the concerns of everyday Americans.
As Trump gears up for what promises to be a scorched-earth campaign, the Democrats have their work cut out for them. But if their strategy involves more coronations, more billion-dollar blunders, and more catering to the billionaire class, they might want to stock up on blankets. It’s going to be a long, cold winter in the wilderness of irrelevance.
Below is my column in The Hill on the Biden pardon and how it might not prove as complete a protection for Hunter Biden — or Joe Biden — as the President had hoped. Ironically, the greatest protection for President Biden in continuing investigations in the influence-peddling scandal could prove that very case that he has denounced that recognized presidential immunity for matters that arise during a presidency. Nevertheless, the action confirms the suspicion that Hunter’s bizarre criminal defense strategy may have been based on the assumption that he had a pocket pardon as insurance against any losses in court.
Here is the column:
The most shocking aspect of President Biden pardoning his own son, Hunter, may be that it was not in the least shocking, given the history of the Biden family. This abuse of the pardon power was widely anticipated even by his allies as the president repeatedly denied that he would ever do such a thing as he ran for reelection. Indeed, it may be the single most premeditated unethical act in political history.
However, it may not achieve what President Biden most hopes for: a clean slate for his son and himself in this massive corruption scandal.
Roughly two years ago, I wrote about how Biden might suddenly withdraw from the presidential race in 2024 and pardon his son as a lame-duck president. “The pardon-and-apology approach might appeal to Biden not only as an effort to convert vice into virtue but to justify his withdrawal from the election as a selfless act,” I wrote.
I further noted: “Everyone in Washington would win — except, of course, the public: The Bidens would keep alleged millions in influence-peddling profits; Hunter would not even have to pay his full taxes; members of Congress and the media could avoid taking responsibility for burying the reports of corruption.”
I wrote about the pardon option repeatedly because none of Hunter’s bizarre (and ultimately unsuccessful) criminal defenses made sense unless he felt confident that his father would pardon him in the end. Hunter’s taunting Congress with open contempt of a subpoena and his ridiculous defenses in court were not the actions of someone who feared consequences from these investigations. They were the actions of someone with a pocket pardon.
NBC is reporting that Hunter’s pardon was being discussed in the White House for a long time, even as Biden and his staff were steadfastly denying that he would issue a pardon. As with his years of denying knowledge of Hunter’s business dealings and meeting his clients, Biden simply lied over and over again to the public.
The eventual pardon restored what was a sweetheart deal reached with Special Counsel David Weiss that would have given Hunter immunity to the immediate charges and any unnamed criminal charges. It collapsed in court when Judge Maryellen Noreika expressed shock at such a deal and asked the prosecutor if he had ever seen such a deal offered to any other defendant. He admitted that he had not.
Now, President Biden has recreated an even more sweeping immunity grant through his own powers by pardoning his son not only for the crimes of which he was convicted, but of any crimes committed between Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, 2024. Think on that. It would cover anything from perjury to murder.
Now it makes sense why Hunter seemed to be engaged in what I described as a “game of chicken with himself.” As a criminal defense attorney, I noted that wild moves in and outside of the courts would make sense only if he knew that his dad would cover him in the end if everything went poorly — even as the president was assuring the public that he would never do such a thing.
In a final show of contempt for the American people, President Biden waited until a Sunday before an international trip to commit this unethical act. He brushed over his past lies by saying that “From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word.” What he actually said, over and over again, was that he would never pardon his son.
For many in the media who helped bury this scandal and showed no interest in pursuing the influence-peddling operation of the Biden family, the pardon was met with uncomfortable shrugs. It is a measure of what you can call “Biden ethics.” In the curious world of Joe Biden, a lie that no one believes is treated the same as the truth. It is likely to work. There may be little interest in pursuing this corruption scandal with so much to get done in the new administration. However, it is not the absolute “get-out-of-jail-free” card that President Biden would like.
Hunter could still be called to testify before Congress or with investigators on the influence-peddling efforts. If he lies, it will be a new crime for which this pardon would not bar prosecution. He would no longer be able to count on a pocket pardon as an insurance policy.
Short of such continued investigation, the Bidens will have achieved something that would have made John Gotti blush. They were able to pull in millions of alleged influence-peddling proceeds. Hunter was showered with gifts and benefits, from a diamond to a luxury sports car. Various Biden family members reportedly received money from the operation. President Biden was himself accused of knowledge and possible benefits from the influence peddling. He will also be protected by this official act.
This is why I once wrote that the Bidens are the GOATs of influence peddling. While influence peddling is the most common form of corruption in Washington, this city has never seen the likes of the Bidens. The only thing greater than their appetite was their sheer audacity.
In this statement on the pardon before fleeing the jurisdiction for a foreign trip, President Biden notably stated that “in trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me.” Indeed, this corruption scandal is as much about the president as it is about his son. And, as the president previously declared, “No one f—- with a Biden.”
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her case against President-elect Donald Trump continue to trip wires in the courts with delays and losses. The latest is a fight with the organization Judicial Watch, which won a major records fight to gain access to any communications with Special Counsel Jack Smith and the House January 6th Committee. While it is not clear what records exist, it is the type of demand that most offices fight vigorously to protect their confidentiality and privileges of deliberation. Willis, however, lost by default after failing to make a substantive argument against the claim.
The Judicial Watch lawsuit was based on the Open Records Act (ORA), and Willis had defenses to make, but she failed to make them. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ordered Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to hand over records within five business days. McBurney found that Willis violated Georgia’s Open Records Act by failing to respond to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit.
He wrote that Willis did not make any “meritorious defense” and that “Plaintiff is thus entitled to judgment by default as if every item and paragraph of the complaint were supported by proper and sufficient evidence.”
The case against Trump is on appeal after the court decided not to disqualify Willis from prosecuting the case.
Willis will also now have to pay Judicial Watch’s attorney’s fees. The hearing on the fees will appropriately come just before Christmas for Judicial Watch on Dec. 20, 2024. That will add to the towering costs for the people of Atlanta in funding this high-profile adventure.
Of course, she can insist “it is not my fault, it’s the default.”
Contrary to what corporate media want you to believe, President Donald Trump’s decision to name Kashyap “Kash” Patel as his choice to replace current FBI Director Christopher Wray is a good one — perhaps one of the best he could have made.
When Trump announced over Thanksgiving weekend that Patel was his pick to “bring back Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity to the FBI,” journos lost their minds. Some outlets framed Trump’s choice as frowned upon by the president’s aides and Republican legislators. Others publishedlists of bureaucrats who they claimed could fall prey to “Patel’s crosshairs.”for partisan reasons. Those did not compare to the hordes of corporate media coverage dedicated to tarnishing Patel and quashing his nomination.
Even before the election, the Associated Press painted Patel as a conspiracy theorist while noting how he was “poised to help lead a Trump administration.” Shortly after Trump made it official, MSNBC claimed that “Kash Patel could be Trump’s most dangerous pick yet.” The New York Times took it further by besmirching the pick as “concretely dangerous.”
In the NYT article lead, the author deems Patel “supremely unqualified to direct the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency.” He warns that if Patel takes over, his “directorship would probably corrupt and bend the institution for decades, even if he served only a few years.”
“He wants to bend and break the bureau and weaponize it against those he sees as his political enemies and domestic critics,” the article continues, without mentioning how the FBI under Christopher Wray has done exactly that.
These descriptions of Patel suggest Trump pulled a random guy off the street to weaponize the agency on his behalf. In reality, Patel is familiar with both the bureaucracy and intelligence agencies, having worked as a U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor, the U.S. Secretary of Defense’s chief of staff, a U.S. National Security Council official, and principal deputy to the acting Director of National Intelligence. Most importantly, Patel had a front-row seat to the deep state’s ploy, aided heavily by the propaganda press, to overthrow Trump when he served as a senior aide to former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes. Patel and Nunes’ efforts to blow open the Russia collusion hoax made them victims of the DOJ’s spying and targets of a years-long corporate media smear campaign. Patel even sued multiple outlets and reporters, including the NYT, for smearing him as a criminal who acted as a “Ukraine Back Channel” for the Trump White House.
The problem with the NYT article and every other outlet fearmongering about Patel’s nomination is they refuse to acknowledge that the FBI is already corrupt to its core and weaponized beyond belief. Polling indicates that more than half of the nation, 63 percent, want to see the FBI reformed or “shut down” and “rebuilt from scratch.”
Naming another deep-state swamp creature like Wray to run the FBI would guarantee that would never happen. Nominating someone like Patel, who promises to make ridding our constitutional Republic of the people trying to destroy it priority number one, however, puts the Trump administration in a much better position to accomplish those goals.
As Patel noted in his 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference speech, he saw firsthand how the “government gangsters” in the DOJ, DOD, and FBI are “crippling” the nation by weaponizing themselves against Americans. He told The Federalist last year, after corporate media accused him of trying to “target journalists for prosecution,” that a second Trump administration would have no choice but to address the corruption swiftly and effectively.
“We’ve been saying the DOJ and FBI need [to] be fixed. We’ve been saying prosecutors and judges shouldn’t weaponize justice. We’ve been saying you shouldn’t leak information for media to rig political elections and curry favor with the American electorate. We’ve been saying it the whole time and we’ve been saying anyone that breaks the law in doing those things … should be prosecuted, whether it’s government officials, civilians, and the media,” Patel said. “Our position has never changed. We’ve been saying to use and restore the Constitution, to follow and enforce the rule of law, not to violate it. That’s what they do.”
The only reason the propaganda press oppose Patel as Trump’s FBI pick is because he is a threat to their ability to continue colluding with the deep state to advance their partisan agenda. Every new article or TV segment corporate media outlets devote to complaining and criticizing Patel’s nomination proves to the Trump team that he is the perfect man for the job.
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.
While Hunter Biden enjoys the privileges of a sweeping presidential pardon, Rachel Powell, a Pennsylvania mother of eight, is spending the holidays locked away from the people she loves. While President Joe Biden’s corrupt son enjoys a get-out-of-jail-free card erasing a long list of felonies and potential offenses, Powell, marked as an “insurrectionist” for a property damage crime at the Capitol, languishes in a federal prison.
It’s the punctuation mark on the perversion of justice that has defined the Biden years, an era of lawlessness in which “no one is above the law” but this president, his grifting family and his constitution-ripping cronies.
Biden’s unconditional pardon of his ne’re-do-well progeny, issued as Americans were still drowsy from their Thanksgiving leftovers, covers more than a decade of felonies and sundry crimes that Hunter “committed or may have committed.” Legal experts are calling the act of absolution “unprecedented,” exceeding President Gerald Ford’s pardon of the man he succeeded, Richard Nixon, post-Watergate. Even that wide pardon only covered Nixon’s presidency — Jan. 20, 1969 to Aug. 9. 1974.
Joe Biden’s 11-year blanket pardon of Hunter is even more expansive than the pardon Gerald Ford gave to Richard Nixon in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. pic.twitter.com/9ThNOEGyo5
The only thing surprising about Biden’s broad act of leniency gifted to his crack-addled son is that anyone is surprised by it. But Never Trumpers like Joe Walsh sound absolutely heartbroken that Biden has once again been shown to be the unrepentant liar he is after insisting on multiple occasions that he would not pardon Hunter, who faces sentencing on gun-related and tax evasion felony convictions.
“I said I would abide by the jury’s decisions, and I will do that, and I will not pardon him,” the president told ABC News’ David Muir, press puppet for the Democratic Party and their presidential candidates, in an interview in June.
After hearing that Biden is breaking his word, a dispirited Walsh sounded like a cuckolded lover.
“They’re all like that,” the Trump-hating former Republican congressman from Illinois moaned Sunday evening on MSNBC. “So, the next time any of us complain about anything Trump does, this — this pardon is just deflating. For those of us who have been out there for a few years now yelling about what a unique threat Donald Trump is, for Joe Biden to do something like this, Trump — ‘nobody’s above the law,’ we’ve been screaming.”
Walsh and his fellow Never Trumpers have joined Democrats in their full-throated support of one of the darkest chapters in U.S. history — the politically-driven witch hunts of pro-Trump protesters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. For nearly four years, Biden’s Department of Justice, led by his Javert, Attorney General Merrick Garland, in arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning hundreds of political prisoners. Like 44-year-old Rachel Powell. The Biden administration and their pals in the Pravda press continue to paint the eventual riots over a rigged 2020 election as a coordinated “insurrection” driven by their No. 1 political enemy: Donald J. Trump, the 45th and soon-to-be 47th president of the United States.
‘You’re Going to Take Eight Years of Her Life Away?’
Nearly 1,600 people have been caught up in the Biden Justice Department investigations. More than 500 people“have been sentenced to periods of incarceration,” some on an “obstruction of an official proceeding”charge tossed out earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court. Interestingly, the high court’s ruling found the DOJ employed an “inappropriately broad interpretation” of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The DOJ hit Powell, who became known as the “bullhorn lady” in the press, with the obstruction charge. She also was charged with civil disorder, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, destruction of government property, and entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon — the “ice axe and battering ram” that law enforcement officials say she used to break through a window and “breach the Capitol” as Congress convened to count the 2020 electoral votes. Powell told Newsweek that she “used the axe and the cardboard battering ram to break a window so that some in the group near the tunnel could move to open spaces,” and a bullhorn “to flag a nearby safe haven that she saw on the other side of the glass she had shattered.”
Powell is serving a nearly five-year prison sentence after D.C. District Judge Royce Lamberth threw the book at her in October 2023. Before that, Powell spent years on strict house arrest awaiting trial and sentencing.
“She had an ankle monitor. She was not allowed to leave her home,” said Cynthia Hughes, founder and president of the Patriot Freedom Project, a nonprofit organization providing support to J6 political prisoners and their families. Hughes was interviewed on an upcoming edition of The Federalist Radio Hour podcast. Her nephew, Tim Hale, spent three years in prison on J6-related, trumped up charges, including a year in solitary confinement.
Powell “missed her daughter’s wedding. She missed the birth of her two grandchildren. She couldn’t even go to a doctor appointment if one of her children needed the assistance of her mother,” Hughes added.
Powell’s youngest child was just 7 when she was sent to prison.
While Powell did damage government property, Hughes said she didn’t assault anyone or hurt law enforcement officials during the riot and she had no previous criminal record. Yet, the mother of eight received harsher treatment than many of the Black Lives Matter protesters engaged in riots that burned down government buildings, destroyed private property and brutally assaulted police.
“Yeah, she broke a window but you’re going to take eight years of her life away?” Hughes said. She’s lost her home, she lost custody of her children for a small minute. She had a terrible public defender.”
And now Powell is serving a nearly five-year prison sentence followed by 36 months of supervised release. Hunter Biden, who faced years in prison and more than $1.3 million in fines is a free man. He owes nothing. If it’s any consolation to the J6 political prisoners learning of the pardon from behind prison bars, the younger Biden says he will never forget the kindness bestowed on him by his powerful father and that he will commit himself to “helping those who are still sick and suffering.”
