Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Political’ Category

Walzing Around Free Speech: How A Walz Interview Became a Dizzying Dance of Distraction

By: Jonathan Turley | October 15, 2024

Below is my column in the New York Post on the recent interview of Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz defending his record on free speech. The interview with Fox host Shannon Bream only magnified concerns over what I previously described as the most anti-free speech ticket in centuries.

Here is the column:

Roughly five centuries ago, a new dance first reported in Augsburg, Germany was promptly dubbed the “waltz” after the German term for “to roll or revolve.” Today, there is no nimbler performer of that dizzying dance than Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz.

Indeed, “Walzing” has become the Minnesota governor’s signature political two-step after his controversial statements on his allegedly socialist views, eliminating the electoral college and other topics. On Sunday, Walz’s dance partner was Fox News host Shannon Bream, who seemed to be fighting vertigo as the candidate tried to deflect his shocking prior statements on free speech.

Bream asked Walz about his prior declaration that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech”— a statement that runs counter to decades of Supreme Court decisions. Walz notably did not deny or retract his statement. Instead, his interview ironically became itself a flagrant example of misinformation.

First of all, misinformation and hate speech are not exceptions to the First Amendment: Whether it is the cross burnings of infamous figures like KKK leader Clarence Brandenburg or the Nazis who marched in Skokie, Ill., hate speech is protected. Yet both Harris and Walz are true believers in the righteousness of censorship for disinformation, misinformation and malinformation.

The Biden administration defines misinformation as “false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm” — meaning it would subject you to censorship even if you are not intending harm. It defines malinformation as “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” So, you can post “true facts,” but would still be subject to censorship if you are viewed as misleading others with your pesky truth-telling.

Furthermore, “book bans” are not equivalent to the Harris-Walz censorship policies. After years of supporting censorship and blacklisting, Democrats are attempting to deflect questions by claiming that the GOP is the greater threat.

“We’re seeing censorship coming in the form of book banning’s in different places,” Walz told Bream. “We’re seeing attempts in schools.”

First, a reality check: The Biden-Harris administration has helped fund and actively support the largest censorship system in our history, a system described by one federal court as “Orwellian.” These are actual and unrelenting efforts to target individuals and groups for opposing views on subjects ranging from gender identity to climate change to COVID to election fraud. While Walz and others rarely specifically reference the book bans in question, Florida is one state whose laws concern age limits on access to graphic or sexual material in schools.

School districts have always been given wide latitude in making such decisions on curriculum or library policies. Indeed, while rarely mentioned by the media, the left has demanded the banning or alteration of a number of classic books, including “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Of Mice and Men,” under diversity or equity rationales.

I have long opposed actual book bans perpetrated by both the left and the right. However, school districts have always made such access and curriculum decisions.

Finally, Walz and others often sell censorship by citing the dangers of child pornography or of threats made against individuals. Walz on Sunday followed Hillary Clinton’s recent pro-censorship campaign as he employed such misdirection.

“The issue on this was the hate speech and the protected hate speech — speech that’s aimed at creating violence, speech that’s aimed at threats to individuals,” he claimed. “That’s what we’re talking about in this.”

First, he’d said there is no protected hate speech. Second, the law already provides ample protections against threats toward individuals. What’s most striking is that, after years of unapologetically embracing censorship (often under the Orwellian term “content moderation”), the left does not seem to want to discuss it in this election.

Democrats in Congress opposed every major effort to investigate the role of the Biden administration in the social-media censorship system it constructed. Many denied any such connection. Elon Musk ended much of that debate with the release of the Twitter Files showing thousands of emails from the administration targeting individuals and groups with opposing views.

Now the public is being asked to vote for the most anti-free speech ticket in centuries — but neither Harris nor Walz want to talk about it in any detail. The result may be the largest bait-and-switch in history. Walz, Clinton and others also falsely claim they are simply trying to stop things like child pornography — which is already covered by existing criminal laws.

But what many on the left want is to regain what Clinton called their loss of “control” over what we are allowed to say or hear on social media.

Make no mistake about it: The “Walzing” of free speech is one dance you would be wise to decline. Otherwise, do not be surprised if, when the music stops, you find yourself without both your partner and your free speech.

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

Category:

Free Speech, Media, Political

Tagged with:

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

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Uncle Barack

A.F. Branco | on October 15, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-uncle-barack/

Obama Shames Black Men — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Barack Obama tries to shame black men back on the Democrat plantation, claiming that they’re not voting for Kamala because of their fear of women.

Black Men Respond to Obama’s Scolding, Double Down on Support for Donald Trump: ‘I Got a Dad, I Know Who He Is, And He Ain’t You’

By Ole Braatelien (the Western Journal) Oct 12, 2024

Former President Barack Obama’s attempt to shame “brothers” into voting for Vice President Kamala Harris hasn’t sat well with black men.
Obama was at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania Thursday, lecturing a group of blacks on their lack of turnout for Harris, particularly males.
“We have not yet seen the same kinds of energy and turnout in all corners of our neighborhoods and communities as we saw when I was running,” Obama said. “Now, I also want to say that that seems to be more pronounced with the brothers.” … (READ MORE)

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

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

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Do You Want to Hear a Testimony from a Black Man That Will Dispel the Left’s Lies?

October 15, 2024

The View host thinks black men who vote for Trump are “ridiculous” and “crazy”

His response is EXCELLENT!! Absolutely destroys her 🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/qC5zsjNQRH
— TONY™ (@TONYxTWO) October 14, 2024

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Exclusive: Maricopa Elections Chief Enlisted Foreign Censorship Group in War on Disapproved Speech

By: Logan Washburn | October 14, 2024

Stephen Richer speaking at an event. — Maricopa County Recorder Steven Richer

Author Logan Washburn profile

Logan Washburn

Maricopa County Recorder Steven Richer turned to the left-leaning States United Democracy Center and an overseas group bankrolled by the State Department to help his office target election speech that’s disapproved of by the government, according to emails obtained by The Federalist.

Richer thanked States United for offering to let his office “piggyback” on the group’s anti-speech operations, which he described as “deep scanning” the internet for “disinformation,” a term often invoked to censor speech the government disagrees with. States United is a left-wing election law group that consistently opposes Republican election integrity legislation like voter ID laws and supports Democrat attempts to diminish election security, according to InfluenceWatch. The group has praised the weaponization of the justice system against Trump, and was described by The New York Times as part of a “coalition” preparing to “push back” against a potential Trump victory with “extraordinary pre-emptive actions.”

According to email records, States United set up a call with Richer’s staff and the global censorship group, Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD). ISD is a London group that has been accused of wrongly labeling “mainstream views” as “misinformation” and subsequently censoring conservative opinions online, according to InfluenceWatch. The group was the recipient of a 2021 grant sponsored by the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which “fund[s] the development of censorship tools,” as The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland has reported. The ISD works with governments, leftist 501(c)(3) groups, and Big Tech companies as well as some of the left’s biggest financial backers.

Richer later suggested Arizona State University officials should fire Faculty Associate Aaron Ludwig for retweeting election concerns, apparently looping States United in on the process.

Briefings by Professional Censorship Gurus

“Thanks very much to States United for the kind offer to let us piggyback on some of the deep scanning you’re contracting for election threats and disinformation,” Richer emailed then-States United Senior Counsel Bo Dul on June 17, 2022. Richer indicated his office and “some … partners at the county” do some of this work already, but that he would “love to fill any holes” with the offer from States United.

A few minutes later, Dul told Richer that the States United senior adviser “leading our disinfo work,” Caroline Chambers, would be “circl[ing] up with our partners at ISD and your team to set up a call soon.” Before working for States United, Dul was the senior elections policy adviser and general counsel in the Arizona secretary of state’s office under Democrat Katie Hobbs. Now she’s again working as general counsel for Hobbs, who became governor of Arizona last year.

Chambers sent an email to Dul on June 21 and copied Richer, indicating she wanted to “set up a briefing.” On June 23, a States United staffer emailed Chambers, Dul, and other recipients a link to a Zoom meeting with the subject line “Maricopa County Recorder’s Office x SUDC x ISD Briefing.” The meeting was scheduled for June 28.

A “management analyst and special assistant to the Maricopa County Recorder” emailed staff on June 27, reminding them about the briefing the next morning.

The assistant pointed recipients to “background information on the Electoral Disinformation work the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) performs,” linking to an ISD webpage on “electoral disinformation.” The page boasts about ISD working with States United ahead of the 2022 midterms to “detect, analyze and escalate threats” like “election denialist activity,” and links to news clips of ISD representatives celebrating efforts to pressure Big Tech into censoring more speech.

The June 27, 2022, email from the “special assistant” indicated Richer was traveling at the time of the briefing and may or may not have attended the call but wanted his staff to “go ahead” and attend either way. Asked how long the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office has collaborated with States United and ISD and whether they are currently working with those groups, a representative from Richer’s office told The Federalist the recorder has “worked with numerous entities” over “the last several years.”

“We have received information from States United Democracy Center regarding election worker safety and, as we do with all new information, taken it into consideration,” the representative said, before listing ways the office has made itself “widely available to the public.”

Attempt to Cancel a Professor for Retweeting Election Post

Just the next month, Richer emailed Arizona State University officials to suggest they fire Criminology and Criminal Justice Faculty Associate Aaron Ludwig for his online speech. Richer was upset because Ludwig had retweeted election concerns.

“He is a regular purveyor of election disinformation and misinformation,” Richer wrote on July 31, linking to Ludwig’s account on Twitter (now X). “I ask that you assess if he is fit to be part of the ASU faculty.”

Richer claimed Ludwig was “promoting messages that encourage harassment of and violence toward” two Maricopa County Elections Department employees. The recorder included several screenshots of tweets Ludwig reposted, including one that accused the employees of improperly using a security badge and deleting election files and another that was critical of Richer himself.

“The allegations are, of course, errant nonsense that only imbecilic troglodytes could possibly believe after five minutes of research,” Richer spewed in the email, referencing the retweet.

An ASU dean, Cynthia Lietz, sent an email to Richer the same day with the subject line “RE: Aaron Ludwig.”

“Thank you for this important information, we will look into this,” she wrote.

Dul, the States United operative, also emailed Richer and his staff the next day with the subject line “Re: Aaron Ludwig.” The entire body of the email was redacted when released to The Federalist.

Months passed, but Richer wouldn’t let Ludwig’s speech go. He followed up with Lietz on Feb. 6, 2023, in the same email thread.

“Did anything ever come of this?” he asked.

“Yes, we did address this,” Lietz wrote in an email the next day.

Ludwig told The Federalist his supervisors never discussed the matter with him, but he first heard about the situation in April when acquaintances found the interchange in a public records request. He said he thinks Richer’s actions violate the First Amendment.

“The government should not be allowed, and I believe, is not allowed pursuant to the First Amendment, to censor free speech unless it is those few things that can” constitutionally be regulated, he said.

Ludwig was chief of the racketeering and asset forfeiture section at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office from 2011 to 2014, and a special prosecutor for the office until 2015, according to his LinkedIn.

“I led Arizona’s charge against organized crime and the southern border, the transnational criminal organizations including all the drug cartels,” he told The Federalist. “For somebody to attack my background and credentials and professionalism and integrity, and accuse me of being some filthy liar or anything is so offensive. It’s destructive to my reputation. I believe it’s defamatory per se.”

Called Free Speech a ‘Thorn in the Side of My Office’

Richer recently lost the Republican primary for county recorder. He initially campaigned on election integrity, but once in office, he used “his perch as an opportunity to regularly defend the Democrat-run 2020 election in Maricopa County, write op-eds at CNN against the type of election audits he conducted to gain power, draft lengthy screeds lambasting Republican leaders and voters for their election integrity concerns, and push ranked-choice voting and other efforts critics say are disastrous for voter confidence in elections,” as the Federalist’s Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway previously reported.