He remains defiant, despite his father’s forbearance.
Jerry Broussard of WhatDidYouSay.org
“I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction – mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport,” Hunter said in a statement to the press.
‘Miscarriage of Justice’
Biden defended his son and his sweeping pardon, insisting that “Hunter was treated differently” under the law. Well, welcome to the club, Hunter. The hundreds of J6 political prisoners his father’s administration has persecuted over the past four years know what disparate treatment feels like.
President-elect Trump has met with some the families of the people he has described as hostages. He has said that he would pardon a “large portion” of the people convicted on federal charges related to the Capitol riots. On Truth Social earlier this year Trump wrote that one of his “first acts as your next president” will be to “Free the January 6 Hostages being wrongfully imprisoned.”
Following Biden’s generous gift to his repugnant son, Trump asked on his Truth Social account, “Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years? Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!”
Joe Biden didn’t just pardon Hunter for the gun crimes for which he was convicted. He pardoned Hunter for *EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL CRIME HE COMMITTED* over the last decade—including several years during which Joe Biden was VP and the entirety of Joe Biden’s presidency. pic.twitter.com/wjvwXTL8r6
The president-elect raises a good point. Trump could and should pardon the J6 political prisoners as one of his first acts in office, or at least commute sentences. He likely will stop the prosecutions and end the witch hunt that the Biden administration has carried out. But Biden should spend the last days of his shameful presidency rectifying of the bigger injustices of his time in office. He should pardon the political enemies his DOJ has prosecuted as “insurrectionists.”
He claims his disgraced boy is a victim of politics, “singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong.” Many of the protesters who showed up to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, are victims of vendetta political politics. That was wrong. It remains so.
But Biden is as political as he is corrupt. So the people locked away on political crimes will have to await deliverance from the man the Biden regime desperately tried but failed to defeat, imprison, even murder.
Trump, unlike Biden, is a man of his word, Hughes said. “He keeps his promises,” the Patriot Freedom Project founder said.
And when Trump does follow through on his promise of pardons, Democrats, Never Trumpers and their accomplice media friends will have no standing to complain.
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas, dismissed legacy media’s histrionics over the nomination of Kash Patel for FBI director but told Newsmax she understands why the far left is “freaked out.”
Van Duyne joined “National Report” on Tuesday to discuss President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Patel, who she says is a reformer who will help root out the deep state from the FBI.
“Legacy media has gone the way of the dodo bird. Nobody’s listening to legacy media. Their narrative fell flat this last election cycle. They’re going to continue to say the worst things ever,” Van Duyne said. “But the legacy media is freaked out, as are a lot of these far-leftists, because they recognize that a new sheriff is in town.‘
“Kash Patel is another strong, very strong individual that Trump has nominated to do a job that should have been done for decades and has not been done. [Trump] is putting very strong people in these positions that are going to change the deep state. And the deep state is going to fight like hell to keep it the way it is.”
Van Duyne also acknowledged a possible connection between the nomination of Patel and President Joe Biden’s sweeping pardon for first son Hunter Biden a day later. It’s possible, she said, that Joe Biden was not going to leave anything to chance with Patel potentially in charge of investigating the Bidens.
“As a parent, my heart goes out. And I don’t know that anybody being honest with themselves can say as a parent they wouldn’t have done the same thing,” Van Duyne said of the pardon. “But the fact is, is that you have an individual who he is pardoning for all crimes that have not even been charged against him for almost an 11-year period.‘
“[H]e has pardoned his son, a son who has pled guilty, who has been tried and found guilty by a jury. This was not politically motivated. These were crimes … that were held against him that he actually committed; he admitted to committing. And this was under the Biden DOJ. This was not under a Trump DOJ.”
Van Duyne added: “Legitimately, this is covering up, again, the crime family that we have seen from the Biden … family now for decades that the deep state has continued to cover up.”
About NEWSMAX TV:
NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!
Find Newsmax channel in your home via cable and satellite systems – More Info Here
Watch Newsmax+ on your home TV app or smartphone and watch it anywhere! Try it for FREE – See More Here: NewsmaxPlus.com
Several Republican governors said they will help the incoming Trump administration carry out mass deportations. Utah Gov. Spencer Cox last week announced a targeted effort to aid with the deportations. Cox’s office said Utah’s public safety and corrections departments will coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies to identify and deport undocumented immigrants “who have committed crimes and pose a threat to public safety.”
“Utah will continue to welcome refugees and immigrants who enter the country lawfully, and we will continue pushing for reforms to the asylum process and for more visas to support our workforce needs,” Cox said in a statement. “We have zero tolerance, however, for those who demonstrate a threat to public safety while in the country illegally.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said on social media last week that “states and localities should be required” to assist with deportations “as a condition of receiving federal funding.”
The Texas General Land Office offered President-elect Donald Trump a 1,400-acre ranch near the southern border to assist with deportations, Axios reported. Texas, run by Gov. Greg Abbott, passed a law that allows police to arrest people for entering the country illegally, though it was declared unconstitutional.
Democrat mayors have resisted the mass deportation efforts, with Boston’s Michelle Wu and Denver’s Mike Johson saying they will not cooperate. The Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance barring city resources or personnel from being used to help federal immigration enforcement, Axios said.
The federal government faces some logistical hurdles to pull off mass deportation, Axios said, including a large backlog in federal immigration court and facilities to house immigrants before removal.
The United States is facing a crossroads. For decades, the insidious creep of political correctness, wrapped in acronyms like CRT (Critical Race Theory), DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion), and ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance), has infiltrated every corner of society. The result? A culture war that pits ideology against reality, innovation against conformity, and freedom against restriction.
President-elect Donald Trump has proposed a bold strategy to dismantle these ideologies, promising to upend DEI policies in the military, academia, and government. His administration plans to restore meritocracy and remove the divisive frameworks implemented during the Obama and Biden years. Trump’s position is clear: the United States must reclaim its role as a beacon of excellence, free from the shackles of political correctness.
The American Dream, Diluted by Leftism
America is unique—a melting pot where diverse backgrounds converge under the promise of freedom and opportunity. This is the “American Dream,” a cultural export envied worldwide. Yet, Leftists, much like “meth-addled” experimenters, have torn apart this cohesive vision, reconstructing it with glaring omissions.
Under Leftist policies, DEI initiatives have been weaponized, replacing opportunity with entitlement and merit with mediocrity. Critical Race Theory divides rather than unites. ESG metrics prioritize performative virtue over profitability. These policies undermine the very foundation that made America the world’s most innovative and resilient nation.
Trump’s Proposals: A Return to Meritocracy
President-elect Trump’s plan targets these issues head-on. His proposals include:
Eliminating DEI Mandates in Federal Agencies: Trump intends to rescind DEI-related hiring and training programs in federal agencies, which he sees as fostering division rather than unity.
Restoring Merit-Based Systems in the Military: Under Trump’s leadership, the military will abandon woke training programs and refocus on operational excellence and readiness.
Even Hollywood is grappling with the fallout of these policies. Actor Sean Penn, known for his outspoken political views, recently criticized political correctness. Referring to a 2028 Monk Debate where Stephen Fry lambasted political correctness for stifling diversity of thought, Penn said:
“I would just encourage everybody to be as politically incorrect as their heart desires and to engage diversity and keep telling those stories.”
Penn’s words, though not directly supportive of Trump’s policies, underscore a growing recognition that DEI culture suppresses the very diversity it claims to champion. Political correctness, Penn argues, has become a dogma, stripping society of diverse perspectives and creative freedom.
Bill Maher’s Take: A Leftist Critiques the Left
Sean Penn joins the likes of another Leftist who seems to find sanity at times, namely Bill Maher. This Leftist tool has also criticized the Left’s obsession with political correctness and DEI initiatives, as well. On his show Real Time with Bill Maher, he frequently calls out the hypocrisy and excesses of woke culture. Maher has argued that these policies alienate Americans, particularly working-class voters, by prioritizing symbolic victories over substantive progress.
In a 2023 segment, Maher commented:
“You’re not winning hearts and minds when you’re making people walk on eggshells about every word they say. This country was built on free speech and open debate, not on purity tests.”
Maher’s critique aligns with Trump’s proposals: Americans are tired of being lectured by elites disconnected from the realities of everyday life.
Americans Demand Change
Voters overwhelmingly chose Trump because they are tired of these policies. Sanctuary cities overrun by illegal immigration, schools teaching divisive ideologies, and corporations kowtowing to woke activists have pushed Americans to demand a reset. They see DEI, CRT, and ESG for what they are: distractions from the real issues facing the nation.
Even a Leftist radical like Sean Penn sees these policies for what they are. And Penn didn’t just come to these conclusions post-election. As with all the other signs pointing to the Trump thrashing of Kamala Harris, Penn has been espousing these opinions over the past few years. He finally was saying what many in his ilk have believed for at least two decades: the Left pushed way too far. Moreover, they disallowed any contrarian thoughts to their own distorted beliefs. That incestuous thinking is one of the main reasons why Trump won such a decisive victory.
The Path Forward
As Trump prepares to take office, the nation stands ready for a cultural reset. His proposals to end DEI nonsense, coupled with voices like Sean Penn and Bill Maher highlighting the absurdities of political correctness, mark a turning point. The goal is clear: restore the American Dream, celebrate genuine diversity, and reject the ideological fads that divide us.
American will soon experience a Renaissance. We stand on the cusp of reclaiming America’s true greatness.
The Democrats have always been tough guys when they’re running the show. Why? Because that’s how cowards operate. They rig the system, cheat openly, and then brag about their so-called “mandates.” But when their policies start crumbling under scrutiny.
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston took what he thought would be a bold stance against the Trump administration on illegal immigration. He essentially challenged Team Trump to a fight, “Come get me, Bro!” But look at illegal immigration by the numbers.
The National Picture: An Open Border Free-for-All
Illegal immigration isn’t just a line item on the evening news—it’s a crisis that impacts every corner of American society. At the national level, Biden’s open-border policies have resulted in unprecedented numbers of migrants flooding the U.S. In fiscal year 2023, more than 2.7 million migrants were encountered at the southern border. Add to that the untold number who slipped through, and it’s clear we’re dealing with numbers that rival the population of some states.
The costs? Immense. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), illegal immigration costs American taxpayers $182 billion annually—a 30% increase since Biden took office. These costs hit everything: education, healthcare, law enforcement, and welfare programs meant for citizens.
Colorado’s Burden: A State Straining Under the Weight
Colorado has felt the brunt of this influx. Sanctuary policies, like those proudly championed by Leftist officials in Denver, have turned the state into a magnet for migrants. The result? Overcrowded shelters, skyrocketing costs for social services, and increased pressure on local law enforcement. Denver alone spent over $20 million on migrant services in 2023—and that’s just the official tab.
Colorado voters aren’t thrilled. In 2016, Donald Trump carried much of the rural state precisely because voters were fed up with policies that prioritized illegal immigrants over citizens. Leftists may call these folks “deplorables,” but they’re the ones footing the bill for sanctuary policies they never agreed to.
Denver: Sanctuary City Shenanigans
Denver’s self-inflicted wounds on illegal immigration are a case study in Leftist lunacy. Formerly proud of its sanctuary status, the city is now buckling under the weight of its own policies. Mayor Mike Johnston, who once threatened to use Denver PD as a human shield against federal immigration enforcement, has been forced to confront the harsh reality of his choices.
Remember when Johnston compared his city’s commitment to protecting illegal immigrants to the iconic “Tank Man” moment during the Tiananmen Square protests? With zero irony, he boasted about deploying 50,000 angry soccer moms to protect migrants from deportation. “It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun, right?” he gushed.
This was the same guy who told federal immigration officials, “More than us having DPD stationed at the county line to keep them out, you’d have every one of those Highland moms who came out for the migrants.” His bravado didn’t last long. President Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, responded with a mic drop:
CNN's Kasie Hunt visibly stunned after playing a clip of Tom Homan saying he would gladly throw Denver Mayor Mike Johnston in jail for defying Trump's deportation operation.
“He’s willing to go to jail. I’m willing to put him in jail.”
Now that reality has set in, Johnston is singing a different tune. He’s gone from “Come get me, Bro!” to “Don’t taze me, Bro!”
With Denver’s resources drained and voters increasingly restless, the mayor’s focus has shifted from grandstanding to damage control. Funny how that works.
Now that Tom Homan has threatened to throw Democrat Denver Mayor Mike Johnston in prison, he says he ”regrets” making tough guy comments about having his police force stand against federal forces to stop mass deportations
REPORTER: It sounds like you’re walking back the comments from a couple days ago saying that you would be willing to send Denver police officers. Do you regret making those comments and now getting questions like this?
JOHNSTON: Yeah.
REPORTER: Me asking you about that, and I’m sure Denver police officers are now going home to their families and saying, “Hey, I hear the mayor is telling you that you might be deployed to face off against federal forces.” Do you regret making those comments?
JOHNSTON: Yeah. What I wanted people to understand was the scale of what could be coming if we take the president at his word, which is I don’t think anyone envisioned U.S. military troops being deployed to American streets to gather up women and children.
Talk about backtracking. But Johnston made the right decision.
Because the Trump administration is serious about enforcing the laws. And if it means locking up a few hard asses, then so be it.
Sanctuary cities like Denver operate in open defiance of federal immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 expressly prohibits policies that block local officials from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Despite this, Leftist mayors nationwide have flaunted sanctuary policies, betting that the Biden administration’s Department of Justice would look the other way.
But under Trump, that bet didn’t pay off. His administration cracked down on sanctuary jurisdictions, threatening to withhold federal funding and enforce existing laws. This enforcement resonated with voters who saw sanctuary policies as a betrayal of their safety and sovereignty.
Why Voters Backed Trump—and Why They’ll Do It Again
Trump’s appeal in 2016 and beyond wasn’t just about “building the wall.” It was about rejecting Leftist policies that prioritize illegal immigrants over American citizens. Sanctuary cities like Denver epitomize the broader Democratic Party’s indifference to working-class Americans. When voters in Colorado and across the country see their tax dollars funding migrant shelters while their own communities crumble, it’s no wonder they rally behind someone promising to put America first.
Sanctuary City Spectacle: Comedy, Tragedy, or Both?
The Democrats’ immigration debacle is a tragicomedy of errors. Sanctuary policies like those in Denver don’t just fail—they spectacularly implode, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. Johnston’s flip-flop from “Tiananmen Square defender” to reluctant realist underscores the absurdity of it all.
At the end of the day, Johnston and his ilk are a symptom of a larger problem: a political party more interested in virtue signaling than governance. Illegal immigration is not a crisis of compassion; it’s a crisis of competence. And as long as Leftists continue to prioritize their progressive agenda over the rule of law, cities like Denver will remain stuck cleaning up the mess.
Thankfully for Denverites, Coloradans, and all Americans, this nonsense is about to come to a necessary and hopefully final end.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is widely known to be angling to be the next Democratic presidential nominee after the implosion of Vice President Kamala Harris. This week, Newsom positioned not just his campaign but also his state as part of the “resistance” for the next four years against the Trump Administration. Newsom pushed a special session to secure a $25 million war chest to take the Trump Administration to court, even before the inauguration and release of policies by the incoming administration.
I wrote earlier about how the loss of both houses, as well as the White House, will mean that lawfare and obstructive efforts will shift to the states. Newsom is moving to out-position governors (and potential primary opponents) like Govs. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker moved first in a chest-pounding press conference that he would stop the incoming administration from trying to remove undocumented persons, declaring, “You come for my people, you come through me.”
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) added that he will “fight to the death” against Trump’s agenda.
Newsom has upped the ante by demanding millions to pre-fund litigation against the new administration. With a massive budget debt burden, Newsom has continued to pile on new debt for politically popular initiatives.
I cannot recall any state pre-positioning funds for the sole purpose of litigating against any incoming administration. The most obvious area of disagreement is the effort to ramp up the enforcement of immigration laws and to carry out deportations. While polls show that the public overwhelmingly supports such enforcement, including deportations, California is seeking to take the lead in court actions designed to slow or frustrate such efforts.
It could prove costly, not just in litigation expenditures. The Trump Administration could seek to withhold federal funding from states and cities obstructing enforcement efforts. In the meantime, sanctuary cities are continuing to face rising costs associated with rising populations of undocumented migrants. For example, as we previously discussed, Denver Mayor Mike Johnson (D) declared that he was preparing the Mile-High City for its “Tiananmen Square moment” to fight the federal government in any attempt to deport unlawful migrants. Johnson warned that he would have not only Denver police “stationed at the county line to keep [ICE] out” but also “50,000 Denverites.” He later walked back the comments while repeating that the city is positioning itself to be part of the resistance.
Now the Common Sense Institute (CSI), a non-partisan research organization estimated that eight percent of the city’s 2025 budget of $4.4 billion is now dedicated to housing and services for undocumented persons. If true, that amounts to $356 million or $7,900 per migrant.
California has led other states in offering a wide array of benefits to undocumented persons.
Notably, Californian voters surprised many Democrats this election with almost 40% voting for President-elect Trump over California’s own Vice President Kamala Harris.
There is an obvious political advantage to Newsom in securing these public funds to assume the mantle as the leader of “the resistance” as a foundation for his 2028 campaign. The question is how such an obstructive position will prove to the advantage of Californians. As citizens sought to increase criminal penalties by passing Proposition 36 by over 70 percent (over the opposition of Newsom), the governor is focusing on setting aside millions to fund a high-profile legal campaign against Trump’s administration.
Ultimately, the litigation campaign is unlikely to change federal enforcement efforts significantly. However, Newsom hopes it will significantly change his electoral enhancement efforts.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – When it comes to possible nominees for FBI Director, Kash is king. He’s behind Trump and MAGA 100 percent, and he’s familiar with how Washington works and how deceitful the swamp creatures can be. The FBI needs an overhaul, and he’s just the guy who can do it.
Kash Patel Releases Statement on FBI Nomination, Vows to “Return the FBI to Its Rightful Mission: Protecting the American People”
By Jordan Conradson – The Gateway Pundit – Dec 01, 2024
Trump’s FBI Director nominee, Kash Patel, pledged to “restore integrity, accountability, and equal justice to our justice system” in a statement Saturday night after he was tapped to lead the FBI under President Trump. The Gateway Pundit reported earlier that Trump announced Patel’s nomination for FBI director. Trump said in a Truth Social post Saturday evening, “This FBI will end the growing crime epidemic in America, dismantle the migrant criminal gangs, and stop the evil scourge of human and drug trafficking across the Border.” This is incredible news. Kash Patel has been one of the leading voices against the Deep State’s weaponization of government, corruption, and conspiracies, including Russiagate, the… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Adam Schiff: A Persistent Thorn in the Side of Accountability
It’s no surprise that Adam Schiff, the poster child for congressional mischief has landed in the Senate after his well-documented tenure as the shit House rat. California, in its infinite wisdom, decided to elevate a man who turned lying into performance art and gaslighting into a career path. Schiff, known for his years of tormenting Donald Trump with baseless allegations and inflammatory rhetoric stepped back on his soapbox. His recent tweet, a passive-aggressive jab at President Trump, is steeped in hypocrisy:
“Voters elected Donald Trump to bring down costs. Not to take a wrecking ball to our national security, democracy, or public health.”
The skank who championed the Russia collusion hoax and orchestrated Trump’s first impeachment over a phone call dare to lecture about national security and democracy. Further, let’s not forget that Schiff is the vermin who gleefully wielded classified information as a cudgel, then leaking like a sieve to the press.
“Whatever This Is”: The Gauntlet Has Been Thrown
Schiff’s “whatever this is” comment betrays his unease with Trump’s resurgence. Americans know “whatever this is”. It’s the collective will of Americans who are fed up with inflation, crime, open borders, and government overreach. It’s also Trump, with the wind of a historic victory at his back, returning to clean up the mess Schiff and his ilk created. Schiff’s pretense of concern for voters “struggling to make ends meet” is laughable. Where was this empathy when Democrats funneled billions into pet projects and “pandemic relief” slush funds while Main Street businesses collapsed under lockdowns?
And here’s the kicker: Trump isn’t even officially president yet. Schiff’s hand-wringing over issues that Democrats created underscores his party’s penchant for projection. Schiff would be the arsonist blaming the firefighter for not putting out the blaze quickly enough.
Schiff’s Senate Seat: A Shield or a Platform for More Mischief?
With Republicans now controlling Congress, Schiff’s antics could finally face meaningful resistance. His new Senate seat might feel like a shield, but with newly appointed Senate Majority Leader Republican John Thune, Schiff could find himself in a tight spot. Imagine the poetic justice of Schiff being sidelined— relegated to a backbench where his grandstanding no longer dominates the news cycle. Or better yet, picture him facing an ethics investigation into his years of deception.
What Worries Schiff the Most
It’s not just Trump’s policies that terrify Schiff; it’s Trump’s ability to expose the rot in Washington. Schiff knows that Trump’s second term is as much about retribution as it is about reform. That’s why he’s already positioning himself as the victim of “whatever this is.” Schiff, a man who spent years weaponizing the levers of power, is now worried those same levers might be turned against him. And rightly so. His actions have not only damaged the country but also set a dangerous precedent for partisan warfare. He asked for a war, and Trump is bringing it.
The Takeaway
Adam Schiff represents the worst of Washington: a career politician more interested in scoring political points than serving the people. His Senate tenure promises more of the same— dishonesty, deflection, and desperate attempts to stay relevant. But with Trump back in the White House and Republicans in control of Congress, Schiff’s days of unchecked power may be numbered.
So, here’s to hoping that “whatever this is” includes holding Adam Schiff accountable for years of deceit. Let’s remind him that democracy isn’t just about winning elections; it’s about upholding the trust of the people— a trust he’s squandered at every turn.
Experts say President Joe Biden’s sweeping pardon of son Hunter looks like the one Gerald Ford gave Richard Nixon in 1974. Ford, sworn in after Nixon resigned amid the Watergate scandal, granted a “full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed.” Ford noted in his remarks that the pardon reflected his presidential responsibilities and personal beliefs.
The president on Monday pardoned his son, sparing the younger Biden a possible prison sentence for federal felony gun and tax convictions and reversing his past promises not to use the powers of the presidency for the benefit of his family. The president’s sweeping pardon covers not just the gun and tax offenses against the younger Biden, but also any other “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024.”
Margaret Love, who served from 1990 to 1997 as the U.S. pardon attorney, told Politico that she had “never seen language like this in a pardon document that purports to pardon offenses that have not apparently even been charged, with the exception of the Nixon pardon.‘
“Even the broadest Trump pardons were specific as to what was being pardoned.”
Samuel Morison, a lawyer focused on clemency who spent 13 years in the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, said the pardon “is an extraordinary broad grant.”
Solange Reyner is a writer and editor for Newsmax. She has more than 15 years in the journalism industry reporting and covering news, sports and politics.
Below is my column in The Hill on how some Democrats are joining a diaspora of the disgruntled and despondent in leaving the country or finding safe spaces away from opposing viewpoints. It appears that nothing succeeds like secession when you lose an election.
Democrats who campaigned on the need for “joy” and “saving democracy” are strikingly unjoyful about the results of the democratic process in 2024. Before the election, slips like the one of President Joe Biden calling Trump supporters “garbage” were immediately denied or deflected. But once voters had given the Republicans control of both houses of Congress, the popular vote and the White House, leading Democratic figures and celebrities dropped all pretense of civility. They are now being open about their contempt for voters, calling them “f—-ing morons” and “arrogant, ignorant” adolescents.
After calling for Americans to come together for Kamala Harris, MSNBC’s Joy Reid sent out a heart-warming holiday message to those who voted for the GOP to “make your own dinner, MAGA. Make your own sandwiches, wipe your own tears.”
Those not wallowing in Reid’s anger are increasingly voicing themes of isolation, insurrection and secession.
For years, the contempt for Trump voters has been open and obvious in much of the media. The “Let’s Go Brandon” movement captured the lunacy of the press and politicians simply denying what citizens could see, hear and experience for themselves.
When asked for answers on issues like the economy and immigration, Harris paraded an army of celebrities to tell the public how to vote — shiny objects that they thought would be enough for shallow American voters.
They were wrong. Now that the public has made its choice, leading figures are condemning the majority of voters as a mix of misogynists, self-haters and fascists. Whoopi Goldberg, 69, even joined the “4B” sex strike against men. Others seem to be morphing into exactly what they said Trump would become as president: isolationist and insurrectionist.
Some have responded to the losses by retreating further into echo chambers protected from opposing views. Many dumped X in favor of BlueSky, a new social media safe space for liberals who fear being triggered by opposing views. Notably, censorship advocates such as Nina Jankowisz have fled to BlueSky. The site is portrayed as a return to the good old days when liberals controlled all of the social media and maintained a massive censorship and blacklisting system over political discourse.
New York Times tech reporter Kevin Roose wrote a column last week that offered the familiar “I can breathe again” account: “After an hour or so of scrolling through Bluesky the other night, I felt something I haven’t felt on social media in a long time: free.”
It is the ultimate irony. This election shocked many on the left precisely because they were writing and commenting on each other within their hardened media and political silos. They are unlikely to improve themselves by receding further into that safe space to rave about the “f—ing morons” who make up the majority of America.
Other Democratic politicians have moved beyond the chest-pounding of leaders like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) to pledges of more direct obstruction or inflammatory rhetoric.
Denver mayor Mike Johnson (D) declared that he was preparing the Mile-High City for its “Tiananmen Square moment” to fight the federal government in any attempt to deport unlawful migrants. Johnson warned that he would have not only Denver police “stationed at the county line to keep [ICE] out” but also “50,000 Denverites.”
Not long ago, Democrats were calling similar protests an “insurrection.” Johnson later walked back his remarks but insisted that his city would fight federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws.
Rather than such trench warfare, most Democratic governors and mayors are simply pledging not to cooperate with federal authorities, which is a lawful choice. The concern, however, is how others will react to the overheated rhetoric for months that this will be “our last election” and that Trump is the new Hitler. Such rage rhetoric gives people license to say and do things they would not ordinarily say or do. Leaders calling on citizens to “fight” ICE and the “fascists” can easily inspire violence, as we have seen in past years. Indeed, that was the very premise of the criminal case against Trump supported by many of these same leaders, alleging that his calls to “fight” against certification was a call for insurrection.
Some liberals are very publicly fleeing the country. Sharon Stone (who called American voters “uneducated”) is reportedly off to Canada. Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi are off to a mansion in Cotswolds in England. Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman is also reportedly exploring a departure from the country after his millions of dollars failed to produce a victory for Kamala Harris.
Some, however, want to take part of the country with them. New York State Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Upper East Side) has received praise for her call for New York to join Canada. Where Alexandre Dumas believed that ‘Nothing succeeds like success,” some believe that, after losing an election, nothing succeeds quite like secession.
Krueger previously sought to block Trump from the ballot in the name of protecting democracy. That would have barred the 45 percent of New Yorkers who voted for the president-elect, but those voters would find themselves either Canadians or refugees under her proposal.
Krueger suggested that secession simply makes sense when the majority of the country disagrees with you. She believes New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont could form a new Canadian province.
“I got back some unofficial responses and heard this is probably sellable in Ottawa,” she said. “And look, if we were Europe, in the length of time we’ve been a nation, for Canada, if we were European countries, our borders would have moved around 20 times by now, right?”
She explained that this is all just “thinking outside of the box.” The box that she and other liberals find themselves in is called “democracy,” and they don’t like it.
Just for the record, the last time people thought “outside the box” and seceded, we got a war with roughly 700,000 people killed.
Yet, assuming New Yorkers can get used to milk in a bag and cheese curds as a snack, there may be an obvious appeal for the left in the True North. Formerly “strong and free,” Canada has become a nightmare for free speech with the ever-expanding criminalization of political speech. One professor, who said that Trump’s plans to combat censorship has left many frightened, said that if free speech protections are restored, “I will be on a plane [out of America].”
For New York Times reporters and officials alike, they will be able to “breathe again” in the controlled, regulated air of censorship countries like Canada.
The only challenge for our displaced and disgruntled diaspora will be that Canadians tend to be nice.
Below is my column in Fox.com on President Joe Biden’s pardoning of his son Hunter of not just his convicted crimes but any crimes that he may have chosen to commit. President Biden has set a standard that is not merely a new low but positively subterraneous for future presidents.
Here is the column:
President Joe Biden’s decision to use his presidential powers to pardon his own son will be a decision that lives in infamy in presidential politics. It is not just that the President used his constitutional powers to benefit his family. It is because the action culminates years of lying to the public about his knowledge and intentions in the influence-peddling scandal surrounding his family. Even among past scandals in the abuse of the pardon power, Biden has done lasting damage not just to his legacy but his office.
Despite its noble origins and purpose, the pardon power historically has not been a pristine power used by past presidents. As I have previously written, it was used to benefit the political cronies of past presidents. President Warren Harding was even accused of selling pardons, including to mob enforcer Ignacio Lupo, known as “Lupo the Wolf.” Former president William Clinton waited for the final days of his presidency to pardon his own brother as well as a major democratic donor.