“The Constitution today is in some ways a thorn in the side of my office. Specifically the First Amendment,” the recorder allegedly wrote in a draft speech, according to Just the News. The outlet also obtained a document with instructions on “banning a user on social media,” which the county reportedly told Just the News was “a draft document of ideas that were brought up in a meeting but never implemented.” Richer has also worked with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — the federal government’s censorship “nerve center” — in his war on unapproved speech.

Richer, who has become a corporate media darling for criticizing the election integrity concerns of his former supporters, has also attracted the attention of Democrat megadonor Reid Hoffman. During Richer’s unsuccessful primary bid, Hoffman helped fund mailers backing the recorder, as The Federalist previously reported.

For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.

Logan Washburn is a staff writer covering election integrity. He graduated from Hillsdale College, served as Christopher Rufo’s editorial assistant, and has bylines in The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. Logan is originally from Central Oregon but now lives in rural Michigan.

Category:

censorship, Free Speech, Political

Tagged with:

Bill Clinton suggests Laken Riley would still be alive if border ‘properly’ secured, hitting Republicans

By Elizabeth Elkind Fox News | Published October 14, 2024, 1:54pm EDT

Former President Bill Clinton said in a speech Sunday that Georgia nursing student Laken Riley’s murder would not have happened if the alleged killer, an illegal immigrant, was properly vetted. While campaigning for Vice President Kamala Harris in the Peach State, Clinton accused her rival, former President Trump, of tanking negotiations over a bipartisan border compromise in Congress because he wanted it to be a campaign issue. He seemed to suggest that Riley’s death could have been avoided if Congress was able to pass a compromise – despite the alleged killer having already been vetted.

“She’s the only candidate who has actually endorsed a bill that would hold down immigration any given year to a certain point and then made sure we gave people a decent place to live, didn’t divide people from their children. And we did total vetting before people got in. Now, Trump killed the bill,” Clinton said.

“You had a case in Georgia not very long ago, didn’t you? They made an ad about it, a young woman who had been killed by an immigrant. Yeah, well, if they’d all been properly vetted that probably wouldn’t have happened.”

“And America isn’t having enough babies to keep our populations up, so we need immigrants that have been vetted to do work – there wouldn’t be a problem,” he added.

Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), meanwhile, previously publicly confirmed that people who are encountered trying to cross the border illegally are vetted and screened. The alleged killer was encountered by CBP on Sept. 8, 2022, after entering near El Paso, Texas, and was “paroled and released for further processing.,” Fox News Digital was previously told.

The bipartisan border deal also only failed earlier this year, years after the Venezuelan national accused of killing Riley entered the country, still under the Biden administration’s watch.

Clinton later praised the current administration’s handling of the border and illegal immigration during a campaign stop in Georgia on Monday.

“For the last three years, the Biden-Harris administration has done increasingly tough things, trying to control the border. And illegal crossings have gone down every year for three years. Our friends in the other party don’t want to talk about that,” Clinton said.

It is notable that the former president’s speech largely focused on the border in Georgia, a state President Biden won by less than 1% in 2020.

The issue of illegal crossings at the border has become a political lightening rod in this election cycle. Democrats in tight races – both for the presidency and congressional and local positions – are emphasizing their support for tougher border security measures as Americans across the country have seen their area infrastructures strained by a deluge of people seeking shelter in the U.S.

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a campaign event at East Carolina University, Sunday, Oct. 13, 2024, in Greenville, North Carolina. (AP Photo/David Yeazell)

However, Republicans have long criticized Democrats’ handling of border security, citing the record number of border crossings since Biden took office. They have continued to do so during the campaign by arguing Harris has failed to live up to her informal “border czar” title.

Despite several instances of high-profile use in the media, Clinton accused Republicans of bestowing the title on Harris – which he dismissed as inaccurate.

“They want to attack Kamala Harris and blame her for anything they managed to keep from happening. Like they claim she was the ‘border czar,’ that’s not what her jobs are,” Clinton said.

“Her job was to go down to these other countries that were sending us a lot of people and trying to get them, to enroll them in a legal process while they were still in the country so they wouldn’t be illegally trafficked, show up our border, had to be cared for on one side of it or another, and then we’d run the risk of having people get in here who weren’t properly vetted. That’s what she tried to do.”

Trump Coachella rally — Former President Bill Clinton also accused former President Trump of not actually wanting to fix the border.

He also accused former President Trump of working to derail the bipartisan border compromise that failed in the Senate, and which House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., deemed “dead on arrival” in the House.

“He said, ‘Oh my God, we can’t fix the border. What am I going to do for TV ads? Who am I going to demonize every day? I don’t get into politics to solve problems. I get in it to create problems and blame other people for doing,’” Clinton said.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Trump campaign for a response.

The former president is on a campaign swing through rural America on behalf of Harris’ 2024 bid.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

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

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

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Liberals are Losing their Minds over Elon Musk

By: Jonathan Turley | October 14, 2024

Below is my column in The Hill on the Musk mania now sweeping over the media with pundits and politicians unleashing unhinged attacks on the billionaire. In an Age of Rage, Musk is now eclipsing Donald Trump as Public Enemy No. 1. It began with his stance against censorship.

Here is the column:

This week, Elton John publicly renounced the Rocket Man — no, not the 1972 song, but Elon Musk, whom he called an “a**hole” in an awards ceremony. Sir Elton, 77, is only the latest among celebrities and pundits to denounce Musk for his support of former president Donald Trump and his opposition to censorship. Musk-mania is so overwhelming that some are calling for his arrest, deportation and debarment from federal contracts.

This week, the California Coastal Commission rejected a request from the Air Force for additional launches from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It is not because the military agency did not need the launches. It was not because the nation and the community would not benefit from them. Rather, it was reportedly because, according to one commissioner, Musk has “aggressively injected himself into the presidential race.” By a 6-4 vote, the California Coastal Commission rejected the military’s plan to let SpaceX launch up to 50 rockets per year from the base in Santa Barbara County.

Musk’s SpaceX is becoming a critical part of national security programs. It will even be launching a rescue mission for two astronauts stranded in space. The advances of SpaceX under Musk are legendary. The Air Force wanted to waive the requirement for separate permits for SpaceX in carrying out these critical missions.

To the disappointment of many, SpaceX is now valued at over $200 billion and just signed a new $1 billion contract with NASA. Yet neither the national security value nor the demands for SpaceX services appear to hold much interest for officials like Commissioner Gretchen Newsom (no relation to California’s governor, Gavin Newsom): “Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet.”

Newsom is the former political director for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 569. It did not seem to matter to her that increased launches meant more work for electrical workers and others. Rather, it’s all about politics.

Commission Chair Caryl Hart added “here we’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and he’s managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.”

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how Musk became persona non grata when he bought Twitter and announced that he was dismantling the company’s massive censorship apparatus. He then outraged many on the left by releasing the Twitter Files, showing the extensive coordination of the company with the government in a censorship system described by a federal court as “Orwellian.”

After the purchase, former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton called upon Europeans to force Musk to censor her fellow Americans under the notorious Digital Services Act. Clinton has even suggested the arrest of those responsible for views that she considers disinformation.

Silicon Valley investor Roger McNamee called for Musk’s arrest and said that, as a condition of getting government contracts, officials should “require him to moderate his speech in the interest of national security.”

Former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wants Musk arrested for simply refusing to censor other people.

Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann called for Musk to be deported and all federal contracts cancelled with this company. As with many in the “Save Democracy” movement, Olbermann was unconcerned with the denial of free speech or constitutional protections. “If we can’t do that by conventional means, President Biden, you have presidential immunity. Get Elon Musk the F out of our country and do it now.”

Of course, none of these figures are even slightly bothered about other business leaders with political opinions, so long as, like McNamee, they are supporting Harris or at least denouncing Trump. Musk has failed to yield to a movement infamous for cancel campaigns and coercion. The usual alliance of media, academia, government and corporate forces hit Musk, his companies and even advertisers on X.

Other corporate officials collapsed like a house of cards to demands for censorship — see, for example, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. Musk, in contrast, responded by courageously releasing the Twitter Files and exposing the largest censorship system in our history. That is why I describe Musk as arguably the single most important figure in this generation in defense of free speech. The intense hatred for Musk is due to the fact that he was the immovable object in the path of their formerly unstoppable force.

The left will now kill jobs, cancel national security programs and gut the Constitution in its unrelenting campaign to get Musk. His very existence undermines the power of the anti-free speech movement. In a culture of groupthink, Musk is viewed as a type of free-thought contagion that must be eliminated.

Their frustration became anger, which became rage. As Elton John put it in “Rocket Man,” he was supposed to be “burning out his fuse up here alone.”

Yet here he remains.

George Bernard Shaw once said “a reasonable man adjusts himself to the world. An unreasonable man expects the world to adjust itself to him. Therefore, all progress is made by unreasonable people.”

With all of his idiosyncrasies and eccentricities, Elon Musk just might be that brilliantly unreasonable person.

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

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

“No Kidding! No Joke!” Liberals Call on Biden to Commit Unconstitutional Acts in his Final Days

By: Jonathan Turley | October 14, 2024

With the end of the Biden Administration in sight, liberal pundits seem to be striving to prove that the only difference between a lawbreaker and a law-abiding citizen is the ability to get away with the crime. Popular figures on the left from Michael Moore to Keith Olbermann are calling on President Joe Biden to commit overtly unlawful acts in his final 100 days in office, including targeting his political opponents. In one of the few statements of Moore with which I agree, he stated that this is “no joke.” It certainly is not.

It is the same logic used by looters that they have a license for illegality. However, this constitutional looting would endanger not just the Constitution but the country as a whole if Biden were to heed this advice.

In a posting on Substack, Moore told Biden that it was time to yield to temptation and check off a liberal 13-item “bucket list” of demands, tossing aside questions of legality or constitutionality in the process.

“You’re not done. You’ve still got 100 days left in office! And the Supreme Court has just granted you superpowers — AND immunity! You don’t answer to anyone. For the first time in over 50 years, you don’t have to campaign for anything…“You have full immunity! No kidding! No joke! That’s not hyperbole! You can get away with anything! And what if anything means everything to the people?”

The list includes emptying death row, canceling all student and medical debt, halting weapons shipments to Israel, ending the death penalty, declaring the Equal Rights Amendment a constitutional amendment, and granting clemency to nonviolent drug offenders. Other pundits have pushed Biden and Democrats to take some of the actions on Moore’s list before the end of the administration.

Many of these items could only be fulfilled by knowingly gutting the Constitution and assuming the powers of a monarch. That includes just canceling all student and medical debt in defiance of both the courts and Congress.

As discussed in my most recent column, others have added to that bucket list. Take Olbermann who, while insisting that he is fighting to “save democracy,” has called upon Biden to target political opponents like Elon Musk with deportation: “If we can’t do that by conventional means, President Biden, you have presidential immunity. Get Elon Musk the F out of our country and do it now.”

These calls come in the midst of a counter-constitutional movement led by law professors. Moreover, the disregard for such legal authority has been voiced by liberal academics like Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe. Indeed, his past “just do it” approach was not dissimilar in advice to Biden.

For example, the Biden administration was found to have violated the Constitution in its imposition of a nationwide eviction moratorium through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Biden admitted that his White House counsel and most legal experts told him the move was unconstitutional. But he ignored their advice and went with that of Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe, the one person who would tell him what he wanted to hear. It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.