In 2023, I wrote that Biden might follow this same pattern and pardon his son as a lame-duck president. The column suggested that Biden might withdraw as a candidate for office and then take the action as a father: “The pardon-and-apology approach might appeal to Biden not only as an effort to convert vice into virtue but to justify his withdrawal from the election as a selfless act.”
In the 2020 election and throughout his presidential term, Biden repeatedly lied to the American public with an ease and impunity that shocked even many political veterans in Washington. He was repeatedly asked if he knew about Hunter’s foreign dealings, including millions in alleged deals with Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, and other clients. President Biden lied and denied such knowledge. As I detailed in my testimony in the Biden impeachment hearing, he had repeated discussions of these dealings. He is even on tape discussing news stories on the dealings.
President Biden was also repeatedly asked if he met any of his son’s clients. He repeatedly lied. We have pictures and records of dinners and meetings with these clients. Hunter Biden was expressly thanked for his arranging such access to his father.
Few reporters pressed Biden on the corruption scandal, but they were often met not only with denials but angry retorts from the president. When Fox reporter Peter Doocy raised it, the President steamed“Yes, yes, yes. God love you, man — you’re a one-horse pony, I tell you.”
The President continued to lie throughout the election, the presidential debates, and his term.
Then, the press repeatedly asked him whether he would pardon his son. The President was now running for reelection and again lied. He and the White House said over and over again that no such pardon would occur and was not being contemplated. That was also a lie. NBC is reporting that, while issuing these denials last June, there were discussions about the pardon.
The pardon power was written in absolute terms, and a president can even, in my view, pardon himself. However, what is constitutional is not necessarily ethical or right. This is one of the most disgraceful pardons even in the checkered history of presidential pardons. President Biden has lied to cover up a corruption scandal that reportedly brought his family millions in raw influence peddling. His portrayal of his son as a victim stands in sharp contrast to the sense of immunity and power conveyed by Hunter in his dealings.
There were diamonds as gifts, lavish expense accounts, and a sports car, in addition to massive payments that Hunter claimed were “loans.” There are messages where Hunter belies the President’s portrayal of a political witch hunt, including messages like the one to a Chinese businessman openly threatening the displeasure of Joe Biden if money is not sent to them immediately. In the WhatsApp message, Hunter stated:
“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.”
The President has now pardoned Hunter for his convicted felonies and any crimes he may have committed from “Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, 2024.”
It is all now being buried under a sweeping immunity deal and a pack of presidential lies.
Jack Smith, the controversial special counsel tasked with investigating former President Donald Trump’s attempts to challenge the 2020 election, has officially stepped down. His resignation comes just weeks before President-elect Trump is set to take office, sparking heated debates over the legitimacy of the cases brought against Trump and their broader implications for justice in America.
Conservative commentator Mark Levin, host of LevinTV, was quick to weigh in, calling Smith’s resignation both predictable and overdue. Levin minced no words in his criticism, declaring that Smith’s departure underscores the collapse of the legal efforts aimed at Trump. “You know why? It’s simple. He’s an unconstitutional prosecutor. Donald Trump’s going to fire his ass,” Levin said.
Levin argued that the cases against Trump were doomed from the start, pointing to internal Department of Justice (DOJ) memos and procedural violations. He highlighted the dismissal of one of Smith’s cases in Florida as a clear sign of their instability.
“These cases collapse,” Levin continued. “They should never have been brought. The case in Florida was rightly thrown out. That’s why they were in such a rush—to get these cases prosecuted and Trump imprisoned before the election.”
Levin accused the DOJ and Smith of pursuing Trump with the sole intent of derailing his political career. He claimed this approach not only violated DOJ policies but also undermined the integrity of the judicial system.
“They did everything possible to affect the election and to destroy Donald Trump’s life,” Levin asserted.
The commentator called on the incoming administration to take decisive action against those responsible for the cases. “It’s my position that the new attorney general needs to dig into this and find out who exactly was responsible for it,” Levin said. “These people need to be held accountable.”
Smith’s cases focused primarily on Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, actions Levin described as entirely lawful and historically common.
“A candidate has every right to try and challenge an election, which means to overturn it,” Levin argued. “That’s exactly what’s going on in Pennsylvania today at the behest of Chuck Schumer with their slip-and-fall lawyer, Marc Elias.”
Levin highlighted past instances where election challenges were not only permitted but celebrated by political leaders. He cited Al Gore’s legal battle in Florida during the 2000 presidential race and efforts in Minnesota that ultimately handed Al Franken a Senate seat.
“There’s nothing criminal about challenging an election,” Levin said. “This is the first time it’s been criminalized. Encouraging a state legislature or a board of elections to act has never been treated as a crime before.”
Smith’s resignation has fueled speculation about its timing, particularly given Trump’s imminent return to power. Critics argue that Smith’s exit may be an attempt to avoid the embarrassment of being fired by the incoming administration or to shield himself from further scrutiny. Supporters of Trump see this as vindication of their belief that the legal cases against him were politically motivated and lacked substance. Levin emphasized that the abrupt nature of Smith’s departure only reinforces this narrative.
“This was never about justice,” Levin said. “It was about weaponizing the justice system against a political opponent. And now it’s falling apart.”
Smith’s resignation is part of a larger debate over the role of the justice system in political matters. Critics argue that targeting Trump for challenging the 2020 election has set a dangerous precedent, effectively criminalizing actions that were previously considered routine aspects of political contests. As Smith steps aside, attention shifts to how Trump’s incoming administration will handle the fallout. Levin and others are urging Trump’s attorney general to launch investigations into the motivations and conduct behind Smith’s cases, with some calling for accountability measures to restore public trust in the justice system.
For Trump, Smith’s resignation marks a significant victory, further energizing his supporters and reinforcing his narrative of political persecution. Yet it also raises questions about how his administration will navigate the legal and political challenges that remain.
The stage is set for a dramatic showdown as Trump prepares to re-enter the White House, with Smith’s resignation serving as a powerful symbol of the broader battles yet to come.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Most Americans are thankful for Trump’s victory this Thanksgiving. Now, on to the hard work of turning the country away from the darkness of the past 4 years of Biden and the Marxist tyrannical policies. We don’t seek revenge but are seeking justice retribution against the Biden DOJ and the Deep State for any illegal activities they may have committed in their effort to destroy Trump and our democracy.
Kachelman: Now Is Not the Time for Revenge – Now Is the Time for Justified Retribution
By John L. Kachelman – The Gateway Pundit – Nov 9, 2024
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Chuck Schumer threatened Kavanaugh, saying,” You have released the whirlwind. You won’t know what hit you!”. Now it’s Schumer and the Democrats who are facing the whirlwind of change and don’t know what hit them. Trump election 2024, that’s what.
Video of Chuck Schumer Threatening Kavanaugh He Will “Pay The Price” For Roe V Wade Resurfaces In Wake Of Attempted Murder Of Supreme Court Justice
By Michael Robison – The Gateway Pundit – Article dated June 9, 2022
A video of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer telling Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that he would “pay the price” for a potential reversal of Roe V Wade resurfaced Wednesday amid the arrest of a potential assassin outside of Kavanaugh’s home in Maryland.
In March 2020, Schumer made a speech outside the Supreme Court as justices heard a case about a Louisiana abortion law. Schumer shouted a stark warning at Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch during that speech, saying they could face sinister consequences for their “awful decisions.” READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Yesterday, I was notified by the Justice Department confirming that a recent swatting indictment includes the person or persons responsible for my own swatting a year ago. One of the defendants, Thomasz Szabo, was arrested a couple weeks ago.
The indictment below charges two foreign nationals: Thomasz Szabo, 26, of Romania, and Nemanja Radovanovic, 21, of Serbia.
Szabo and Radovanovic are each charged with one count of conspiracy, 29 counts of threats and false information regarding explosives, and four counts of transmitting threats in interstate and foreign commerce.
Their alleged conspiracy began as early as December 2020. It continued through January 2024, using personal identifying information, including home addresses, to falsely report emergencies to provoke a police response at the victim’s home. According to the Justice Department, they used various monikers to communicate. Szabo used “Jonah,” “Jonah Goldberg,” “Plank,” “Rambler,” “War Lord,” “Shovel,” “Cypher,” “Kollectivist,” “Mortenberg Shekelstorms,” and “NotThuggin2”. Radovanovic used “XBD31,” “XDR,” “Angus,” “Thuggin,” “Thug Hunter,” “NotThuggin,” “DCL,” and “AOD.”
The indictment alleges that their crimes encompassed 40 private victims and 61 official victims, including members of Congress, cabinet-level executive branch officials, and senior federal law enforcement officials. It also included four businesses, four religious institutions, and one victim university.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Conor Mulroe is prosecuting the case. Under the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. 3771 (1), the indictment triggers ten rights for me and the other alleged victims, including the right to be heard at a hearing involving any plea, sentencing, or parole proceeding. I was given my own Victim Identification Number (VIN) and Personal Identification Number (PIN) under the CVRA for future communications.
I am grateful to the Justice Department and these cooperating U.S. and foreign offices for their work in finding the alleged culprits who swatted my home between Christmas and New Year’s in 2023.
Whatever the role politics may have played, or our current divisions, swatting constitutes a very serious crime that can result in lethal accidents and trauma for victims. It also pulls law enforcement resources away from real crimes. In my case, five or six officers were needlessly pulled from their other duties to respond to the call.
For some, these stories become irresistible opportunities to vent against the victims or even bizarre attacks on conservative legal theory. The liberal gotcha site, Above the Law, covered my swatting with the usual ad hominem attacks while adding a truly unhinged spin to the story. Senior Editor Joe Patrice (who has defended“predominantly liberal faculties” and not hiring conservative or libertarian law professors) insisted that swatting is somehow the fault of gun owners, Second Amendment advocates, and “edgy” police:
“Swatting is a byproduct of a nation awash in more and more powerful weapons and more and more edgy cops. And that makes these false police reports regrettably a manifestation of our age of failing to confront the disconnect between the text and history of the Second Amendment and the lazy ahistorical interpretation of this Supreme Court.”
Prosecutors notably did not include the conservative justices as co-conspirators with Szabo and Radovanovic.
This indictment is a valuable addition to deterring a crime that has become all too common. The fact that this investigation stretched to Hungary and Romania showed the extraordinary effort needed to make these arrests. The arrests are the result of an investigation that involved a global effort, including the U.S. Secret Service Washington Field Office and Criminal Investigative Division, the FBI’s Washington Field Office and Minneapolis Field Office, the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Secret Service’s Bucharest Resident Office, Miami Field Office, Syracuse Resident Office, Springfield Resident Office, the FBI’s Legat Office in Bucharest and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Western District of Washington, the District of South Dakota, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of Illinois, and the Northern District of New York.
As more such cases are prosecuted, it will hopefully shatter the sense of anonymity and impunity of such culprits. Once again, I am very thankful for the effort of all of these agencies in bringing this case.
Below is my column in The Hill on new evidence released by the House related to the January 6th riot. The J6 Committee fueled doubts about the official accounts by using only Democratically appointed members and skewing the evidence. The new information further undermines the narrative pushed by both members and the media.
Here is the column:
On Jan. 6, 2021, the nation was rocked by the disruption of the certification of Joe Biden as our next president. With Donald Trump set to return to the White House in 2025, it is astonishing how much of that day remains a matter of intense debate. Those divisions are likely only to deepen after a slew of recent reports that have challenged the selective release of information from the House January 6 Committee.
January 6 remains as much a political litmus test as it is a historical event. Whether you refer to that day as a riot or an insurrection puts you on one side or the other of a giant political chasm. I viewed the attack on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process, but I did not view it as an insurrection. I still don’t.
It was a protest that became a riot when a woefully insufficient security plan collapsed. And that is a view shared by most Americans. One year after the riot, a CBS poll showed that 76 percent viewed it as a “protest gone too far.”
A Harvard study also found that those arrested on that day were motivated by loyalty to Trump rather than support for an insurrection.
A recent poll found that almost half of the public (43 percent) felt that “too much is being made” of the riot and that it is “time to move on.” Of course, that still leaves a little over half who view the day as “an attack on democracy.”
The continued distrust of the official accounts of Jan. 6 reflects a failure of the House Democrats, and specifically former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to guarantee a credible and comprehensive investigation.
The House Select Committee to investigate January 6 was comprised of Democrat-selected members who offered only one possible view: that January 6 was an attempt to overthrow our democracy by Trump and his supporters. The committee hired a former ABC News producer to create a slick, made-for-television production that barred opposing views and countervailing evidence. The members, including Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney, played edited videotapes of Trump’s speech that removed the portion where Trump called on his supporters to protest “peacefully.”
The committee fostered false accounts, including the claim that there was a violent episode with Trump trying to wrestle control of the presidential limousine. The Committee knew that the key Secret Service driver directly contradicted that account offered by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.
While the Democrats insisted that Trump’s speech constituted criminal incitement, he was never charged with that crime — not even by the motivated prosecutors who pledged to pursue such charges. The reason is that Trump’s speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment. Such a charge of criminal incitement would have quickly collapsed in court.
Nevertheless, the Washington Post, NPR, other media and the committee members called Jan. 6 an “insurrection” engineered by Trump. Figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) insisted the committee had evidence that Trump organized a “coup” on Jan. 6, 2021. That evidence never materialized.
The lack of adequate security measures that day has long puzzled many of us. After all, there had been a violent riot at the White House before January 6, in which more officers were injured and Trump had to be moved to a secure location. The National Guard had to be called out to protect the White House, but those same measures (including a fence) were not ordered at the Capitol.
Two of the recent reports offered new details related to those questions.
One report confirmed that Trump did, in fact, offer the deployment of the National Guard in anticipation of the protest. The Jan. 6 Committee repeatedly dismissed this claim. After all, it would be a rather curious attempt at an insurrection if Trump was suggesting the use of thousands of troops to prevent any breach of Congress. The committee specifically found “no evidence” that the Trump administration called for 10,000 National Guard members to be sent to Washington, D.C., to protect the Capitol. The Washington Post even supposedly “debunked” Trump’s comments with an award of “Four Pinocchios.”
Yet evidence now shows that Trump personally suggested the deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops to prevent violence. For example, a transcript includes the testimony of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato in January 2022 with Liz Cheney present. Ornato states that he clearly recalled Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops.
Videotapes have also emerged showing Pelosi privately admitting that she and Democratic leadership were responsible for the security failure on Jan. 6.
Another new report from Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, shows that it was the Defense Department that delayed the eventual deployment of National Guard in the critical hours of the riot. The evidence shows that, at 3:18 p.m., Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy “tells sheltering Members of Congress that he is not blocking the deployment of the National Guard and, while referencing the D.C. National Guard, shares that ‘We have the green light. We are moving.’” However, the secretary of the Army’s own timeline indicates that the DCNG did not physically leave the Armory until 5 pm.
That was the critical period for the riot. Around 2:10 p.m., people surged up the Capitol steps. Just an hour later, McCarthy said troops were on their way. At 4:17 p.m., Trump made his public statement asking rioters to stop — roughly an hour and a half later. Yet it was not until 5 pm that the troops actually left for the Capitol.
The House is also under greater scrutiny this week for new information on the shooting of the only person to die on Jan. 6. While Democrats have referred to many deaths on that day, the only person who died in the riot itself was Ashli Babbitt, a protester shot by Capitol Police. I have long disagreed with the findings of investigations by the Capitol Police and the Justice Department in clearing Captain Michael Byrd for this shooting. The media lionized Byrd and, in sharp contrast to other police shootings during that period, blamed the deceased. Again, an unjustified shooting of a protester would not fit the media narrative.
The concerns over the shooting were heightened by the Justice Department’s bizarre review and report, which notably did not state that the shooting was justified. Instead, it declared that it could not prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”
Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran who was clearly committing criminal acts of trespass, property damage and other offenses at the time she was shot. However, Babbitt was unarmed when she tried to climb through a broken window.
Byrd stated “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” In other words, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon. He took Babbitt’s effort to crawl through the window as sufficient justification to kill her. It was not. And it is worth noting that Byrd could just as well have hit the officers standing just behind Babbitt.
The new report confirms that Byrd had prior disciplinary and training issues, including “a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check for a weapon’s purchase, a 33-day suspension for a lost weapon and referral to Maryland state prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car fleeing his neighborhood.” In one incident, detailed in a letter from Loudermilk, Byrd was suspected of lying about the circumstances under which he shot at the fleeing car.
None of this means that Trump or even Babbitt are without fault in this matter. Trump’s speech was clearly “reckless and wrong,” and Babbitt herself was involved in that riot. However, these reports only further highlight what we still do not know about that day.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Hegseth has been nominated for Defense Secretary with a stellar military record and combat experience. Both Hegseth and Walz are both from Minnesota, but Tim Walz, although he has a military background, carries the stigma of stolen valor and wacky left-wing values.
Hegseth would be highest ranking Minnesotan serving White House in decades
By Hank Long – AlphaNews.com – Nov 21, 2024
Vice President-elect J.D. Vance is expected to introduce Hegseth to his Senate colleagues this week. Since Minnesota achieved statehood in 1858, only a few Minnesotans have had the honor to serve in a presidential cabinet and stand in the line of presidential succession. If the incoming Republican majority class of U.S. Senate members vote to confirm Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense in January, the Forest Lake native would become one of the highest-ranking White House cabinet members from the North Star State ever. Vice President-elect and U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, is expected to introduce Hegseth to his Senate colleagues this week. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Elon Musk is Rumored to be considering buying MSNBC. That could change the media landscape for decades and send left-wing propagandist Rachel Maddow packing her bags.
Elon Musk Just Gave the Strongest Hint Yet That He Might Actually Buy MSNBC
By Ken Kew – The Gateway Pundit – Nov 23, 2024
Elon Musk has just given the strongest hint yet that he may actually purchase MSNBC. The troubled left-wing network has seen its ratings nosedive in the wake of Donald Trump’s stunning victory in the 2024 presidential election as furious viewers lash out at the false hope the network gave them or just check out of politics altogether. Another major controversy has been that involving Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, who informed their audience this week that had met with Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and would seek to take a “new approach” to covering his second term in office. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Disclaimer: This article discusses explicit sexual acts.
What you’re going to hear now and in the coming days from the national media is that there are “graphic” details in a police report related to an alleged sexual assault involving Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming nominee for Defense secretary. It’s certainly graphic, but the media will bet you won’t bother reading the report, which in reality looks really bad for the alleged victim and effectively clears Hegseth of criminality.
The 22-page report details an incident from seven years ago when in 2017, Hegseth, then a Fox News celebrity, attended an event for a Republican women’s group as a featured speaker. The way the media have relayed the event so far is that a woman in attendance has accused Hegseth of drugging her at an afterparty before raping her in his hotel room. Outside of the alleged victim’s admittedly incomplete recollection, none of the testimony or evidence included in the police report supports that claim. In truth, all of it indicates that the accuser lied to her husband, who was in her hotel room, while she galivanted at night with Hegseth and other attendees before voluntarily joining him in his room to have consensual sex.
The report’s events took place in early October 2017, and it includes multiple eyewitness testimonies and text message evidence of what took place before and after the alleged assault. The alleged victim is identified only as Jane Doe. After a night of moderate drinking, during which Doe says she at some point felt she may have been surreptitiously drugged, Doe said she remembered few details but that she recalled inexplicably finding herself in Hegseth’s hotel room, that he ejaculated on her body, and that she thereafter went to her own room to join an unnamed person in bed.Text messages she shared with police indicate the person was her husband and that there were other parties in the room, likely children.
Doe ended up in contact with police after she saw a medical provider to administer a sexual assault exam. The provider was required by California law to tell police of the allegation that was shared by Doe. Doe told police she didn’t recall drinking heavily that day but then later said she did and that at some point she confronted Hegseth by the hotel pool about the way he had behaved with other women that night, which she found “inappropriate.” She would also later tell police that she recalled asking Hegseth in his hotel room if he had a condom.
And that’s the exact point you know things have taken a turn out of her favor.
The rest of the report is an overwhelming refutation of that version of events. Included are text exchanges with her husband, wherein she repeatedly mentions Hegseth, but omits that she was spending time with him at the after-parties; testimonies from other women in attendance who said Doe never appeared overserved and in fact seemed completely coherent throughout; surveillance video footage that showed Doe and Hegseth walking around with locked arms; and a hotel staff member who recalled engaging Doe and Hegseth by the pool, at which time Hegseth was belligerent and Doe guided Hegseth away from the conflict.
The report ends with Hegseth’s version of events, in which he admits he only initiated sex with Doe after she took him to his room and says that the two of them repeatedly expressed reservations about the intimacy. He said that the two of them agreed the affair needed to remain secret. If there’s one corroborated piece of Doe’s story, it’s that Hegseth also recalled that she asked him if he had a condom.
— “JANE DOE stated she used a condom when she had sex with” her husband after the alleged assault. The explanation for that is redacted, but thereafter the report says, “JANE DOE stated she had a vaginal discharge and was diagnosed with bacterial vaginosis,” a condition that “can be caused by having multiple sex partners.”
— Text messages with her husband, who was at the conference, show Doe asking him if he was familiar with Hegseth, referring to him as “TDB lite” and “Mini TDB,” which appear to be meant as insults. Doe’s husband replies, “Oh you mean the man who tried to have sex with my wife?” and “Not a good first impression for Pete.”
— Doe’s husband told police it was 4 a.m. when his wife returned to their shared room. “JANE DOE arrived at their hotel room, accessed the room on her own and had used the key card reader to get in,” the report said. “JANE DOE told [her husband] that she ‘Must have fallen asleep.’ JANE DOE was apologetic.” Her husband “noticed that JANE DOE did not have a hard time walking and was not slurring her words.”
— A hotel staff member told police he encountered Doe and Hegseth at the pool and “JANE DOE placed her hand and arm on the back of HEGSETH” and “escorted him” away. The staffer described Hegseth as “very intoxicated.” By contrast, he said Doe was “not intoxicated” and in fact “standing on her own and was very coherent.”
— Of the hotel surveillance video, the report said, “The video showed JANE DOE and HEGSETH walking together, with arms locked together.”
Hegseth’s testimony also goes into detail about what happened in his hotel room, and he maintains it was consensual. No charges were ever brought, and Hegseth paid the woman a settlement fee at the time to make the drama go away.
Nobody should be left with questions about what happened here. All of the evidence indicates Hegseth was pursued by a married woman who then regretted her decision. (I’m sure the vaginal discharge didn’t help.)
Matt Gaetz, the former Florida representative and President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, announced Thursday that he is withdrawing as Trump’s pick for the top prosecutor. Who is in consideration now for the top spot? Here are potential names floated to head the Department of Justice next.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey was tapped by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson in 2022 to be the state’s top prosecutor after then-state Attorney General Eric Schmitt was elected to the U.S. Senate.
Bailey, an Army veteran, received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Missouri. He then proceeded to work in the state attorney general’s office and also served as an assistant county prosecutor and a state government lawyer before joining the office of Gov. Mike Parson.
Andrew Bailey, Missouri’s attorney general, is seen during a House Homeland Security Committee hearing in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, Jan. 10, 2024. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Parson tapped Bailey in 2022 to be the state’s top prosecutor after then-state Attorney General Eric Schmitt was elected to the U.S. Senate.
Since becoming attorney general, Bailey has launched dozens of lawsuits against the Biden administration and sought to defend the state on a number of conservative issues.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah
Republican Sen. Mike Lee from Utah is also a name being floated for consideration. Lee is currently a high-ranking Republican in the chamber and would face a somewhat easy path to Senate confirmation, at least compared to some of the more controversial names that have surfaced previously.
Lee had previously expressed that he would not be aiming for the role, telling the Deseret News in an interview, “I have the job I want.”
Lee also told the outlet at the time that he was looking “forward to working in the next Congress and with President Trump and his team to implement his agenda and the reform agenda that Republicans have offered and campaigned on, and it’s going to be an exciting time. We’ve got a lot of work to do.”
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah., speaks during a news conference in the Capitol on Tuesday, July 20, 2021. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Gaetz announced his decision on X early Thursday afternoon. In his post, he described his nomination as “a distraction.” Allegations of him purportedly paying underage women for sex had surfaced amid his nomination.
Trump took to social media shortly after the news broke that Gaetz would be withdrawing his name from consideration, writing on Truth Social, “I greatly appreciate the recent efforts of Matt Gaetz in seeking approval to be Attorney General. He was doing very well but, at the same time, did not want to be a distraction for the Administration, for which he has much respect. Matt has a wonderful future, and I look forward to watching all of the great things he will do!”
Gaetz had been under a monthslong investigation by the House Ethics Committee until his resignation last Wednesday from the current congressional session.
Fox News Digital reached out to Lee’s and Bailey’s offices and the Trump transition team for comment.
Fox News Digital’s Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.
Haley Chi-Sing is a Writer for Fox News Digital. You can reach her at @haleychising on X.
UPDATE
President Elect Donald Trump has selected former Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi to be our nation’s Attorney General.
The House Oversight Committee is planning to create a subcommittee for the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the committee announced Thursday. The subcommittee is to be chaired by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and will work with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to aid the pair in the incoming administration’s goal of weeding out government inefficiency and wasteful spending.
Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said the subcommittee will “align with the Trump administration’s priorities to eliminate government waste, streamline the federal government’s operations and cut red tape that’s stifling jobs and increasing costs for the American people.”
Posting on X to announce her specific role, Greene wrote, “Big News. Comer to create @GOPoversight DOGE subcommittee chaired by Marjorie Taylor Greene to work with @elonmusk, @VivekGRamaswamy.”
“We’re going to work very closely with Elon Musk and Ramaswamy,” Comer added. “We’ve had initial conversations. We are serious about reducing the size of government.”
Describing their DOGE initiative in The Wall Street Journal opinion article Wednesday, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote, “DOGE will work with legal experts embedded in government agencies, aided by advanced technology, to apply these rulings to federal regulations enacted by such agencies.
“DOGE will present this list of regulations to President Trump, who can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission. This would liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress and stimulate the U.S. economy.”
In the spirit of transparency, Musk and Ramaswamy announced they will be launching a new podcast together called “DOGEcast” with plans to make public all the government cost-cutting they are considering and how such streamlining will be implemented.
Law enforcement officers escort illegal alien Brandon Simosa following his robbery arrest Tuesday night. (Screenshot from the New York Post)
Around 2 a.m. Sunday, police said, Brandon Simosa robbed Bragg’s employee, a 38-year-old woman, in her apartment building on 44th Street, the New York Post first reported. Simosa, 25, fled with the woman’s smart phone and bank cards after she discovered him as he “performed a lewd act” in a hallway, WABC-TV/Channel 7 Eyewitness News reported. The man was masturbating, the Post reported.
Bragg is probably best known for his successful, high-profile prosecution of former President Donald Trump, now the president-elect, for falsifying business records before and after the 2016 election.
Simosa illegally crossed the southern border into Eagle Pass, Texas, in October 2023, the Post reported.
Police tracked the stolen phone to find and arrest Simosa on Tuesday night outside a hotel being used as a migrant shelter in Midtown Manhattan. He was using drugs and had stolen items with him when police located him, according to Eyewitness News. Charges against Simosa include sexually motivated robbery, grand larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property, the Post reported.
Cameras caught Simosa smirking Wednesday as authorities led him out of the New York Police Department’s Midtown South Precinct.
BREAKING: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's assistant robbed, attacked by an illegal immigrant with 5 arrests since 2023.
“This utterly unrepentant, smirking young thug is just one of thousands allowed in under the Biden administration’s open border and then encouraged to come to New York City by its blank checks for housing, income, health care, education, and other services Americans don’t get for free,” Simon Hankinson, a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told The Daily Signal.
Over 10 million illegal aliens have crossed the border into the U.S. during the Biden-Harris administration, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data. New York Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, has said that over 223,000 illegal immigrants have arrived in the Big Apple and “sought city services” since the spring of 2022.
“While living off the taxpayer, [illegal aliens] can rob and assault with little fear of timely prosecution, and they are usually let out on cashless bail,” Hankinson said.
Shortly after taking office at the beginning of 2022, Bragg, a Democrat, directed his prosecutors in a memo to seek jail time only in “very serious cases.” After receiving pushback from New Yorkers, Bragg revised his direction, telling prosecutors: “You were hired for your keen judgment, and I want you to use that judgment.”
Heritage Foundation legal fellows Cully Stimson and Zack Smith, authors of the book “Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers Are Destroying America’s Communities,” have accused Bragg of furthering “pro-criminal, anti-victim policies.”
Bragg’s office did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
The district attorney in Georgia “who took the death penalty off the table for Laken Riley’s killer—another Tren de Aragua associate from Venezuela—was as woke as Alvin Bragg,” Hankinson said.
Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student, was found dead Feb. 22 near a running trail in Athens, Georgia. Authorities said she died of blunt force trauma to the head and suffocation. A Georgia judge on Wednesday found illegal alien Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, guilty on all 10 counts in Riley’s bludgeoning death. Superior Court Judge H. Patrick Haggard sentenced Ibarra, who had waived his right to a jury trial, to life in prison without parole.
Athens-Clarke District Attorney Deborah Gonzalez, a Democrat, appointed a special prosecutor to take on the Riley case but said her office wouldn’t seek the death penalty when prosecuting criminals.
In the Nov. 5 election Republican challenger Kalki Yalamanchili defeated Gonzalez by 60% to 40%, the Post reported.