The false premise of the recent calls is that the Court removed all limits on the presidency in its recent ruling on presidential immunity. The fact that law professors are repeating this clearly erroneous claim is a measure of the triumph of rage over reason today.

As I have previously written, I am not someone who has favored expansive presidential powers. As a Madisonian scholar, I favor Congress in most disputes with presidents. However, I saw good-faith arguments on both sides of this case and the Court adopted a middle road on immunity — rejecting the extreme positions of both the Trump team and the lower court.

As I previously wrote, the Court followed a familiar approach:

The Court found that there was absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions.

The Court has often adopted tiered approaches in balancing the powers of the branches. For example, in his famous concurrence to Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), Justice Robert Jackson broke down the line of authority between Congress and the White House into three groups where the President is acting with express or implied authority from Congress; where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area); and where the President is acting in defiance of Congress.

The Court separated cases into actions taken in core areas of executive authority, official actions taken outside those core areas, and unofficial actions. Actions deemed personal or unofficial are not protected under this ruling. It is certainly true that the case affords considerable immunity, including for conversations with subordinates. However, as Chief Justice John Roberts lays out in the majority opinion, there has long been robust protections afforded to presidents.

There are also a host of checks and balances on executive authority in our constitutional system. This includes judicial intervention to prevent violations of the law as well as impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. What is interesting is not just what is stated but implied. Courts would quickly enjoin such efforts, but figures like Moore suggest that it would not matter. If so, Biden would not only flagrantly violate the Constitution, but then defy the authority of the federal courts. That includes unilaterally declaring an unratified amendment as ratified based on a meritless claim by the far left.

So, President Biden would violate the Constitution, refuse to yield to the courts, and pursue his “bucket list” of priorities without any legal restraints. All would be done in defense of democracy. It shows how the line between tyranny and democracy can be lost in an age of rage.

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

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

No, the Alien Enemies Act is Not a Viable Legal Basis for “Operation Aurora”

By: Jonathan Turley | October 14, 2024

In announcing his “Operation Aurora,” former President Donald Trump has suggested that he may use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to crackdown on “every illegal migrant criminal network operating on American soil.” The plan to begin mass deportations is certainly popular with the public, according to polling. However, without a declaration of war, he will likely have to look to alternative statutory vehicles for a peacetime operation. There are novel arguments that could be made in federal court, but they run against the presumed meaning of critical terms under the law. The odds do not favor the government in the likely challenges.

This is not the first time that the Trump campaign has invoked the AEA. Last year, the campaign cited the law as giving it the power to “remove all known or suspected gang Members, drug dealers, or Cartel Members from the U.S.”

The AEA has only been used three times and each time we were in a declared war: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. It is a law that became infamous in its use to put Japanese, German, and Italian civilians in internment camps during World War II.

In DeLacey v. United States in 1918, the Ninth Circuit wrote that:

The first reported case arising under the [AEA] is [by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in] Lockington’s Case [in 1814] … Lockington … had refused to comply with the executive order of February 23, 1813, requiring alien enemies who were within 40 miles of tidewater to retire to such places beyond that distance from tidewater as should be designated by the marshals. He was arrested, and on petition for habeas corpus attempted to test the legality of his imprisonment. Chief Justice Tilghman said of the [AEA]:

“It is a provision for the public safety, which may require that the alien should not be removed, but kept in the country under proper restraints. … It is never to be forgotten that the main object of the law is to provide for the safety of the country from enemies who are suffered to remain within it. In order to effect this safety, it might be necessary to act on sudden emergencies. … The President, being best acquainted with the danger to be apprehended, is best able to judge of the emergency which might render such measures necessary. Accordingly, we find that the powers vested in him are expressed in the most comprehensive terms.”

The law’s sweeping language makes it ripe for abuse. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Brackenridge in Lockington’s Case (1814) observed that under the AEA “the President would seem to be constituted, as to this description of persons, with the power of a Roman dictator or consul, in extraordinary cases, when the Republic was in danger, that it sustains no damage: ne quid detrimenti respublica capiat.”

However, the AEA’s only limiting language is found in the triggering language for those powers:

“Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event…”

In Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote a supportive decision of the presidential authority under the AEA on when the powers expired, but not when the powers begin:

“And so, we reach the claim that, while the President had summary power under the Act, it did not survive cessation of actual hostilities. This claim in effect nullifies the power to deport alien enemies, for such deportations are hardly practicable during the pendency of what is colloquially known as the shooting war. Nor does law lag behind common sense. War does not cease with a cease-fire order, and power to be exercised by the President such as that conferred by the Act of 1798 is a process which begins when war is declared but is not exhausted when the shooting stops.” (emphasis added).

This broad granting of authority under the AEA is obviously a great attraction for presidents who have rarely hesitated to use the maximal levels of their powers. However, the threshold requirement of a declared war has proven the limiting element, and it is telling that the law has been used only three times by presidents.

It can be used for limits that fall short of deportation or internment. For example, President Woodrow Wilson barred alien enemies during World War I from possessing firearms and explosives, coming within a half a mile of a military facility or munitions factory, residing in certain areas, possessing certain communications equipment, and publishing certain types of materials.

Trump can argue that governments such as Venezuela are using the open border to flood the nation with migrants, including those released from their prisons. That does offer a possible avenue under the claim that a formal declaration, but it would also require a broad reading of the term “invasion” or “incursion.” The problem is that the clear thrust of the law was a conventional war. The question is whether federal courts are willing to adopt a very broad interpretation of such terms despite the presumed legislative intent behind the law at the time of its passage.

The greatest hope for a new Trump Administration would be to argue that the use of the law is a “political question” and thus inappropriate for judicial review. That is often a powerful argument that leads to deference of the courts to the political branches.

Yet, even Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court’s opinion recognizing the doctrine, reserved the possible use of judicial review to address “an obvious mistake” or “manifestly unauthorized exercise of power.” Courts have declined to use that reservation but there are strong arguments that this is a matter of statutory interpretation and not a matter left to the political discretion of the legislative or executive branches.

Politicians often speak of national emergencies as “wars” but there remains a difference between the colloquial and the legal. A war on illegal immigration is not the same as a war on the Axis powers. The former can be declared in a campaign while the latter requires a declaration of Congress.

None of this means that a president would not have the authority for mass deportations or that Congress could not pass additional such authority. The massive influx of millions of undocumented persons is now a national crisis with growing national security, economic, and social costs for the nation. The numbers are certainly analogous to an “invasion” for cities and states grappling with the wave of migrants. However, the AEA in my view is a poor vehicle for such a program.

Accordingly, I remain skeptical that such a massive program would survive judicial review. Any effort to do so would face an emergency demand for a preliminary injunction. As a threshold legal question, it could move fairly quickly through the courts, and we could have an answer to a question that has lingered for over two centuries.

Category:

Crime, Law, Political

Tagged with:

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

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Governor Knucklehead

A.F. Branco | on October 13, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-governor-knucklehead/

Walz Wants to Abolish the Electoral Colleg — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Governor Walz calls for eliminating the Electoral College, thinking it would improve their ticket’s chances of winning. He likes his odds if only the heavily populated states of New York and California are deciding our elections.

Tim Walz says Electoral College ‘needs to go’ during fundraiser with Gavin Newsom

By Nick Pope – Oct 9, 2024 – Alpha News

(Daily Caller News Foundation) — Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz said that the Electoral College “needs to go” during a Tuesday fundraiser, Politico reported.
Walz made the comment while addressing the crowd at the event, which also featured Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, after reportedly making similar comments at a previous fundraising function in Seattle, according to Politico. Some Democrats have railed against the Electoral College system because it can allow a candidate who loses the national popular vote to still win the presidency, which happened when former President Donald Trump defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race. (READ MORE)

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Final Showdown

A.F. Branco | on October 14, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-final-showdown/

The Debate Is Over — A Political Cartoon by A. F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – In a sound of desperation, Kamala is begging for another 3 on 1 debate using one of her friendly news outlets to bash Trump. But, given the last 3+ years and Trump’s successful 4 years, the Debate is over.

“THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!” – President Trump Announces No More Showdowns With Comrade Kamala Harris and Claims Victory

By Cullen Linebarger – The Gateway Pundit – 9/12/24

The September 10th showdown between Kamala Harris and President Trump will be the only one of the cycle.
Trump went on Truth Social this afternoon and revealed that he will not go through with another debate with Kamala Harris, saying Harris just wants a do-over because polls show she lost the first one decisively.
He then went on to blast Harris’s garbage governing record and said she should focus on her actual ‘job’ which she has refused to do for 3 1/2 years.
As The Gateway Pundit readers probably know, the Harris campaign called for a rematch immediately following Tuesday’s debate in Philadelphia. (READ MORE)

Category:

HUMOR, Political

Tagged with:

Items of Interest You Might Have Missed

October 12, 2024

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1844961730306208203

BREAKING: Christian teacher Enoch Burke has been sent back to prison in Ireland after he refused to use a student’s preferred pronouns (they/them).

Burke has already spent 442 days in jail for opposing transgender ideology.

The Woke Mind Virus is destroying the West. pic.twitter.com/2LQgUJZKot
— Cillian (@CilComLFC) October 11, 2024

AMERICA. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE DNC WANTS HERE. THEY MUST BE STOPPED!

A voter asks Kamala Harris about how she got nominated without earning a single vote, and pushing Biden aside so close the election. pic.twitter.com/2ae6nKeoW2
— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) October 11, 2024

BREAKING:

NY States Appeals Court, appellate court, overturned Leticia James $450 million fraud case agains Donald J Trump. Leaving the AG Defense team begging in their closing statements NOT to be sanctioned pic.twitter.com/BW5TtvYoAb
— Mila Joy (@MilaLovesJoe) October 11, 2024

🚨#BREAKING: Dozens of people are actively looting and breaking into a cargo train ⁰⁰📌#Chicago | #illinois⁰⁰At this time, an estimated 50 to 150 people or more are actively looting and breaking into a cargo train on the west side of Chicago, Illinois. Police have been… pic.twitter.com/SwDIOnSE90
— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) October 11, 2024

https://twitter.com/TONYxTWO/status/1844827697194651804

https://twitter.com/w_terrence/status/1844919953952014414

https://twitter.com/HustleBitch_/status/1844820519561912741

https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/1844852071620550746

https://twitter.com/RealSeq16/status/1844525418529034750

https://twitter.com/thecjpearson/status/1844730429623996512

It would be a shame if Barry saw this pic.twitter.com/6NexM7RDoz
— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) October 11, 2024

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1844426831564505456

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1842814508772839754

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Summing Up This Weeks Politically INCORRECT Cartoons and Memes

October 11, 2024

Category:

HUMOR, Opinion, Political

Tagged with:

Data: U.S. Hospitals Transitioned Nearly 6,000 Kids From 2019-2023

By: Ashley Bateman | October 11, 2024

Ashley Bateman

New data shows U.S. hospitals performed at least 5,747 gender-disfiguring surgeries on minors between 2019 and 2023, according to a database released by Do No Harm, an advocacy group of medical professionals. The data also show 13,994 American children received other transgender treatments, such as puberty-blocking and opposite-sex hormones, in those four years.

Most of the children receiving such procedures were girls between the ages of 12 and 17, the database indicates. Medical practitioners made more than $119 million from the procedures, the data says.

This week, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) kicked out of its vendor hall four young Americans who returned to affirming their given sex after experiencing transgender medicine. A similar group of “desisters” met a warm welcome last month in Orlando, Florida, at the Catholic Medical Association’s Annual Educational Conference. That medical conference hosted 750 medical practitioners from around the nation and featured a panel of detransitioned young adults.

At the CMA event, seven young adults who were permanently injured by sex-transition procedures publicly explained the harm these treatments cause. These young adults were given a voice at a U.S. annual medical conference for the first time, to inform and educate health practitioners about the irreparable harm caused by “gender medicine.”

“CMA’s decision to invite detransitioners to speak at this year’s conference signals a deepening in the divisions in the medical community about how to best address gender distress in young people,” a CMA press release notes. “It also shows the commitment by CMA leaders to recognize and provide care to those harmed by these common practices.”

Particularly in American “gender medicine,” negative and harmful effects have been ignored, and at times suppressed, by some major medical organizations, said Tim Millea, MD, the chairman of CMA’s Conscience Rights Protection Task Force. He said this contradicts the long-held scientific tradition of allowing “ideas to be discussed and debated in an open, honest and transparent manner.”

‘Medicine’s Ability to Harm Is Nearly Limitless’

Pediatrician Patrick Hunter, a Florida Board of Medicine member, organized the panel. He said he was aiming to “bring to light to the harm that is being done, and to improve the overall care for trans-identified youth.”

“No one should want what is happening to these youth and young adults,” Hunter said. “The fact that harm and regret is happening should not be tolerated by our profession. The lack of concern and the unwillingness to acknowledge it should concern everyone in the medical profession.”

One detransitioner, Prisha Mosley, told CMA attendees she was manipulated by activists and therapists into accepting testosterone injections and a double mastectomy as a minor.

“It is important for doctors to learn how to stop the damage and to try and heal what’s been done. It is wrong for the very profession who hurt detransitioners to also routinely turn us away,” she said in the CMA’s press release about the event. “I’m grateful for any medical professional who is willing to listen.”

Hunter said he has heard from nearly 100 youth who regret their transitions and found the panelists’ stories “very painful.” “Medicine’s ability to harm is nearly limitless, while the ability to cure does have limitations,” Hunter said.

“This is why the principle of ‘First, do not harm’ is sound and universally accepted,” he said. “It acknowledges our need for humility, our need to know where our limits lie, and when we should and should not act.”

Refusing to Acknowledge Detransitioners

Hunter said he proposed the panel to multiple medical organizations, encouraging more groups to hear detransitioners speak. Both the AAP and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) rejected the proposal, he said, matching the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) stance of ignoring detransitioners. WPATH’s leadership has said that recognizing these patients is “considered off limits for many in our community.”

“Patients are being harmed by sex transition. That cannot be disputed,” Hunter said. “Medical evidence fails to show that patients will reliably benefit. If the medical profession will not recognize and learn from those that are being harmed, we are failing as professionals, but more importantly we are failing the patients that are being harmed. The medical profession has lost its way.”

The Stop the Harm Database highlights a “dirty dozen” of the U.S. hospitals that perform the most sex-disfigurement surgeries on minors. They are:

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Connecticut Children’s Medical Center
Children’s Minnesota
Seattle Children’s
Children’s Hospital Los Angeles
Boston Children’s Hospital
Rady Children’s Hospital
Children’s National Medical Center
UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland
Children’s Hospital Colorado
UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center

The database also lists the employers of the U.S. doctors who billed the most for performing child mutilation surgeries from 2019 to 2023. The top-billing doctor for child sex surgeries in that timeframe worked at Boston Children’s hospital and charged more than $5 million for the procedures.

“California, one of the first states to declare itself a ‘sanctuary state’ for transgender procedures, also had the most irreversible surgeries, with 1,359 minors undergoing surgical procedures, followed by Oregon with 357, Washington with 330, Pennsylvania with 316 and Massachusetts with 300,” Fox News reported on the Do No Harm data.

Warring Medical Organizations

Many European countries have curtailed or halted gender medicine interventions in approximately the last year, based on experience and research demonstrating its serious damage to children. Yet most American medical organizations have remained staunch advocates, dismissing well-documented risks and complications associated with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and transgender surgeries.

The United Kingdom’s release of the Cass Review in April and leaked WPATH files indicating that organization pushes medicine without informed consent sent clear messages about transgender medicine that American medical organizations such as the AMA and the AAP have largely dismissed or ignored. They are ignoring “objective and evidence-based data,” Millea said.

Still, some U.S. medical organizations do oppose gender mutilation, including the American College of Pediatricians, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, American College of Family Medicine, and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. The “Doctors Protecting Children Declaration,” published by ACPEDS, represents thousands of health care workers who want such practices ended.

“A number of cases have been and will continue to be filed in courts around the country, challenging the federal and state mandates for transgender interventions and the freedom of medical professionals to challenge these methods and refuse to participate in them,” Millea said.

The CMA will support court cases to halt this harm in medicine, joining other organizations’ challenges in the form of amicus briefs, and if necessary, serving as plaintiffs, Millea said.

Last month, state attorneys general sent a letter to the AAP president demanding the AAP defend its support of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions for minors with gender dysphoria. The attorney generals requested a thorough explanation of this non-evidence-based policy by October 8.

“I heard from many attendees that the panel discussion was the most important thing they heard all week, and maybe at any conference,” Hunter said. “The medical profession cannot remain silent any longer. We must take action and speak out. We must seek regulation of the profession so that evidence-based, ethical, and effective care is provided for trans-identified youth. We must return medicine to its roots where we care for the individual, and not use the patient to make money, or forward social or political agendas.”

Ashley Bateman is a policy writer for The Heartland Institute and blogger for Ascension Press. Her work has been featured in The Washington Times, The Daily Caller, The New York Post, The American Thinker and numerous other publications. She previously worked as an adjunct scholar for The Lexington Institute and as editor, writer and photographer for The Warner Weekly, a publication for the American military community in Bamberg, Germany. Ashley is a board member at a Catholic homeschool cooperative in Virginia. She homeschools her four incredible children along with her brilliant engineer/scientist husband.

Category:

Family, Health, LGBTQ+ AND TRANSGENDER, Political

Tagged with:

Vice President Kamala Harris Did Nothing To ‘Earn’ The Democrat Nomination

By: Jordan Boyd | October 11, 2024

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris’ official portraits

Author Jordan Boyd profile

Jordan Boyd

Visit on Twitter@jordanboydtx

Vice President Kamala Harris confidently declared during her Univision town hall on Thursday night that she deserved the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee title she currently holds. The allegedly undecided voters who watched the Democrat and corporate media collusion to coup President Joe Biden out of power and replace him with Harris, however, aren’t so sure. One voter in the crowd at the Las Vegas event specifically asked the candidate to soothe his concerns that former President Joe Biden “was pushed aside” during Democrats’ 2024 presidential nomination process.

“I am honored to have earned the Democratic nomination. I am honored to have the endorsement of people from every walk of life,” Harris said, before commencing a rant about how former President Donald Trump would “terminate the Constitution of the United States.”

A voter tells Kamala he has big concerns about her shoving Biden aside and taking his place as the nominee without earning a single vote.

She rambles incoherently about COVID tests, but doesn't answer the question. pic.twitter.com/sdO3FQ0wml
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 11, 2024

Contrary to her claims, Harris did nothing to “earn” her spot as Trump’s opponent in the race for the White House. Instead, she played a large role in the Democrats’ and the corporate media’s successful attempt to coup the flailing Biden out of future office.

Despite mounting pressure to hand the 2024 election reins to someone else, Biden pledged he was “staying in the race.” Days later, however, a letter posted to the president’s X account claimed he would suddenly not seek re-election. Instead, Biden announced the VP chosen based on her sex and skin color would take over the Democrat ticket that millions of primary voters and 3,896 delegates had already dedicated to him.

Even before the 2024 election, Harris failed to curry favor with Americans. In 2019, the then-senator’s unpopularity forced her to drop out of the Democrat presidential primary before raking in a single vote.

When Biden was successfully couped out of the 2024 race, Harris was quickly handed a list of high-profile endorsements, something she made sure to mention in her town hall answer. But not even a good word from the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, former President Barack Obama, or NeverTrump Republicans can change Americans’ concerns that the VP and her Democrat allies altered the course of the 2024 election against voters’ wills.

Harris recently admitted during her “60 Minutes” sit down that “no one should be able to take for granted that they can just declare themselves a candidate and automatically receive support.”

“You have to earn it,” she explained.

KAMALA: “No one should be able to take for granted that they can just declare themselves a candidate and automatically receive support. You have to earn it.”

pic.twitter.com/iv0sWdx4F1
— Clown World ™ 🤡 (@ClownWorld_) October 8, 2024

The only thing Harris has truly “earned” over the last four years, however, is the ire of the people and country she so clearly hates.

It wasn’t long into her tenure that Harris was awarded the worst vice presidential rating in the history of modern polling. That honor was followed by months of abysmal job approval numbers that routinely ranked her worse at fulfilling her White House duties than the crises-plagued president.

The government thinks people are stupid & can’t research for themselves. Well this woman 👇did! She went to the Federal Register and checked out Executive Orders that Presidents have signed, as well as those they revoked.

She was under the impression that many of the EOs by… pic.twitter.com/KlwBF8m3MN
— Sequencer (@RealSeq16) October 10, 2024

Nearly every time she opens her mouth, Harris lies to the people she claims she wants to represent. When she’s not spouting falsehoods that she knows her allies in the corporate media will refuse to fact-check, the VP is insulting voters everywhere by playing politics during devastating natural disasters and attempting to distance herself from the crises she helped create.

This young lady says a white liberal told her the MAGA crowd will never accept her

This is awesome. She says she left the plantation and if you don't like it, kick rocks

Can she get a like from the MAGA movement

pic.twitter.com/J2Vk4UgzPL
— @Chicago1Ray 🇺🇸 (@Chicago1Ray) October 1, 2024

Just as the voter who questioned the circumstances surrounding Harris’ nomination suspected, the VP did nothing to “earn” his or any other Americans’ trust or vote. Instead, she’s done everything — including pledging to throw her political opponents in prison and trying to nuke the filibuster — to subdue those Americans’ voices and voting power.

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.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Dems Fret Harris Ceding Too Many Male Voters to Trump

By Mark Swanson | Friday, 11 October 2024 05:01 PM EDT

Democrats are sounding the alarm that presidential nominee Kamala Harris is trailing Republican Donald Trump among the male vote – across the racial spectrum – by a lot with weeks to go before the election, with one donor asserting that “men are gone,” The Hill reported Friday.

My name is CJ Pearson. I’m 22 years old. And in 25 days, I’ll be joining millions of other young black men and voting for Donald J. Trump!

And we don’t give a damn about what Barack Obama has to say about it. pic.twitter.com/tKzupKL0N1
— CJ Pearson (@thecjpearson) October 11, 2024

Recent polls show Harris trailing Trump by double digits in some battleground polls, while a New York Times/Siena poll found her trailing by 11 points nationally. In battleground Arizona, Harris trails Trump by 12 points among Hispanic males in the 18-34 age group and by 20 points among Hispanic males 35-49. Another poll showed Harris’ support among Black voters in Pennsylvania is lower than what President Joe Biden received when he won the state in 2020, and that’s being driven by Black men.

“I don’t think people understand what a big problem we have on our hands with men,” one Democrat strategist told The Hill. “Black men, Hispanic men, men in general.”

It would be a shame if Barry saw this pic.twitter.com/6NexM7RDoz
— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) October 11, 2024

Given that Trump defeated Hillary Clinton among men by 11 points in 2016, some Democrats are pointing to misogyny, with one telling The Hill that “not everyone is ready to vote for a qualified woman to be president of the United States.”

Republicans say that’s a cheap excuse – male voters remember how Harris ran on a progressive, identity-driven platform in 2020.