Donald Trump recently attended a SpaceX launch, and one can only imagine his thoughts. Here’s a man who has built iconic skyscrapers, reshaped the hospitality industry, and even conquered the political world—but even Trump must feel a twinge of humility watching Elon Musk. Because Musk isn’t just playing in the big leagues; he built the league.
Elon Musk embodies the spirit of historical greats like Leonardo da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Andrew Carnegie—all rolled into one. His work spans disciplines so varied and so transformative that our own inventions seem pedestrian in comparison. He’s not just pushing boundaries; he’s redefining them.
NASA’s Replacement, for Pennies on the Dollar
Take NASA, for example. Musk didn’t just partner with the space agency—he replaced it. While NASA used to launch a rocket every four years and never reused them, Musk’s SpaceX launched three rockets in 20 hours and landed them back on Earth for reuse. That’s like going from driving a horse-drawn carriage to piloting a fleet of Teslas.
But Musk’s efficiency isn’t just about rockets. NASA, now begging for Musk’s support to rid the agency of DEI nonsense, once embodied government bloat. Billions in funding produced sporadic launches and little innovation. Meanwhile, Musk achieved spaceflight milestones at a fraction of the cost, proving that private industry and brilliance beat bureaucratic inertia every time.
The Left’s Galling Mockery
And how does the Left respond? By mocking Musk. During the SpaceX launch, CNN’s Jake Tapper and his panel of “experts” derided Musk’s team as the Legion of Doom. The same Musk who has brought reusable rockets, revolutionary electric vehicles, and scalable solar power to reality. Imagine being a Jake Tapper—a career talking head—and ridiculing the Da Vinci of our time.
Even more laughably, Bill Kristol suggested Musk might exploit government secrets for personal gain. As if Musk, who reengineered NASA’s entire operation, is sneaking into federal offices to learn how to overpay contractors. The irony? While Musk innovates, government agencies pay $400,000 for a coffee pot. The likes of Kristol and his ilk should be begging Musk to audit the government, not throwing stones.
Titans for the Greater Good
Now, enter Trump, a titan in his own right. Say what you will about his brash style, but Trump’s political accomplishments—record low unemployment, trade deals, a booming economy—are undeniable. And Musk admires him, not because Trump is “right-wing,” but because Trump, like Musk, understands results.
These two giants have come together, not as partisan warriors, but as men driven by legacy and purpose. Musk isn’t siding with the Right; he’s siding with righteousness—and right now, that happens to align politically.
Imagine Musk Running Government
Now picture a government where Musk’s intellect permeates every department. The Department of Energy would revolutionize power grids. The Department of Transportation might actually improve infrastructure. And the USPS, which just reported a $9.5 billion loss despite raising stamp prices, would finally get its act together.
Better yet, who would you choose to run your organization: Elon Musk or Barack Obama? One revolutionized multiple industries and practically privatized space travel. The other…gave you Healthcare.gov.
The Left’s War on Excellence
The Left’s ridicule of Musk and Trump is not just misguided—it’s a war on excellence. They mock because they don’t understand. They deride because they cannot compete. And while they busy themselves with identity politics and DEI initiatives, titans like Musk and Trump focus on what really matters: building legacies that make America—and humanity—better.
So, the next time a talking head sneers at Musk or Trump, ask yourself this: Would you rather have someone who can launch rockets and reshape industries, or someone who complains about pronouns and blames systemic racism for $400,000 coffee pots? Exactly.
I have previously written about the dubious investigations of the shooting of Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6th and the alleged violation of the standards for the use of lethal force by the officer who shot her. I strongly disagreed with the findings of investigations by the Capitol Police and the Justice Department in clearing Captain Michael Byrd, who shot the unarmed protester. Now, Just the News has an alarming report of the record of Byrd that only magnifies these concerns.
Liberal politicians and pundits often refer to multiple deaths from the Jan. 6th riot. In reality, only one person died that day, and that was Babbitt, who was shot while trying to climb through a window. However, the media lionized Byrd and portrayed the killing of the unarmed Babbitt as clearly justified. That is in sharp contrast to the approach that the media has taken in other shootings by law enforcement. An unjustified killing by police on that day was inconsistent with the public narrative pushed by the pundits and the press.
As I have previously written, what occurred on Jan. 6th was a disgrace. However, it was a riot, not an insurrection. (It was certainly not an act of terrorism as claimed by some Democratic politicians). A protest at the Capitol resulted in a complete breakdown of the inadequate security precautions, a failure that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi privately admitted but only recently was disclosed. The failure of Pelosi and others to properly prepare for the protest, despite the offer of President Donald Trump of 10,000 National Guard troops, does not excuse the conduct of the rioters who attacked the Capitol, interrupted the constitutional process, and committed property damage.
Babbitt was one of those rioters. She was wrong in her actions, but the penalty for breaking a window and unauthorized entry is not death in this country. I previously spoke with her mother, Micki Witthoeft, and her husband, Aaron Babbitt, about their continuing effort to expose what occurred that day.
The new report confirms what many of us had previously heard about the Byrd controversy.
Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran and Trump supporter who participated in the riot three years ago. She was clearly committing criminal acts of trespass, property damage, and other offenses. However, the question is whether an officer is justified in shooting a protester when he admits that he did not see any weapon before discharging his weapon.
Just to recap what we previously discussed in the earlier column:
When protesters rushed to the House chamber, police barricaded the chamber’s doors; Capitol Police were on both sides, with officers standing directly behind Babbitt. Babbitt and others began to force their way through, and Babbitt started to climb through a broken window. That is when Byrd killed her.
At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd.
The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was justified. Instead, it stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”
While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.
Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders. Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby was convicted of killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his head. Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6.
Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared that “no further action will be taken” in the case. He then demolished the two official reviews that cleared him.
Byrd described how he was “trapped” with other officers as “the chants got louder” with what “sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door.” He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: “I tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.”
Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.
Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.
The new report confirms prior accounts that Byrd had prior disciplinary and training issues. According to Just the News, they included “a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check for a weapon’s purchase, a 33-day suspension for a lost weapon and referral to Maryland state prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car fleeing his neighborhood.”
Given this history and the shooting of Babbitt, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the chair of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee investigation, wrote to express concern over Byrd’s promotion to captain. Those incidents included Byrd firing at a car and allegedly misrepresenting the incident in claiming that “he fired at a vehicle trying to strike him when the evidence fellow officers found at the scene indicated he shot at the vehicle after it had already passed him and no longer posed a threat.” The letter states the Office of Professional Responsibility found that the evidence did not support his claim and “OPR concluded that the evidence suggests Byrd ‘discharged his service weapon at the vans after they passed him by.’”
The concern is that the political environment — and powerful interests in Congress — demanded that Byrd be cleared. As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the Justice Department had publicly pledged to bring “shock and awe” in prosecuting anyone associated with the riot. Finding that the only person killed that day was an unjustified shooting would not exactly fit with the narrative.
The incidents also include allegations of improper handling of his weapon, including reports that Byrd left his service weapon in a public bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex used by tourists and visitors.
The Babbitt family has continued to fight to force the facts into the open and has filed a civil case. A trial is now set for 2026.
Here is his letter detailing the disciplinary problems of Captain Byrd:
A.F. Branco Cartoon: Trump battles the McConnell swamp, pushing Senator Thune to keep his recess appointments promise. If it wasn’t for Trump, they wouldn’t be in the majority right now. Let’s see if they show him any gratitude.
“Yes There Will Be” – Sen. Rick Scott Claps Back After Reporter Alleges Mitch McConnell Will Not Allow Trump Recess Appointments
By Jim Hoft – The Gateway – Nov 18, 2024
Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) has assured the conservative base that, contrary to reports suggesting otherwise from outgoing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, recess appointments are still very much on the table. According to a now-deleted tweet by Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, McConnell was quoted at a Washington gathering on Sunday as saying, “There will be no recess appointments.” READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
In a recent television interview, prospective Trump administration border “czar” Tom Homan said that state officials will be liable to federal prosecution if they actively impede federal agents in the enforcement of immigration law — including apprehending and detaining illegal aliens. In context, Homan was being asked about Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, who has vowed that the city would protect non-citizens in “every possible way” from the Trump administration’s plans for large-scale deportations. Homan made clear that the feds would not attempt to commandeer state and city officials. He acknowledged that such officials have no duty tohelp federal immigration agents. But they may not interfere with the agents in the execution of their duties or take affirmative steps to conceal or shield illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement.
He pointed out that it is a federal felony under Section 1324(1)(a)(iii) of the immigration laws (Title 8, U.S. Code) if a person,
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation[.]
The Supreme Court has explained, in United States v. Gillock (1980), for example, that “in those areas where the Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to act, the Supremacy Clause dictates that federal enactments will prevail over competing state exercises of power.” As a result, state or municipal officials who are accused of violating federal criminal law will not be heard to claim in their defense that they were carrying out official state policies — even if those policies are codified in laws, regulations, or ordinances at the state or local levels.
Sanctuary cities have been tolerated for too long because Democrats — at the federal, state, and local levels — refuse to enforce federal law. But sanctuary cities have never been legal.
Tom Homan, President-elect Trump’s prospective border “czar,” has made clear that the feds would not attempt to commandeer state and city officials. He acknowledged that such officials have no duty tohelp federal immigration agents. But they may not interfere with the agents in the execution of their duties or take affirmative steps to conceal or shield illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
The Supreme Court has now held a number of times, including in Arizona v. United States (2015), that “the Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.” In Arizona vs. the United States, the Court went so far as to forbid the state from enforcing state laws that were designed to support federal immigration laws that the Obama-Biden administration did not want enforced.
Let’s face it: We know from past experience (in the last Trump administration) that, inevitably, open-borders advocate organizations will forum-shop cases to activist progressive judges who will surely rule in their favor. But such setbacks will be temporary.
Ultimately, higher federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are not going to countenance the actions of state and city officials that violate federal immigration law and obstruct federal enforcement of incontestably constitutional immigration laws. In essence, I hear Tom Homan saying that the era of sanctuary cities is over. I hope that is true.
If it is, many illegal aliens will return to their home countries — that is, they will self-deport. This would free up resources for federal immigration agents to prioritize apprehension and deportation of criminal aliens — especially the ones in such gangs as Tren de Aragua, which has become a significant violent crime threat in big cities across the country thanks to the collapse of border security under Biden-Harris administration policies. Federal authorities can also then concentrate on the magnets of illegal immigration — such as employers who hire illegal aliens because they are willing to work for lower wages than the law mandates that Americans must be paid.
Getting illegal immigration and border security under control would be a boon for legal immigration. That’s something those who champion immigrants and those who prioritize pro-border security should be able to unite behind.
Andrew C. McCarthy serves as a FOX News contributor and is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review. Follow him on Twitter @andrewcmccarthy
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Wednesday announced a new policy to prevent transgender women from using women’s bathrooms on the House side of Capitol Hill, Politicoreported. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., previously introduced a bill to ban transgender women from using Capitol bathrooms designated for women after Delaware Democrat Rep.-elect Sarah McBride, a transgender woman, became the first transgender person elected to Congress earlier this month.
“All single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House Office Buildings — such as restrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms — are reserved for individuals of that biological sex,” Johnson wrote in a statement. “It is important to note that each Member office has its own private restroom, and unisex restrooms are available throughout the Capitol. Women deserve women’s only spaces.”
Johnson later told reporters that “like all House policies, it’s enforceable. And we have single-sex facilities for a reason, and women deserve women’s only spaces.”
Democrat lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a resolution to mark the Transgender Day of Remembrance that would memorialize transgender people around the world who were violently killed in the past year. In a statement Monday, McBride denounced Mace’s resolution and the controversy over bathroom usage as a distraction.
“This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing,” McBride said. “We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and childcare, not manufacturing culture wars.”
Ali Malekzadeh, president of Chicago’s Roosevelt University, has joined the “My Bad” School of Higher Education. In criticizing the election results, Malekzadeh is only the latest academic leader first to discard core principles of neutrality and inclusion and then offer a shrugging apology. After the GOP election victories, various university presidents and academic leaders denounced the results, and some pledged to join “the resistance.” Wesleyan University President Michael Roth was, if nothing else, honest. He called for universities to openly support Kamala Harris and resist Trump. Others signaled that they were appalled by the majority of voters in this country and then asked for forgiveness. This includes the heads of academic journals. The most bizarre was Laura Helmuth, the editor-in-chief, of Scientific American who posted a profanity-laced attack on the majority who voted for Trump and the Republicans. She then asked people to disregard her diatribe (She later resigned). It is obviously a complete jettisoning of the core political neutrality expected from presidents, and some, after currying favor with the political left, issued perfunctory apologies.
According to Campus Reform, after the election, Malekzadeh wrote,“Like many of you, I am discouraged by the final results and disheartened that many voters selected a candidate who casts aside unity and empathy in favor of divisiveness and fear.”
He denounced the “alarming trend” of not “welcom[ing] new immigrants,” “romanticizing the past” instead of “look[ing] forward,” and moving away from “reinforc[ing] democratic norms.”
This was an official statement coming from a university president to all faculty, students, and staff. Even in the solidly democratic Illinois, roughly 44 percent reportedly supported Trump. Harris won the state by roughly 55 percent. That means many voters associated with Roosevelt University likely voted for the GOP, particularly those on the Schaumburg campus.
These university statements are usually the subject of considerable drafting and editing. They are not simply dashed off like a posting on X. Malekzadeh was fully aware of the criticism of bias and intolerance at universities and the deep divisions in this election. However, he chose to pander to one side and then offer a muttering “my bad” response to criticism.
Malekzadeh’s biography states that he is “passionate about women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, [and] affirmative action.” That is all well and good. However, as university president, he is tasked with representing all those who teach, work, and learn at his institution. Malekzadeh must have known that his statement would thrill the left and alienate the right. He is not a clueless halfwit. He did it anyway and then asked for forgiveness. In that way, he showed the flag to the political left while maintaining the pretense of regret.
Imagine if a president issued statements after the election praising Trump and celebrating the rejection of liberal policies on immigration or transgender issues. The response would be overwhelming and likely result in removals. No shrugged apology would suffice.
The message to all those who voted for the GOP could not be clearer. They are not particularly welcomed in the “inclusive environment” described by Malekzadeh. Like most universities in the country, the sense of orthodoxy and intolerance is unmistakable and unavoidable.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the effort of Alvin Bragg to suspend the criminal case against President-Elect Donald Trump for almost five years. It would be a terrible choice for the court and for the country.
Here is the column:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg pushed Tuesday to create a new constitutional creature: the layaway president. It was once common for stores to hold expensive items that you really wanted but could not make the payment. So, they were tagged and kept on the shelf until you were ready to redeem your item.
For Bragg, that leaves Donald Trump tagged until 2029.