“[T]hat approach just doesn’t have much appeal to a broader range of men voters,” Republican strategist Kevin Madden told The Hill. “Thinking you can solve that now by just saying, ‘I own a Glock,’ makes that effort even more difficult.”

Hurricane survivor torches Biden and Harris for their lack of response. pic.twitter.com/1iEuu1s6LQ
— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) October 2, 2024

To combat Harris’ icy draw with male voters, her campaign is sending running mate and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to talk football and hunting in battleground Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin this weekend, The Hill reported. That comes after former President Barack Obama lectured Black men in Pennsylvania about their hesitation voting for Harris.

“Part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that,” he said in Pittsburgh on Thursday.

But one Democrat donor said it’s too little, too late for Harris in 2024.

“Men are gone, at least for this cycle.”

Mark Swanson ✉

Mark Swanson, a Newsmax writer and editor, has nearly three decades of experience covering news, culture and politics.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Adversarial Process or Oppo Research? Judge Agrees to Release More Trump Material Before the Election

By: Jonathan Turley | October 11, 2024

It appears that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and Special Counsel Jack Smith are not done yet in releasing material in advance of the election. In a previous column, I criticized the release of Smith’s 180-page brief before the election as procedurally irregular and politically biased, a criticism shared by CNN’s senior legal analyst and other law professors. Nevertheless, on Thursday, Judge Chutkan agreed to a request from Smith to unseal exhibits and evidence in advance of the election. The brief clearly contains damning allegations, including witness accounts, for Trump. The objection to the release of the brief was not a defense of any actions taken on January 6th by the former president or others, but rather an objection to what even the court admitted was an “irregular” process.

As discussed earlier, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial. Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.

To avoid allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states “Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”

Even if one argues that this provision is not directly controlling or purely discretionary, the spirit of the policy is to avoid precisely the appearance in this case: the effort to manipulate or influence an election through court filings.

With no trial date for 2025, there is no reason why Smith or Chutkan would adopt such an irregular process. The court could have slightly delayed these filings until after the approaching election or it could have sealed the filings.

If there is one time where a court should err on the side of avoiding an “irregular” process, it is before a national election. What may look like simply an adversarial process to some looks like oppo research to others. Delaying the release would have avoided any appearance of such bias.

For Smith, the election has long been the focus of his filings and demands for an expedited process. Smith knows that this election is developing into the largest jury verdict in history. Many citizens, even those who do not like Trump, want to see an end to the weaponization of the legal system, including Smith’s D.C. prosecution. Trump has to lose the election for Smith to be guaranteed a trial in the case.

Chutkan has given the Trump team just seven days to oppose her order. That would still allow the material to make it into the public (and be immediately employed by the media and Harris campaign) just days before the election. The move will only increase criticism that this looks like a docket in the pocket of the DNC.

It is telling that, once again, the timing just works out to the way that is most politically impactful. Many are left with a Ned Flanders moment of “well, if that don’t put the “dink” in co-inky-dink.”

Category:

Crime, Law, Media, Political

Tagged with:

The Federalist’s 2024 Battleground State Elections Guide

By: The Federalist Staff | October 10, 2024

The Federalist Staff

With Election Day less than a month away, election processes and early voting are kicking into gear in several swing states around the country. With different election laws and court rulings governing election administration in each state, it can be tough to keep up with the myriad guidelines and rules governing the electoral process. That’s why The Federalist’s 2024 Battleground State Elections Guide is here to help.

From ballot return deadlines to mail-in voting rules, here are all the key dates and information you’ll need to understand the election process in swing states throughout the country this cycle.

Arizona

In-Person Early Voting: Began on Oct. 9 and ends on Nov. 1.

Mail-In Voting: Ballots began to be mailed out Oct. 9.

Ballot Return Deadlines: Mail-in ballots must be returned by 7 p.m. local time on Election Day to be counted. These ballots can be returned via mail or delivered in person. Polling locations for in-person voting on Election Day also close at 7 p.m. local time.

Ballot Harvesting: Arizona law stipulates that only a “family member, household member or caregiver of the voter” may return the elector’s mail-in ballot.

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: All absentee voters are required to sign the affidavit on the ballot envelope in order for their vote to be tabulated. The envelope signature must match the signature on the voter’s registration form.

Voter ID: Arizona requires in-person voters to present one type of acceptable photo ID or two types of non-photo ID.

Citizenship Requirements: The U.S. Supreme Court recently allowed part of a state law to go into effect that requires eligible electors to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote via state registration form. Arizonans may still register as federal-only voters with no proof of citizenship. The Arizona Constitution further specifies only U.S. citizens can vote in elections.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: Arizona law permits a “curing” period, in which local officials are authorized to contact voters to correct signature issues on their mail ballots. Any issue must be corrected “not later than the fifth business day after a primary, general or special election that includes a federal office or the third business day after any other election.”

Major Ballot Initiatives: Arizona’s ballot is expected to be stacked with roughly a dozen ballot initiatives this November. Among the most notable are constitutional amendments to effectively legalize late-term abortion (Proposition 139), raise the threshold for citizen-initiated ballot measures (Proposition 134), give the state legislature power to limit the governor’s emergency powers (Proposition 135), and prohibit open primary elections (Proposition 133).

Also set to appear on the ballot is a constitutional amendment that would institute open primaries and allow for the adoption of ranked-choice voting for general elections (Proposition 140). Despite the discovery that roughly 38,000 pairs of signatures gathered in support of the measure were duplicates, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that votes cast for the measure may count.

For more information on the full list of Arizona ballot measures, see here.

Biggest Election Fights: In September, Arizona election officials discovered roughly 98,000 registered voters lacking documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) due to an error stemming from how the state’s Motor Vehicle Division shares driver’s license information with the voter registration system. As noted above, individuals who do not provide DPOC may still register as “federal-only” voters and can only cast ballots in federal races.

According to the secretary of state’s office, most of the affected voters are registered Republicans. The Arizona Supreme Court granted these electors the ability to vote full-ballot this November.

The secretary of state’s office revealed on Sept. 30 that election officials found an additional 120,000 voters affected by the issue who lack DPOC.

Georgia

In-Person Early Voting: Begins on Oct. 15 and ends on Nov. 1.

Mail-In Voting: Absentee ballots were sent to UOCAVA voters on Sept. 17. Registrars began sending out absentee ballots for the general public on Oct. 7. The last day to request a mail-in ballot is Oct. 25.

Ballot Return Deadlines: Absentee ballots (excluding UOCAVA ballots) must be returned by 7 p.m. local time on Election Day to be counted. These ballots can be returned in person, through the mail, or at a drop box location. Polling locations for in-person voting on Election Day also close at 7 p.m. local time.

Ballot Harvesting: Georgia does not permit ballot harvesting, but only allows certain family members or a household member to return a voter’s ballot. (A caretaker may also return a disabled voter’s ballot.)

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: Absentee ballot envelopes contain an “oath which must be signed by the voter.” Georgia also “requires the voter’s driver’s license number or state identification card number, which is compared with the voter’s registration record,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. If a voter is unable to sign his ballot, Georgia “law requires the voter make a mark,” according to Carroll County’s election website. Ballots lacking a signature or mark are rejected, according to Carroll County.

Voter ID: “Georgia law requires photo identification when voting, either in person or absentee,” according to the secretary of state’s website. Acceptable forms of identification include any state or federal government-issued photo ID (including a driver’s license or a valid passport), a student ID from a Georgia public college or university, or a military or tribal photo ID.

Citizenship Requirements: Since 2010, Georgians registering to vote have been required to provide evidence of their U.S. citizenship, including a driver’s license or driver’s license number as long as the registrant has previously provided proof of citizenship to the Department of Driver Services. For those who don’t possess any of the accepted citizenship documents, Georgia law tasks the State Election Board with establishing “other documents or methods” for proving a person’s citizenship. However, it appears certain voters may be able to evade some of the safeguards in place.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: Georgia law permits a “curing” period, in which local officials are authorized to contact voters to correct signature issues on their absentee ballots. The “last day for voters to cure timely submitted absentee ballots if they failed to sign the oath or information mismatch” is Nov. 8.

Major Ballot Initiatives: Georgia will have three initiatives on the November ballot. One would create a Georgia Tax Court “with judicial power and statewide jurisdiction,” the second would provide “for a local option homestead property tax exemption,” and the third “exempts property that is valued at less than $20,000 from the personal property tax,” according to Ballotpedia.

Biggest Election Fights: The conservative-led State Election Board has clashed with Democrats and Georgia’s Republican-led secretary of state’s office recently, especially on the topic of whether election officials should be forced to rubber-stamp election results even if they have concerns about the election’s administration.

Republican officials like Fulton County election board member Julie Adams argue they should be able to investigate concerns about the administration of an election before certifying the results, rather than rubber-stamping results they believe are legally dubious.

Democrats are also waging a series of legal challenges against the State Election Board, which has passed a series of rules aimed at ensuring the number of ballots cast matches the number of voters who voted, among other election integrity measures.

Michigan

Voter Registration: Michiganders can register to vote at any time up to 8 p.m. on Election Day. They can register to vote online, by mail, or in person at the local clerk’s office.

In-Person Early Voting: The Michigan Department of State tells voters early voting will be available “for a minimum of nine consecutive days, ending on the Sunday before an election.” So early voting will start Oct. 26 at the latest, but communities can start the process earlier, allowing it to run for as many as 29 days.

Mail-In Voting: Absentee ballots are available beginning 40 days ahead of every election. Voters can request a ballot from the local clerk, and can opt-in to receive absentee ballots ahead of every federal, state, and local election. After Michigan voters approved no-excuse absentee voting in 2018, Proposal 2, which passed in 2022, further instituted mail-in voting practices and myriad other election policies supported by the left.

Ballot Return Deadlines: Voters must return absentee ballots to the local clerk’s office by 8 p.m. on Election Day to be counted, but overseas voters simply need their ballots to be postmarked by Election Day and received by clerks within six days after the election.

Ballot Harvesting: Michigan law allows an immediate family member or “individual residing in your household” to return a voter’s ballot. A voter may also request the clerk who issued a ballot help return it.

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: Absentee voters must sign the envelope with a signature matching their state ID or voter registration application.

Voter ID: The state requires in-person voters to show a photo ID or sign an affidavit claiming they don’t have one. Acceptable documents include a current student ID or government ID such as (but not limited to) a U.S. passport or state driver’s license. Michigan does not require a copy of an ID to vote by mail.

Citizenship Requirements: It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, and voter registration forms and ballot applications require a person to attest that he is a citizen, but Michigan does not require documentary proof of citizenship from would-be voters.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: If a signature does not match that in the local clerk’s records, Michigan law requires clerks to contact the voter to “cure” the signature and solve the issue. According to the secretary of state’s office, voters may cure their signatures until 5 p.m. the third day after the election.

Major Ballot Initiatives: Michigan will have no statewide ballot measures in November.

Biggest Election Fights: Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson fought to keep third-party candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the ballot and remove independent Cornel West from the ballot, both of which actions would likely help Vice President Kamala Harris’ chances.

The Republican National Committee has filed multiple lawsuits against Benson for her guidance to clerks on handling ballots and her alleged failure to clean the state’s voter rolls. The Public Interest Legal Foundation has also sued Benson for an alleged lack of voter roll maintenance.

Nevada

Voter Registration: The deadline to register online is Oct. 23. Mailed voter registration forms had to be postmarked by Oct. 8.

Nevada also offers same-day registration, in which eligible electors may register and vote in person during the early voting period or on Election Day. Those who choose this option must present a valid Nevada driver’s license or Nevada ID card. Voters will receive their ballots to vote after the registration process is completed.

In-Person Early Voting: Begins on Oct. 19 and ends on Nov. 1.

Mail-In Voting: Every registrant listed as “active” on Nevada’s voter rolls is automatically mailed a ballot every election. Voters can request to opt out of this mailing list.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Nevada law does not specify when election officials may start sending mail-in ballots to voters. State law does, however, require these officials to send electors their ballots “not later than the 14 days before the election.”

Ballot Return Deadlines: All ballots that are dropped off in person must be submitted by 7 p.m. local time on Election Day. According to the Nevada secretary of state’s office, “Mail-in ballots that are postmarked on or before the day of the election AND received by the 4th day after election day by 5 p.m., will be accepted as received and processed according to Nevada State law.”

Ballot Harvesting: Nevada law permits any “person authorized by the voter [to] return the mail ballot on behalf of the voter by mail or personal delivery to the county clerk, or any ballot drop box established in the county.”

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: All electors voting via mail must sign the ballot envelope for it to be counted. The envelope signature must match the signature on the voter’s registration form.

Voter ID: Nevada does not require a person to show ID to vote. As summarized by Ballotpedia, state law requires a Nevada in-person voter to “sign his or her name in the election board register at his or her polling place.” That signature is then “compared with the signature on the voter’s original application to vote or another form of identification, such as a driver’s license, a state identification card, military identification, or another government-issued ID.”

Citizenship Requirements: Nevada law requires all eligible residents to be U.S. citizens to vote, although the state constitution does not explicitly stipulate only U.S. citizens can vote. The state does not require documentary proof of citizenship from people voting or registering to vote.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: Nevada law permits a “curing” period, in which local officials are required to contact voters to allow them to correct signature issues on their mail-in ballots or otherwise confirm the signature affixed to the ballot belonged to them. The voter “must provide a signature or a confirmation, as applicable, not later than 5 p.m. on the sixth day following the election” for the ballot to be counted.

Major Ballot Initiatives: There will be seven measures appearing on Nevada’s 2024 ballot, six of which are constitutional amendment proposals. Among the most notable are initiatives instituting ranked-choice voting (Question 3), effectively legalizing late-term abortion (Question 6), and requiring electors to present a valid form of ID in order to vote (Question 7).

Biggest Election Fights: The top issue raising concerns among election integrity activists in the state is the accuracy of Nevada’s voter rolls. Organizations such as the Public Interest Legal Foundation have documented what appear to be alarming inaccuracies within the voter registration lists, such as finding some registrants’ addresses listed at bars and casinos. Efforts by the Citizen Outreach Foundation to file citizen-led challenges to have these allegedly ineligible registrants removed have been met with resistance by Democrat Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, whose office recently issued a memo instructing local officials to stop processing the group’s challenges.

North Carolina

Voter Registration: The standard deadline to register to vote is 5 p.m., Oct. 11. However, North Carolinians can register to vote after the Oct. 11 deadline in person at early voting locations.

In-Person Early Voting: Begins Oct. 17 and ends at 3 p.m. on Nov. 2.

Mail-In Voting: Any registered voter in North Carolina can vote by mail for any reason. Voters must request the ballot using an absentee ballot request form, either online or with a paper form. This year, voters must request absentee ballots by Oct. 29 at 5 p.m.

Ballot Return Deadlines: Ballots must be returned by Election Day, Nov. 5 at 7:30 p.m. (with exceptions for UOCAVA voters).

Ballot Harvesting: North Carolina law permits a near relative or legal guardian to return a voter’s absentee ballot. It is otherwise a class I felony for anyone to deliver a ballot to a voter or return it for them.

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: Voters must sign their absentee ballot envelope.

Absentee ballots must be filled out in the presence of two adult witnesses who are not disqualified by other state statutes. Those two persons must print and sign their names on the application and certificate, as well as provide their addresses. Voters can also fulfill the requirement with the seal and signature of one notary public.

Voter ID: A photo ID is generally required to vote in North Carolina, but the address on the ID “does not have to match the voter registration records.”

If an in-person voter does not have a voter ID, he will be asked to either complete an ID exception form and vote provisionally, or vote provisionally and return to his county elections office with a valid ID “by the day before [the] county canvass.” North Carolinians voting by mail are required to provide a copy of a photo ID when returning their ballot, but they can also fill out an exception form. Counties are required to count provisional ballots as long as the ID exception forms are “properly completed.”

Exceptions for not showing an ID are expansive, and range from a disability to “work or school schedule” to a religious objection to being photographed. (Being the victim of a declared natural disaster occurring withing 100 days of Election Day also qualifies a voter for an ID exception.) Mail-in voters who are somehow unable to attach a copy of their ID must include either their driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

North Carolina does not require photo ID for voters covered under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

Citizenship Requirements: North Carolina law requires U.S. citizenship to register to vote. However, citizenship documents are not required to register.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: North Carolina allows for ballot curing in certain circumstances, including if the voter “did not sign the voter certification,” “signed the application in the wrong place,” or failed to include a copy of a photo ID with an absentee ballot.

Major Ballot Initiatives: North Carolina only has one ballot initiative certified to appear on the ballot this November. The Citizenship Requirement for Voting Amendment was referred to voters by the state legislature and would amend the state constitution to provide that only eligible U.S. citizens can vote in the state. The amendment would prohibit local governments from allowing noncitizens to vote.

Biggest Election Fights: The RNC has filed several lawsuits against the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

The western part of the state was also significantly damaged by Hurricane Helene, which will make it more difficult to vote in the deep-red region of the state, though state officials are in the process of implementing emergency election procedures.

Pennsylvania

Voter Registration: The deadline to register to vote in Pennsylvania is Oct. 21. The state implemented automatic voter registration in September 2023 through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Since then, anyone who gets a driver’s license and is eligible to vote is automatically registered unless they intentionally opted out of voter registration. Pennsylvanians may also register online, by mail, or in person at their county election office.

In-Person Early Voting: Pennsylvania treats early voting and mail-in voting the same. Voters can go to their county election office, receive a mail-in ballot, vote, and submit this ballot “all in the same visit.” In-person voting starts as soon as counties start mailing out ballots, but that date is different for each county. Voters may check online with the Pennsylvania Department of State to see when their counties’ ballots are ready.

Mail-In Voting: The deadline for requesting a mail-in ballot is Oct. 29. Any registered voter may request a mail-in ballot.

Ballot Return Deadlines: The county must receive a completed ballot by 8 p.m. on Election Day, Nov. 5. Counties will not accept ballots with a postmark of Nov. 5 at 8 p.m.; the ballot must be in hand by then.

Ballot Harvesting: Voters must return their own ballots, although there are some exceptions for voters with a disability to designate someone, in writing, to deliver their ballot. Former Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf created a stir in 2021 when he casually admitted in a radio interview that his wife violated this rule, by dropping off his ballot for him. It is not allowed in Pennsylvania, even between spouses.

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: Voters mail ballots in a two-envelope system. The inner, secrecy envelope is not marked, but the outer, mailing envelope must be signed and dated.

Voter ID: Voters must provide a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number when registering to vote, as required by federal law. Identification is also required the first time a voter casts a vote in a precinct where they will sign a voter roll book, though the ID does not have to include a photo (voters can use a utility bill or bank statement as long as it includes their name and address). After that, no identification is required as long as the voter continues in the same precinct because they sign the book each election. If a Pennsylvania voter moves to a new precinct, he will need to show identification again.

Voters who qualify for a ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) or the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act do not need to show ID.

Citizenship Requirements: You must be a U.S. citizen and a resident of Pennsylvania at least 30 days before the next election to register to vote.

Military voters, and those who are registered in Pennsylvania but out of the country, may register to vote through UOCAVA. They may participate in federal and local elections. Pennsylvania also allows voters who once lived in the state but now live overseas and have no intention of returning to vote as “federal” UOCAVA voters. These voters may vote in federal-level elections such as president, vice president, U.S. senator, and congressional representative. They cannot vote in Pennsylvania’s local elections.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: Some counties give voters notice and opportunity to “cure” mistakes, and some do not. State law tells counties not to count improperly marked ballots, but the Pennsylvania Department of State has issued guidance telling counties to flag ballots in need of curing so voters will receive an automatic notice informing voters they can cure their ballots. This has become a point of controversy.

Biggest Election Fights: Mail-in ballot curing has been under dispute, and in the courts for several years, and in multiple cases. Should counties toss out improperly marked ballots as the election code directs? Or does Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt have the authority to override the law and issue guidance to mail-in voters offering them a second chance to mark their outer envelope properly? Counties have been choosing to either follow the law or the guidance, giving voters different responses to the same problem, depending on where they live.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania challenged Schmidt and Pennsylvania’s 67 county boards of elections over this matter. The RNC believes voters should be held to the law as written by the elected General Assembly, which does have the authority to change the law, and so far, hasn’t. Last week, the state supreme court declined to rule on the issue before Election Day.

Wisconsin

Voter Registration: Wisconsin offers same-day voter registration, so eligible Wisconsinites can register to vote in person on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024 (Election Day). The deadline to register to vote by mail or online is Oct. 16.

In-Person Early Voting: Counties can offer early voting from Oct. 22 until Nov. 3, although the dates and office hours “vary by municipality.”

Mail-In Voting: Absentee ballots begin being mailed out 47 days before November’s general election.

Ballot Return Deadlines: All absentee ballots must be delivered no later than 8 p.m. local time on Election Day. The ballots may be returned via mail or hand-delivered to the polling place or clerk’s election office.

Ballot Harvesting: Wisconsin law implies that only the voter shall mail the ballot or deliver it in person to the municipal clerk’s office that issued the ballot.

Mail-In Ballot Signature Requirements: All absentee voters must sign and seal the ballot certificate envelope. A witness also is required to sign the envelope and include his address. Ballots that fail to include the required information are rejected.

Voter ID: Wisconsin requires in-person voters to show the “original copy of their photo ID” to vote.

Citizenship Requirements: Wisconsin’s constitution states that “Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state” is eligible to vote. “Citizenship is documented through a U.S. birth certificate or a Certificate of Naturalization, but proof of citizenship is not required to vote,” notes the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Post-Election Day Ballot Curing: This has been an on-again, off-again issue in the Badger State for several years. In February, the Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 5-1 on guidance advising clerks to accept ballots with incomplete ballot witness addresses following a Dane County Court ruling on the curing question. A Waukesha County judge in 2022 had ruled that clerks completing or fixing missing information on absentee ballot envelopes on behalf of the voter violated state law. Concerns over improperly “fixed” ballot envelopes were at issue in the 2020 election, and a subject of unsuccessful Trump campaign lawsuits challenging the results of the election in Wisconsin. A federal judge earlier this year tossed out a lawsuit by Democrat Party fixer Marc Elias’ lawfare group seeking to block Wisconsin election law requiring a witness to sign a voter’s absentee ballot.

Major Ballot Initiatives: Wisconsin voters will decide whether to amend Wisconsin’s constitution to provide that “only” U.S. citizens 18 or older may vote in national, state or local elections. Currently the constitution states that “every” U.S. citizen 18 or older may vote. Citizen Only Voting Amendment advocates argue the existing language leaves a loophole that would allow Wisconsin municipalities and the state to open elections to noncitizens, as has been done in other states and the District of Columbia.

Biggest Election Fights: Wisconsin’s four-year battle over the widespread use of absentee ballot drop boxes was decided by a new liberal-led court, just in time for the 2024 general election. In a 4-3 ruling in July, the court endorsed the return of absentee ballot drop boxes, opening the door to the same kind of election shenanigans that plagued the Badger State in 2020. The decision overturned the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling by the conservative majority in 2022 banning the widespread use of the drop boxes.