In a filing before Manhattan Justice Juan Merchan, Bragg suggested that the court should stay the pending criminal case and defer any sentencing “until after the end of defendant’s upcoming presidential term.” That would allow a city prosecutor to put a leash on a sitting president for four years. Trump would govern by the grace of this local judge and district attorney. In the meantime, pundits and politicians could portray the president as free on a type of work release program.
The suggestion is appalling to most of the people in the country, including the majority of voters who voted for Trump. Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats ran on this and other cases in the election. The result was arguably the largest jury decision in history.
That being said, I do not believe that the mere election of a president negates jury verdicts on 34 criminal counts. But ample reasons exist to overturn those verdicts or to dismiss this case. For example, after the verdict, the Supreme Court rendered its immunity decision barring the use of certain evidence against a president. Some of the evidence used in the Manhattan case likely fell within one of the protected categories. The prosecutors not only elicited testimony from Trump aides in the White House but then doubled down on the significance of that evidence in their closing arguments. Merchan could declare that the court cannot rule out the impact of such testimony on the final verdict.
Even if Merchan, as expected, does not dismiss the case on the basis for the immunity decision, the trial was rife with reversible error. This was a raw exercise of lawfare, and Merchan did little to ensure fairness toward the defendant. Yet none of those errors can be likely addressed until Merchan reaches final decisions on the motion to dismiss as well as the sentencing question.
While that will mean that Trump could, upon possible sentencing, formally become a convicted felon, the matter can then be finally pried out of the hands of Merchan and taken to higher courts for review. The worst possible option is the one suggested by Bragg, who would adopt the popular persona of Trump’s turnkey.
The President would be seen by many as governing on a type of conditional status from one of the most politically compromised prosecutors in the country. For Bragg and other Trump opponents, that may be far more satisfying than a sentencing now given the unlikelihood of any jail component.
After the years and millions spent on the case, it would be the ultimate buzz kill to have Trump sentenced to some fine or other non-carceral penalty. Many Democrats want to have Trump govern with an asterisk of a “President pending sentencing.” Instead, Trump would govern with the clock ticking toward a sentencing date.
It is a dangerous precedent. Such pending sentences can have a coercive impact on a president in dealing with given officials, including a state governor who might be willing to pardon a president.
Consider the effort of the governor of New York in restoring the lucrative state and local tax, or SALT, deductions. There is no reason to believe that Trump would succumb to such leverage (and he has already indicated that he would consider the change).
However, any decision on policies like SALT would be the subject of speculation of whether a reduction in taxation was made in the hope of a reduction in incarceration.
Critics would suggest that New York is yanking on the leash to achieve policy advantages. This is the same judge and prosecutor who gagged the leading candidate for the presidency in discussing aspects of the case in the months leading up to the election. Now, they would allow him to govern pending their own suspended decisions on his future.
The Trump case was always a thrill kill for Bragg. Under Bragg’s proposal, his supporters would prolong that thrill for four more years. The cost, however, would be devastating for the country.
This country needs a president, not a president on layaway from the Manhattan District Attorney.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Trump and the GOP may have won the 2024 election, but America is far from being cured of this leftist disease that has been ravaging the country for decades. Now, the real battle for a healthy government for We the People is just beginning.
No, We Will Not Honor Your Delusions! – Young Conservative Gives the Best Explanation Yet on Why Republicans Swept the 2024 Elections (VIDEO)
By Jim Hoft – The Gateway Pundit – Nov 16, 2024
This young conservative who calls himself Grand-Ole-Evan gave the best explanation on why President Donald Trump and Republicans swept the 2024 elections. It came down to half of America living in reality of consequences of Democrat leadership and policies versus the other half of America living in delusion that their rights were going to be taken away. It was reality versus delusion. It really was that simple and not the deluded Democrats are furious that Republican voters did not put the left’s delusions before their needs to eat and find affordable housing. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Having clinched the federal government trifecta, Republicans have the opportunity in the next Congress to move through legislation they could only have dreamed of over the past six years. Will they squander this golden opportunity to pass conservative reforms?
In particular, can the SAVE Act, a key election integrity measure, be saved from the Senate filibuster? Perhaps, but there’s disagreement even among members of Wisconsin’s GOP congressional delegation on the fate of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act in the upcoming session. The bill requires individuals to show documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in federal elections, as it directs states to remove noncitizens from their voter rolls. The measure passed the Republican-controlled House in July along party lines, with a scant five Democrats voting for it. Dems insisted that the protections are unnecessary because it’s already illegal for foreign nationals to vote in elections. But current law is nothing more than an honor system without the ability to require proof of citizenship at the point of registration.
As The Federalist has reported, thousands of illegal immigrants and other foreign nationals have shown up on voter lists across the country.
The SAVE Act has languished in a Senate that had no interest in ensuring only U.S. citizens vote in elections. Attached to a stopgap government spending proposal in September, the bill died a miserable death in the House.
But Nov. 5, 2024, delivered a red wave, a sea change election that will put former President Donald Trump back in the White House, place Republicans back in control of the Senate, and allow the Grand Old Party to keep its majority in the House. Expectations are high — as they were in 2017 and 2018 when Republicans also held the trifecta with Trump in charge of the executive branch — that conservatives will be able to push through an array of government reforms.
Not so fast, some say.
‘Tool to Defend’
“Any election law is going to be tough in the Senate,” Rep. Glenn Grothman, told me Monday on the “Vicki McKenna Show” in Milwaukee. Grothman, who represents Wisconsin’s 6th Congressional District, said the filibuster, requiring 60 votes in the Senate to pass most legislation, will make it nearly impossible to get the SAVE Act, border security, and other bills through the august upper house.
It would seem there isn’t much appetite for ditching the filibuster, especially in a Senate run by newly elected Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., a longtime protege of Senate Republican Leader and 60-vote threshold defender Mitch McConnell. Fellow McConnell stooge Texas Sen. John Cornyn recently told NBC News that there’s “unanimity” among Senate Republicans on preserving the filibuster — even if President-elect Trump again calls for senators to dump it.
“Senators have a tendency to defend their power, just like everybody else does. I don’t know a lot of wimps in the United States Senate,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., told the news outlet. “I think we’ve all lived through the possibility of losing the filibuster as a tool to defend. And I would be surprised if there were enough Republicans who thought that we should change it now.”
‘On the Other Foot’
When Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, they pushed to bypass the filibuster to pass an election integrity nightmare “voting rights act,” but couldn’t quite get the 60 votes needed to suspend the rule. That was in January 2022, just days before Dems turned over control of the House to Republicans and saw their majority in the Senate diminished to a slim 51 seats. McConnell congratulated renegade Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, for their “courage” to resist the pressure to loosen the rule. McConnell warned Democrats “that in the very near future the shoe might be on the other foot.” Nearly three years later, Manchin and Sinema are on their way out of the Senate and the “shoe” is definitely about to be on the other foot.
‘We Can Get There’
Grothman agrees the filibuster has “prevented a lot of horrible things from passing” under Democrat control, from packing the Supreme Court to statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. “So, I can’t say it’s horrible when the Republican senators say we’re going to require 60 votes for all policy changes, but it sure is going to be frustrating because I don’t think we can save the country unless we make changes in immigration law, and I don’t think we can save the country unless we make changes to election law.”
The Wisconsin congressman said there is no compromising with Democrats on either issue.
“I don’t think they’ll ever give us the SAVE act,” Grothman said. “The Democrats are not into compromising on issues that will cost them power. They just aren’t.”
Grothman’s colleague, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, said the SAVE Act is a priority and can pass both houses, but it will take negotiations to get there. Fitzgerald, who represents Wisconsin’s 5th Congressional District, said he’d like to see the legislation move from the Senate to the House this time around.
“Even though [Republicans] are going to have the majority over there, there are going to be some specific senators that probably are going to need to get some of the things that were in the SAVE Act to agree to it,” the lawmaker told me last week on the “Vicki McKenna Show.” “That could become the negotiations between the houses to sign off from.”
Rep. Bryan Steil, Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District congressman, said Republicans have an opportunity to take election security and integrity bills previously passed in the House and get them to Trump’s desk. Steil, chairman of the House Administration Committee, acknowledges the filibuster may well be a challenge, but he sees the potential for some Senate Democrats to cross the aisle on bills that have the backing of the majority of voters.
“Obviously, President Biden had no interest in putting forward common-sense election integrity provisions,” Steil told me. “With a Republican Senate and a Republican House and President Trump in the White House, I’m of a view we can get there.”
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
EXCLUSIVE: Texas is offering the incoming Trump administration a tract of more than 1,400 acres on which to stage its mass deportation operation when it enters office in January, as the transition team begins to make preparations for the ambitious project.
Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham has written to President-elect Donald Trump offering him the land in Starr County, which the state purchased from a ranch owner in October. The 1,402 acres are in the Rio Grande Valley sector near the border. Her letter to Trump, obtained by Fox News Digital, says her office is “fully prepared to enter into an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the United States Border Patrol to allow a facility to be built for the processing, detention, and coordination of the largest deportation of violent criminals in the nation’s history.”
This image shows drone footage from a ranch in Starr County. (Texas General Land Office)
“What I care about is that we have safe communities, and there is no doubt that we are losing too many of our children to these violent criminals that are coming across the border,” Buckingham told Fox News Digital in an interview on Tuesday. “I am 100% on board with the Trump administration’s pledge to get these criminals out of our country, and we are more than happy to offer our resources to facilitate those deportations of these violent criminals.”
The Texas General Land Office purchased the land in October to facilitate the construction of additional border wall, a project that the Biden administration stopped. The area, which was a ranch before Texas bought it, had seen drug smuggling and human trafficking, officials said.
In light of Trump’s election victory this month, Buckingham said she was brainstorming with her team and decided to make the offer to the incoming administration.
“Right now, it’s essentially farmland, so it’s flat, it’s easy to build on. We could very easily put a detention center on there, a holding place as we get these criminals out of our country,” she said. “It’s accessible to international airports as well as a major crossing over the river. And so, we’re just happy to get help, do anything we can to get these violent criminals off of our soil.”
Trump repeatedly promised throughout his 2024 presidential campaign to launch a historic mass deportation operation. In the days since the election, those plans have been put into motion, with officials looking at where they could build additional detention space.
Buckingham said the election proves that Trump’s approach to border security and illegal immigration is the one backed by the American people and that the Biden administration’s approach had been rejected.
“This election was a resounding referendum on the fact that Americans want safe communities. We want people to immigrate legally and legally only and that the administration’s policies over the last four years have failed every American citizen,” she said.
The Trump plan is likely to face opposition in other states, including Arizona, Illinois and Massachusetts, where governors have indicated they will oppose deportation efforts by the Trump administration. But that is unlikely to stop the incoming administration from conducting its operation.
Fox News’ Emma Woodhead contributed to this report.
Adam Shaw is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital, primarily covering immigration and border security.
A migrant child sits in the back of a Border Patrol vehicle after crossing the border illegally into Ruby, Arizona, June 24. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
Sitting before members of Congress on Capitol Hill Tuesday, retired Border Patrol agent J.J. Carrell told the lawmakers that the “United States federal government is the world’s largest child sex trafficking organization in modern history.”
WATCH: Retired Border Patrol agent J.J. Carrell tells members of Congress that the "United States federal government is the world's largest child sex trafficking organization in modern history." pic.twitter.com/0gVOAqpSDV
Carrell served in the Border Patrol for 24 years, retiring as a deputy patrol agent in charge of the San Diego Sector before going on to author a book on the border crisis and film two documentaries on the topic.
“I state with complete certainty that [President Joe] Biden, [Vice President Kamala] Harris, and [Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro] Mayorkas intentionally, strategically and purposely weaponized illegal immigration and use it as a tool to fundamentally transform America,” Carrell said during the joint hearing by the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement and Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability, both subcommittees of the House Homeland Security Committee.
“Inside this invasion, the unspoken evil of child trafficking and more specifically, child sex trafficking has flourished,” he said.
Where Are the Missing Migrant Children?
In August, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported that it does not know the location or status of more than 300,000 migrant children. Between fiscal year 2019 and 2023, 32,000 illegal alien minors did not appear for their immigration court hearing, and an additional 291,000 were never given an immigration court date. According to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, 81% of unaccompanied alien children are between the ages of 13 and 18. The average age of a trafficking victim in the U.S. is between 12 and 15, according to Anti-Trafficking International.
Under current U.S. law, after being apprehended by Border Patrol or Customs and Border Protection, unaccompanied migrant children are released into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, which in turn releases the child to a sponsor in the U.S.
For a decade, HHS has demonstrated a “record of losing children to sponsors who abuse, exploit, traffic, and harm children in unthinkable ways,” Tara Rodas told members of Congress during her testimony at Tuesday’s hearing, which was titled “Trafficked, Exploited, and Missing: Migrant Children Victims of the Biden-Harris Administration.”
As a government employee, Rodas was recruited in 2021 to help HHS with the growing number of unaccompanied migrant children arriving at the southern border. She soon discovered that the department’s unaccompanied migrant child program was allowing for the exploitation of children.
The names of the sponsors who take the children from the Office of Refugee Resettlement are run through the National Crime Information Center before a child is released. A sponsor can be a distant relative or have no blood relation to the child at all, opening the door for human traffickers to prey on minors, which, according to Rodas, has and continues to happen regularly.
“Migrant children are working overnight shifts in slaughterhouses and factories, and some may die today because they don’t have the knowledge or skills to do the job that their supposed to be doing, but their doing it because they need to repay debts to their smugglers and traffickers,” she said.
🚨Tara Rodas, former deputy to the director of the Federal Case Management Team at HHS:
"Children, boys and girls, are being sold for sex. Just last month I spoke to a care provider in Florida who told me about cases of migrant children as young as 8 with sexually transmitted… pic.twitter.com/H9BbF3W6AT
Rodas accused the U.S. of operating a “white glove delivery system” that is responsible for handing migrant children over to “MS-13, 18th Street Gang, Russian Balkans crime syndicates, and other unsavory characters.”
WATCH: Tara Rodas, former deputy to the director of the Federal Case Management Team at HHS:
"I'm very unclear as to why we're luring children to the United States to be the white glove delivery system of these children to known MS-13, 18th Street Gang, Russian Balkans crime… pic.twitter.com/je9J0OXmny
In defense of HHS, Rodas pointed out that the department is “not an investigative or law enforcement agency. HHS simply does not have the knowledge, skills, ability, or the tradecraft to protect children from traffickers.”
Furthermore, child trafficking has become a highly sophisticated operation, according to Rodas, mirroring the “tactics and operations of terrorist organization.”
HHS Whistleblower Tara Rodas:
“HHS has a 10-year demonstrated record of losing children to sponsors who abuse, exploit, traffic, and harm children in unthinkable ways.” pic.twitter.com/GNn4C4q5N2
Solutions to end the exploitation of migrant children, according to Rodas, include DNA testing for sponsors who claim to be a relative of the child, and prison time for sponsors who cannot produce the child that was given into their care.