For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

‘Out of money’: Whistleblowers allege lack of Secret Service funds, delayed payments, top senator reveals

By Julia Johnson Fox News | Published October 10, 2024, 4:28pm EDT

New whistleblower records allege a failure of the Secret Service to provide funding for Homeland Security “jump teams” and their travel to support security efforts on the campaign trail ahead of the November election. One email sent on Sept. 26 read, “Subject: Jump Team ‐ Out of Money,” according to a record obtained by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and his oversight team.

The Department of Homeland Security’s investigation unit jump team provides “a mechanism to build the connections between mission support and the front-line,” according to the DHS website.

Ronald Rowe, Alejandros Mayorkas — Acting Director of Secret Service Ronald Rowe, left, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (Reuters)

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), an agency within DHS, is charged with addressing global threats.

“Jump Team members are responsible for helping to solve immediate issues, guide how funding is allocated, and to assist in developing solutions to deliver support most effectively to our front-line,” the DHS website added.

In the wake of two separate assassination attempts against former President Trump, who is currently campaigning to be president again, jump teams have been deployed to assist the U.S. Secret Service.

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/10/2024-10-09_secret_service_resources_-_records.pdf

However, the documents provided to Grassley’s office via legally protected whistleblower disclosures show that fears of unpreparedness and mismanagement in the DHS and Secret Service could still be true, despite efforts to ramp up security.

“Please do not submit or resubmit Jump Team authorizations. There is only $33 on the line right now,” DHS officials told HSI agents on Sept. 9, per Grassley. The senator’s office pointed to this email as an example of just how low the funds had fallen.

On Sept. 26, agents were informed, “We will not receive more money for Jump Team this year.” The email instructed agents not to use the usual methods of expensing items, laying out a process of what to do instead.

“If by some miracle money is added, you will be notified immediately,” the email continued.

“The Secret Service has a critical, no-fail protective mission to carry out. Based on protected whistleblower disclosures, it neglected to transfer enough funds for HSI to reimburse its agents, calling into question the agency’s ability to manage federal resources and raising major concerns,” Grassley said in a statement. “Congress and the American people have witnessed too many Secret Service shortfalls in recent months – they deserve answers, and it’s Congress’ job to bring transparency and accountability.”

Chuck Grassley, Ronald Rowe — Sen. Chuck Grassley and acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe (Reuters)

In the Sept. 26 email from a DHS official, they revealed that “we had over $371,000 worth of Jump Team Authorizations Fail last night.”

According to Grassley’s office and the documents it has obtained, agents have been required to pay for expenses the agency can’t cover. The senator noted that this would be in violation of the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits agencies from obligating or spending federal funds before they are appropriated.

Reimbursements to agents are also apparently being delayed, and employees are left with uncertainty about their pay.

In a Wednesday letter to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas; acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe; Patrick Lechleitner, the deputy director and senior official performing the duties of the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Katrina Berger, HSI executive associate director, Grassley described that “HSI agents are deployed, usually on very short notice, across the country on Jump Teams from as short as a few days for as long as multiple weeks, several times throughout the year.”

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/10/grassley_to_dhs_usss_ice_hsi_-_secret_service_resources.pdf

“The whistleblower disclosures further show that in some cases HSI agents have had to pay for their own travel expenses such as flights, food, rental cars, and hotels, and other incidentals, because HSI has delayed reimbursing agents for costs due to the Secret Service failing to transfer funds to HSI.”

“If you have an explanation to add context to these emails, I welcome it,” he told the leaders.

Grassley requested additional information from the department and agencies, including documentation about the finances of HSI and its jump teams.

Neither the Secret Service nor Homeland Security immediately provided comment to Fox News Digital.

Julia Johnson is a politics writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business, leading coverage of the U.S. Senate. She was previously a politics reporter at the Washington Examiner.

Follow Julia’s reporting on X at @JuliaaJohnson_ and send tips to Julia.Johnson@fox.com.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Walz silent on support for eliminating Electoral College after Harris camp says it doesn’t back ban

By Alec Schemmel Fox News | Published October 10, 2024, 1:41pm EDT

Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, remained silent Thursday on whether he still supports eliminating the Electoral College, after the Harris campaign insisted his position did not reflect that of the campaign’s.

“I think all of us know, the Electoral College needs to go. We need a national popular vote,” Walz said Tuesday during a campaign fundraiser at the home of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Walz made similar comments at an earlier fundraiser in Seattle, as well.

While running for president in 2019, Harris said she was “open” to the idea of abolishing the Electoral College. However, according to campaign officials pressed on the issue following Walz’s remarks, eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote is not an official position of Harris’ current campaign.

Fox News Digital reached out to representatives for Walz repeatedly to inquire whether he still supports replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote, particularly after his campaign came out against it. A response was never received, but the Harris-Walz campaign did release a statement to certain news outlets suggesting Walz’s remarks were intended to express support for the Electoral College process.

electoral college map — U.S. Electoral College map shows number of electoral votes by state. (Encyclopaedia Britannica/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

“Governor Walz believes that every vote matters in the Electoral College and he is honored to be traveling the country and battleground states working to earn support for the Harris-Walz ticket,” a Harris campaign spokesperson said in a statement sent to select media outlets like CNN and USA Today. “He was commenting to a crowd of strong supporters about how the campaign is built to win 270 electoral votes. And he was thanking them for their support that is helping fund those efforts.”

Debate over whether a national popular vote should replace the Electoral College surged in 2016 when Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote, cementing his victory despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. “I think it needs to be eliminated,” Clinton told CNN after her 2016 loss to Trump. “I’d like to see us move beyond it, yes.” Clinton made similar calls earlier in her career as well.

Just last month, Democratic Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin suggested there could be deadly consequences for Americans if the Electoral College was not done away with. Raskin said a national popular vote was a far better option than the current “convoluted, antique, obsolete system from the 18th century, which these days can get you killed as nearly it did on Jan. 6, 2021.”

Jamie Raskin speaks at an event — Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., criticized the Electoral College as an outdated relic from America’s past. (C-Span)

The Electoral College has been something that both Republicans and Democrats have tried to do away with in the past, but contemporary calls for its abolition surged among Democrats after Clinton’s loss. The process was established by the nation’s Founding Fathers, seen as a compromise between the election of president by vote in Congress and election by a popular vote of qualified citizens. Electoral College votes, of which 270 are needed for any presidential candidate to win, are allocated based on the Census. The process effectively allows voters in states with lower populations to have a similar impact on the election as those voters living in higher population densities. The Electoral College is also thought to be a protective measure against super thin margins and excessive recounts.

In May 2023, as governor, Walz signed a broad ranging election bill that included a provision to allocate the state’s electors based on who receives the most votes nationwide, even if it doesn’t match the outcome in their state. The measure, known as the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” has been supported by 17 states and the District of Columbia, but will only take effect after all the states that have signed on have a total electoral vote count of 270. Right now, those supporting the reform only have 209, according to CBS News.

Trump and Harris — Former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. (Fox News )

Polling from the Pew Research Center released last month showed a majority of Americans favor moving away from the Electoral College. Since 2016, the sentiment has steadily increased, and, according to Pew, more than 6 in 10 Americans today prefer the national popular vote over the Electoral College.

Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project Action, a nonprofit that advocates in favor of retaining the Electoral College, argued Walz “said the quiet part out loud” when he insisted the Electoral College should be eliminated.

“Democrat leaders don’t think they should have to campaign in places like Michigan and North Carolina, they want California and New York to decide every election,” Snead argued. “There is a pattern here. Democrats claim to love democracy, then set their sights on any institution that stands between them and political power: the Supreme Court, the Senate filibuster, and the Electoral College.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Colorado Supreme Court Dismisses Another Lawsuit Against Masterpiece Cakeshop

By: Jonathan Turley | October 10, 2024

In prior columns, academic articles, and my book, “The Indispensable Right, I discuss the never-ending litigation targeting Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who declined to make cakes that violated his religious beliefs. Phillips continues to be the subject of continuing lawsuits despite the Supreme Court upholding his right to decline to make expressive products for ceremonies or celebrations that he finds immoral. Now the Colorado Supreme Court has dismissed an action brought by a transgender lawyer against the cake shop and its owner.

Phillips has been the target of an unrelenting litigation campaign for over a decade.

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Phillips to make a cake for their same-sex marriage. As a devout Christian, Phillips declined. He would sell any pre-made cakes to customers, but said that he could not morally make a cake for same-sex marriages.

That refusal turned Phillips’ tiny bakery into ground zero for the long-standing battle between religious rights and anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that Phillips must make the cakes under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in what many of us hoped would be a final resolution of this conflict. I had long criticized the framing of the case (and other cases) under the religious clauses as opposed to taking this as a matter of free speech. In the end, the Supreme Court punted in a maddening 2018 decision that technically ruled in favor of Phillips based on a finding that the Commission showed anti-religious bias against Phillips.

As a result, Phillips was thrown back into an endless grind of litigation as activists targeted his bakery for additional challenges by demanding cakes with other messages that Phillips found offensive.

In 2023, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech in 303 Creative v. Elenis when it ruled that Lorie Smith, a Christian website designer, could refuse service to a same-sex marriage. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote “the framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to protect the ‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.’ … They did so because they saw the freedom of speech ‘both as an end and as a means.’”

The decision was not just a vindication for Smith but Phillips. However, Phillips continued to languish in the Colorado system, spending over a decade in non-stop challenges and lawsuits. Because the Supreme Court could not reach a clear resolution, it left Phillips to the continued pursuit of activists targeting his bakery.

The latest dispute began when Autumn Scardina spoke to the wife of Phillips and requested a pink cake with blue frosting to celebrate her gender transition. When the shop declined, Scardina filed an anti-discrimination claim with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (“the Division”) under section 24-34-306, C.R.S. (2024).

In her complaint, Scardina suggested that this was not a targeting of the famous cake shop but merely an effort to get a birthday cake.

In the complaint, Scardina wrote: “Ms. Scardina repeatedly heard Defendants’ advertisements that they were “happy” to sell birthday cakes to LGBT individuals. Hopeful that these claims were true, on June 26, 2017, Ms. Scardina called Masterpiece Cakeshop from Denver to order a birthday cake for her upcoming birthday.”

The shop said that they could make such a cake. However, “Ms. Scardina then informed Masterpiece Cakeshop that the requested design had personal significance for her because it reflects her status as a transgender female.” When the shop noted that it did not make cakes for gender transitions, Scardina insisted that it was for her birthday.

Having established the basis for the lawsuit, she then filed an administrative action. Eventually, however, she jumped from the administrative process into the courts. That would prove the procedural problem for the Colorado Supreme Court.

Scardina prevailed in the lower courts but the case was dismissed by the Colorado Supreme Court on technical grounds.

Justice Melissa Hart wrote in the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority opinion that

“The underlying constitutional question this case raises has become the focus of intense public debate: How should governments balance the rights of transgender individuals to be free from discrimination in places of public accommodation with the rights of religious business owners when they are operating in the public market? We cannot answer that question.”

The most notable aspect of this opinion is that, after a decade, Phillips is still being dragged through the courts despite the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized his free speech right to decline such contracts.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has defended Phillips and Jake Warner, ADF senior counsel, stated “Enough is enough. Jack has been dragged through courts for over a decade. It’s time to leave him alone.”

It is doubtful that activists will heed that request.

Here is the opinion: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina

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

Category:

Law, LGBTQ+ AND TRANSGENDER, Political, Society

Tagged with:

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

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Chutzpah

A.F. Branco | on October 10, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-chutzpah/

Pro Palestinian Anti-Israel Democrats — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Democrats and their media, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc., keep trying to frame Trump as antisemitic when he’s been behind Israel and their effort to defend themselves. Most of the hate against Israel and the Jews has been coming from the left and the Democrats.

By Ben Kew – The Gateway Pundit – Sept 27, 2024

Kamala Harris’s husband Doug Emhoff has suggested that Donald Trump is an anti-semite and that is deliberately putting a target on the back of Jewish Americans.
In an interview with MSNBC’s Jen Psaki, Emhoff said that although Donald Trump has said he will fight antisemitism if elected in November, he is in fact an antisemite himself and will do the exact opposite.
Here is a transcript of the exchange: (READ MORE)

Category:

HUMOR, Political

Tagged with:

In Calling for Axing the Electoral College, Tim Walz Tells Swing State Voters to Get Lost

By: Shawn Fleetwood | October 09, 2024

As if supporting the chemical and surgical mutilation of children, murder of unborn babies until birth, and censorship of speech he dislikes wasn’t radical enough, Kamala Harris’ running mate Tim Walz is now backing another extreme Democrat policy: abolishing the Electoral College.

Speaking at a campaign fundraiser in Democrat-run California on Tuesday, the Minnesota governor endorsed getting rid of the system used to elect American presidents since the republic was created.

“All of us know the Electoral College needs to go. We need, we need national popular vote, but that’s not the world we live in,” Walz reportedly said before listing competitive areas in toss-up states he clearly would rather not campaign in.

It didn’t take long for the Harris-Walz campaign to tell their buddies at anti-truth CNN that this is just another time the governor “misspoke.” An anonymous campaign staffer claimed, the outlet says, that “Walz’s call for eliminating the Electoral College is not an official campaign position.”

OK, so who is running this campaign? The actual Democrat candidates whose names are on the 2024 ballot, or the unnamed staffers who keep claiming without evidence that neither of their top candidates backs the radical policies both have publicly endorsed.

While Walz is certainly known for lying his way through politics, one thing neither he nor Harris have been shy about is their support for the most extreme positions adopted by today’s Democrat Party. That brings us back to leftists’ war against the Electoral College. Walz is not alone in wishing to eliminate this presidential election system that protects minority rights and prevents the United States from becoming a straight mobocracy. During her 2020 presidential run, Harris also said she was “open to the discussion” about getting rid of the Electoral College. Many Democrat-led states have signed onto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would “guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.”

The purpose of the Electoral College is to stave off what James Madison called the “tyranny of the majority.” The system gives voters in rural, lesser-populated states a voice in presidential elections by limiting higher-populated states’ ability to solely determine their outcomes. That was also the original design of the U.S. Senate, and without such protections for smaller states, the U.S. Constitution would never have been ratified. That means without constitutional protections for lower-population states, there would be no United States at all.

As with many of America’s institutions, Democrats loathe the Electoral College because it deprives them of the unbridled power to silence all opposition. There’s no need to waste time campaigning to the rubes in “flyover country” if they can juice turnout in Democrat-heavy cities and states instead.

Walz’s fundraiser remarks are an outward display of this disdain. Democrats claim they’re fighting for the “forgotten” man and woman, all the while working to deprive millions of Americans of having a say in the policies that control their lives.

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

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

Shawn Fleetwood

Visit on Twitter@ShawnFleetwood

Category:

ABORTION/PRO LIFE, Political

Tagged with:

Harris And Biden Don’t Value American Lives, So Neither Should Be President

By: Beth Brelje | October 09, 2024

Author Beth Brelje profile

Beth Brelje

Visit on Twitter@BethBrelje

Lately, I’ve been learning a new vocabulary: radiation, infusions, chemotherapy, stem cell transplant. Someone I love got a tough cancer diagnosis. There is nothing quite like bad news from a doctor that makes you think about how much time you have, and how you want to spend it. Life is a fleeting gift. We should not waste a moment.

Sadly, in America, in so many ways, life is not valued. I’m not talking about the mindless hours squandered in front of a glowing television, computer, or phone screen. Most of us spend too much time in such useless pursuits. But that is a personal choice.

It is the government-sanctioned disregard for life that harms so many, and should trouble us all. Under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the U.S. has seen more abortions, political prisoners, and forgotten disaster victims. Biden and Harris don’t value human life.

Babies’ Lives Matter

Abortion is just one example. While campaign commercials for Kamala Harris scream that states are banning abortion and that access to the deadly procedure is at risk without Harris at the helm, the US saw, in 2023, the most abortions in a decade: an estimated 1,037,000 in the formal health care system. It’s an 11 percent increase since 2020, the last year estimates were available, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion data.

That is enough babies to fill the University of Michigan’s “Big House” football stadium 10 times.

Abortion is big business, and politicians who pledge to keep the abortion racket thriving get huge campaign donations. They can afford it. The nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America showed more than a half billion dollars in gross receipts in 2023. President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson earned nearly $584,000 that year, outpacing the $400,000 annual salary of the U.S. president. With so much money on the line, the idea of making abortion safe and rare is not the goal anymore. Killing the unborn is profitable, and it shows in the tone Harris uses when defending the grisly practice.

If Harris valued life, she would work to develop programs that reduce abortions. Instead, under the Biden/Harris administration pregnancy resource centers have come under attack, and abortions have soared to record numbers.

Pro-Life Americans’ Lives Matter

The Biden-Harris Department of Justice (DOJ) sentenced three pro-life activists in late September for praying, singing church hymns, and standing in the hallway of a now-shuttered abortion business in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, back in 2021. They were there to persuade women not to have an abortion and were convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which makes it a federal crime to interfere with someone getting an abortion. The DOJ added a conspiracy charge, making the maximum possible sentence 11 years in prison.

These three had their sentencing delayed because they were charged in other, similar cases. They were part of a larger group that has already been sentenced.

Chester Gallagher of Tennessee was sentenced to 16 months in prison.

Heather Idoni was sentenced to eight months in prison, to be served concurrently with the 24-month sentence she is now serving for similar charges in Washington, D.C., and she will be sentenced for another case in Michigan.

Eva Edl, 89, was given three years of probation. As a child, Edl was taken by train cattle car as a prisoner to the Gakova (also spelled Gakowa) communist-run concentration camp in Yugoslavia, where she faced starvation. Today, she considers sitting in front of the doors of abortion businesses her way of sitting on the train tracks to stop children from dying.

After the Supreme Court’s June 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe. v. Wade, Biden issued an executive order directing his administration to address security risks at abortion businesses.

In July 2022, the DOJ announced it was forming the Reproductive Rights Task Force, with a goal of enforcement of the FACE Act. Since then, the DOJ has sent the FBI to the homes of pro-lifers, intimidated them, and thrown many in federal prison for years for FACE violations that happened before the crackdown.

These pro-lifers have spent much of their lives rescuing babies. Children are alive today because they convinced mothers to turn away from the abortion mill. They didn’t steal a car or stab someone — both serious crimes that have received less punishment. But their lives have been turned upside down by Biden’s policies.

The business of abortion gets more protection that a typical crime victim because Harris and Biden don’t value the lives of babies, the lives of the pro-lifers, or the lives of violent crime victims.

No matter how you feel about abortion, all Americans should be concerned when politicians use the force of the government to impose harsh prison sentences on gentle people, stealing years of their lives.

Policies Honoring Life Matter

If Harris and Biden valued the lives of the people hurt by Hurricane Helene, they would have swiftly focused on hurricane relief. The administration would have communicated directly with the victims without prompting, they would have set up searches in the hardest hit areas, and they would have quickly moved food, water, shelter, and medical supplies to the affected areas.

They would try to negotiate an end to wars around the globe instead of perpetuating human misery with endless funding.

If they valued human lives, Harris and Biden would admit human trafficking, and all the suffering it causes, is intertwined with our open border, and make it stop. And they would develop dignified solutions to homeless encampments.

But none of this is second nature to leaders who don’t honor life.

Time is not on our side. Life is a fleeting gift.

Let us choose leaders who show up in hard times, seek policies that help people thrive in their lives, and work to bring peace to a groaning world.

Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Trump to hold rally at New York’s Madison Square Garden ahead of Election Day

By Brooke Singman , Paul Steinhauser Fox News | Published October 9, 2024 12:31pm EDT

Former President Trump will hold a rally this month at New York City’s Madison Square Garden (MSG), Fox News Digital has confirmed. The rally is set to take place on Oct. 27, multiple sources told Fox News Digital, just nine days before Election Day. The event is expected to be first-come, first-serve, and campaign officials are expecting massive attendance.

“Like Coachella and others to come, MSG is because we are adding some very big venues because we are seeing very high interest in attending events,” a campaign source told Fox News Digital.

TRUMP VOWS TO ‘SAVE’ DEEP-BLUE NEW YORK CITY IN MASSIVE, HISTORIC BRONX RALLY

Former President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Uniondale, New York on Wednesday, September 18, 2024. (Julia Bonavita/Fox News Digital)

MSG is a 19,500-seat venue.

The former president, speaking at a campaign event in Scranton, Pennsylvania later on Wednesday, highlighted that “we just rented Madison Square Garden. We’re going to make a play. We’re going to make a play for New York. Hasn’t been done in a long time. It hasn’t been done in many decades.”

Then President Ronald Reagan in his 1984 re-election landslide, was the last Republican to carry New York in a White House race.

“We’re making a play for New Jersey. We’re making a play for Virginia,” Trump continued, before adding that he’s also aiming to compete in Minnesota and New Mexico.

The latest Fox News Power Rankings in the 2024 presidential election rank New York and New Jersey as solid Democrat, with Minnesota, New Mexico and Virginia as likely Democrat.

Trump in front of flag — Former President Donald Trump will hold a rally this month at New York City’s Madison Square Garden, Fox News Digital has confirmed. (Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images)

This will be Trump’s second big rally in the state of New York.

Trump held a rally at the Nassau Coliseum in Uniondale, Long Island, last month. More than 60,000 tickets were requested, but the venue only seats 16,000. Thousands of supporters who were not admitted to the venue watched him speak on large screens outside.

TRUMP ADVISER UNPACKS WHY FORMER PRESIDENT IS HOLDING RALLY IN DEEP-BLUE STATE WEEKS FROM ELECTION

Trump also held a rally in the Bronx over the summer at Crotona Park, which had a permit allowance of 3,500 people. The New York Post reported the Bronx rally drew up to 10,000 supporters.

Trump overlooks Bronx crowd — Former President Donald Trump, center, during a campaign event at Crotona Park in the Bronx borough of New York, on Thursday, May 23, 2024. Photographer: Bing Guan/Bloomberg via Getty Images (Bing Guan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Meanwhile, Trump has drawn massive crowds for his latest rallies, with more than 20,000 people attending his second rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, over the weekend.

The campaign also said they saw more than 100,000 people at the former president’s rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, in May.

Trump rally sign saying NJ is "Trump Country" — A billboard at a Trump rally in Wildwood declaring historical blue New Jersey is “Trump Country.” (The Image Direct for Fox News Digital)

The Garden, which is the home of the New York Knicks and New York Rangers, hosted the Republican National Convention in 2004 and the Democratic National Convention in 1924, 1976, 1980 and 1992.

TRUMP HOLDS MASSIVE BEACHFRONT CAMPAIGN RALLY FOR RAUCOUS NEW JERSEY CROWD: ‘WE’RE GOING TO WIN’

Earlier this year during a campaign stop at an Upper Manhattan bodega, Trump said he would “straighten out New York.”

Entrance to Madison Square Garden — Madison Square Garden. (Joan Slatkin/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

“We’re going to come in — number one, you have to stop crime, and we’re going to let the police do their job. They have to be given back their authority. They have to be able to do their job,” Trump