“Let’s mobilize the full power of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to dismantle these criminal networks,” Rodas said, recommending that child trafficking activity should be elevated on the National Intelligence Priorities Framework and be designated a terrorist activity.
“We cannot be a nation that looks the other way,” Rodas said. “We have a moral imperative to care for children that the government takes into custody, and the time to act is now.”
According to Gallup’s latest polling, support for a handgun ban has fallen to just 20 percent and support for an “assault weapons” ban has cratered to just 52 percent. Gun bans were a constant call from both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over the last four years. President Biden often combined the call with dubious factual, legal, and historical arguments.
I previously wrote about the failure of politicians to acknowledge the limits posed by the Second Amendment and controlling case law. While there are good-faith objections to how the Second Amendment has been interpreted, the current case law makes such bans very difficult to defend.
In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. Yet, the 2024 campaign showed a belated recognition that the Administration has failed to galvanize public opinion in support of gun limits and bans. Harris came under fire during the campaign when she suddenly seemed to embrace one of the very guns that she previously vilified as it became clear that she was too far left from much of the country.
Years ago, I wrote that the rise in gun ownership in the United States, including among minority gun owners, was strikingly out of sync with the Democratic talking point. In 2019, support for an assault weapons ban stood at 61%. It is now barely at a majority.
The drop in support for a handgun ban is notable in that only 33 percent of Democrats support such a ban. The rise in gun ownership and the drop in polling raise another issue where Democratic candidates seem to be speaking to an increasingly empty room. The gun ownership rates are a problem for the party because most political issues do not involve a large personal investment by citizens. When someone becomes a gun owner, they spend hundreds of dollars on the weapon, ammunition, and other costs. The ban campaigns become more of a personal and financial issue for them.
Harris’s attempt to appeal to gun owners fell flat after years of calling for limits and bans. The question is whether the party is ready to pivot on this and other issues — and whether it can give its political base. That 33 percent is the core voting bloc in primaries even as the rest of the country moves toward the center of the political spectrum.
I previously criticized the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) for selecting Todd Wolfson as its new president. Wolfson is a controversial voice within the teaching academy and immediately doubled down on the bias against conservatives and those calling for greater intellectual diversity. He is now decrying the election and publicly joining the resistance to the Trump Administration.
Some of us have been writing for years about the decline in viewpoint diversity and the rise of an academic orthodoxy in higher education. It is one of the focuses of my new book, The Indispensable Right. Wolfson personifies the intolerance for free speech and diversity of viewpoints that now characterize American higher education.
Despite calls for greater tolerance, AAUP elected Wolfson, a Rutgers University anthropologist, who was viewed as an ally for those who oppose intellectual diversity in favor of ideological orthodoxy in higher education.
Wolfson is the author of “Digital Rebellion: The Birth of the Cyber Left.” He was known to be openly hostile to those of us who have criticized the purging of faculty ranks of conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters.
Unlike others who try to maintain the pretense of neutrality and tolerance, Wolfson is viewed by some of us as a true believer who supports the activism and orthodoxy in higher education.
It took Wolfson little time to confirm our worst expectations. He issued a statement denouncing the Trump and GOP victories as “disappointing,” dismissing any possibility that he should speak for all academics, including the dwindling number of Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and independents who voted for the GOP.
Before the election, Inside Higher Ed reported that Wolfson called JD Vance a “fascist.”
“While the results of this presidential election are disappointing, we remain steadfast in our commitment to our principles and ensuring that future generations of Americans are afforded the opportunity that higher education provides.’
“…The AAUP is committed to defending our campuses and the mission of higher education through organizing our communities to face the challenges ahead. Our collective power is needed now more than ever.”
Wolfson declared, “[t]here are massive political intrusions coming on, coming at us around academic freedom. There’s no way to be a neutral arbiter. We must stand for things in this environment.”
Kelly Benjamin, media relations officer for AAUP, also confirmed to Campus Reform that “the growth of repressive forces in American society, much of which is visible on the campus itself, is a source of continuing and acute alarm to the American Association of University Professors…We call on the academic community to resist all public & private assaults against this principle.”
It is all part of what Wolfson promised would be a “fighting organization” pursuing such activism in higher education.
As my book discusses, the AAUP was once the bastion of free speech and academic integrity values. It opposed the invasion of politics into higher education. However, it has become captured by the same forces that have converted our campuses into intolerant spaces for many faculty and students.
Wolfson has been widely criticized for AAUP’s decision to reverse its long-standing opposition to academic boycotts, which is viewed as targeting Israeli institutions. This move is clearly part of his strategy to make AAUP even more of a “fighting organization,” and he has insisted that “collective action of all sorts does not necessarily come into and undermine academic freedom.”
Wolfson’s election shows how the objections of so many to the lack of intellectual diversity and tolerance are having little impact on faculty. When elected officials threaten reductions in support, these same academics are outraged by the attacks on higher education. Many offer perfunctory commitments to intellectual diversity while doing little to achieve it. As shown here, they are continuing to maintain and expand the culture that is suffocating our educational programs on every level.
For the seventh consecutive year, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has failed to pass its financial audit. Despite commanding a staggering $824 billion budget for 2024, the Pentagon continues to grapple with widespread disorganization and missing financial records, raising serious concerns about the accountability of taxpayer funds.
The DoD launched its first-ever agency-wide financial audit in 2017, an effort long delayed and much anticipated. However, since that initial attempt, the department has consistently fallen short, failing every audit since 2018. This year’s audit only underscores the ongoing issues within the Pentagon’s financial systems.
Of the 28 entities audited in 2024, only 9 received clean opinions, signifying that their financial statements were accurate and reliable. Meanwhile, 15 entities were issued disclaimers, meaning their financial records were so incomplete or disorganized that auditors couldn’t assess them properly. One entity received a qualified opinion, indicating mostly accurate statements but with some exceptions, while the opinions for three entities remain pending.
In the DoD’s official statement, the department claimed progress despite these failures:
“The Department is firmly committed and is taking actions to achieve an unmodified audit opinion on its financial statements by December 31, 2028, as mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024.”
This commitment is part of a broader push to overhaul financial practices within the Pentagon. However, given the recurring failures, many critics are questioning whether the department can meet its 2028 goal.
Pentagon Comptroller Michael McCord has pushed back against characterizing the audit as a failure, choosing instead to frame it as part of a long-term improvement process.
“Despite the disclaimer of opinion, which was expected, the Department has turned a corner in its understanding of the depth and breadth of its challenges,” McCord stated.
At a press briefing, McCord emphasized the progress being made:
“I do not say we failed. We have about half clean opinions. We have half that are not clean opinions. If someone had a report card that is half good and half not good, I don’t know that you call the student, or the report card a failure.”
McCord expressed optimism that a clean audit could be achieved by 2028, but he acknowledged the significant work still required to meet that target.
The stakes of these failed audits are immense. The Pentagon oversees vast sums of money, much of which funds military operations, weapons systems, and personnel. Yet, the inability to account for all expenditures raises concerns about potential waste, fraud, or abuse. Critics argue that the lack of transparency in the Pentagon’s financial operations undermines public trust and makes it difficult to assess whether taxpayer money is being spent effectively.
“It’s unacceptable that the DoD, with one of the largest budgets in the federal government, continues to fail its audits year after year,” said one government accountability advocate. “Without proper oversight, billions of dollars are essentially vanishing into a black hole.”
The Pentagon has pointed to some successes. For example, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) received an unmodified audit opinion this year, marking a notable achievement for the entity. Similarly, the U.S. Marine Corps earned a clean opinion for its fiscal year 2023 financial statements, demonstrating that progress is possible.
Still, these isolated victories are overshadowed by the broader failures. Auditors found discrepancies across multiple divisions, from procurement to logistics, highlighting systemic issues that hinder the department’s ability to maintain accurate financial records.
The DoD remains optimistic about achieving a clean audit within four years, but skepticism abounds. The 2028 goal, mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act, is ambitious, especially given the department’s track record.
In the meantime, lawmakers and watchdog groups are likely to increase pressure on the Pentagon to improve its financial accountability. As debates over federal spending and budget deficits intensify, the DoD’s inability to account for billions in taxpayer dollars will remain a focal point of criticism.
For now, the Pentagon’s audit failures serve as a stark reminder of the challenges in managing one of the world’s largest and most complex organizations. Whether the department can turn things around by 2028—or if it will continue its pattern of failure—remains to be seen.
President-elect Donald Trump is making waves with a bold decision to bypass the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for background checks on his administration’s nominees, instead relying on private investigators. This move comes as part of Trump’s long-standing contentious relationship with the FBI, which he has accused of being politicized and unfairly targeting him and his allies.
According to CNN, Trump’s transition team has opted to use private firms to conduct security clearance reviews and background checks on his appointees for key positions within his second administration. This approach marks a stark departure from tradition, as the FBI has typically handled such checks since the aftermath of World War II.
Trump’s decision to skip the FBI’s involvement in his nominees’ vetting process stems from several concerns. First, the FBI’s background checks are often time-consuming, delaying the transition process. For example, during Trump’s first term, the bureau took months to finalize background reviews, creating logistical headaches. Additionally, there are fears that the FBI could leak sensitive or potentially embarrassing information about Trump’s nominees to the media, possibly even to his political opponents. Such leaks could hurt his administration before it even begins. This concern about potential bias has grown in the wake of Trump’s complaints about a politicized FBI, especially under the leadership of FBI Director Christopher Wray.
There are also no laws mandating that the FBI conduct background checks on presidential appointees, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that the president has the constitutional right to grant security clearances. While Trump will have to wait until after he is inaugurated to issue those clearances, this means he can still proceed with appointing individuals and conducting preliminary reviews without relying on the FBI’s approval.
The Trump transition team’s decision to bypass the FBI was reinforced by an alarming whistleblower report that recently came to light. An FBI official in the bureau’s security clearance division, known as SecD, expressed concerns about the politicization of the vetting process. According to the whistleblower, SecD has been contaminated by political agendas, making it unreliable for handling security clearance investigations.
The whistleblower’s complaint outlined that under current FBI leadership, the bureau had refused clearances for individuals with conservative beliefs, including U.S. military veterans, those who refused to get COVID-19 vaccines, and employees who had attended Trump rallies. The whistleblower’s accusations paint a picture of an FBI that may be using its power to block appointees based on personal or political biases, leading to further mistrust in the agency’s neutrality.
In addition to the politicized nature of the FBI’s process, the whistleblower warned that personal data from background investigations could be improperly shared with political opponents, citing the FBI’s history of leaks and questionable practices under current leadership. The concern is that top officials, including Wray and Deputy Director Abbate, could exploit this sensitive information for political gain or share it with the White House to target individuals who oppose the administration.
For Trump, the solution is clear: by opting for private investigators, he sidesteps the potential bias and inefficiency of the FBI. Private investigators are typically faster, more discreet, and better equipped to handle the sensitive nature of political vetting. Trump’s team can work with firms they trust to get the job done without worrying about leaks or delays.
Additionally, the president has the authority to grant security clearances to his nominees directly once he assumes office. This means that, even without FBI reviews, he can still proceed with classified briefings and high-level appointments once he is sworn in. Trump has been outspoken about his intention to ensure that his administration operates without the interference of a politically motivated FBI.
While the move to bypass the FBI has drawn criticism, many see it as a necessary step to protect the integrity of the transition process and to ensure that only trusted individuals are appointed to critical positions in the government. Trump’s transition team is clearly motivated by concerns of partisanship and leaks that have plagued his administration in the past.
Trump’s decision also ties into his broader agenda of reforming the FBI, which he has long criticized as being too aligned with the political establishment. During his first term, Trump was vocal in calling for an overhaul of the agency, accusing it of bias and misconduct in its handling of investigations into his campaign and associates.
By bypassing the FBI for background checks, Trump signals that he plans to continue this reform effort in his second term, ensuring that the agency serves the interests of the American people without being used as a political tool.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
Jack Smith Resigns as Special Counsel Amid Controversy Over Trump Cases
| American Patriot
Read more at https://libertyonenews.com/jack-smith-resigns-as-special-counsel-amid-controversy-over-trump-cases/
Jack Smith, the controversial special counsel tasked with investigating former President Donald Trump’s attempts to challenge the 2020 election, has officially stepped down. His resignation comes just weeks before President-elect Trump is set to take office, sparking heated debates over the legitimacy of the cases brought against Trump and their broader implications for justice in America.
Conservative commentator Mark Levin, host of LevinTV, was quick to weigh in, calling Smith’s resignation both predictable and overdue. Levin minced no words in his criticism, declaring that Smith’s departure underscores the collapse of the legal efforts aimed at Trump. “You know why? It’s simple. He’s an unconstitutional prosecutor. Donald Trump’s going to fire his ass,” Levin said.
Levin argued that the cases against Trump were doomed from the start, pointing to internal Department of Justice (DOJ) memos and procedural violations. He highlighted the dismissal of one of Smith’s cases in Florida as a clear sign of their instability.
Levin accused the DOJ and Smith of pursuing Trump with the sole intent of derailing his political career. He claimed this approach not only violated DOJ policies but also undermined the integrity of the judicial system.
Smith’s cases focused primarily on Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, actions Levin described as entirely lawful and historically common.
Levin highlighted past instances where election challenges were not only permitted but celebrated by political leaders. He cited Al Gore’s legal battle in Florida during the 2000 presidential race and efforts in Minnesota that ultimately handed Al Franken a Senate seat.
Smith’s resignation has fueled speculation about its timing, particularly given Trump’s imminent return to power. Critics argue that Smith’s exit may be an attempt to avoid the embarrassment of being fired by the incoming administration or to shield himself from further scrutiny. Supporters of Trump see this as vindication of their belief that the legal cases against him were politically motivated and lacked substance. Levin emphasized that the abrupt nature of Smith’s departure only reinforces this narrative.
Smith’s resignation is part of a larger debate over the role of the justice system in political matters. Critics argue that targeting Trump for challenging the 2020 election has set a dangerous precedent, effectively criminalizing actions that were previously considered routine aspects of political contests. As Smith steps aside, attention shifts to how Trump’s incoming administration will handle the fallout. Levin and others are urging Trump’s attorney general to launch investigations into the motivations and conduct behind Smith’s cases, with some calling for accountability measures to restore public trust in the justice system.
For Trump, Smith’s resignation marks a significant victory, further energizing his supporters and reinforcing his narrative of political persecution. Yet it also raises questions about how his administration will navigate the legal and political challenges that remain.
The stage is set for a dramatic showdown as Trump prepares to re-enter the White House, with Smith’s resignation serving as a powerful symbol of the broader battles yet to come.
Share this:
Category:
corruption, Law, Political
Tagged with: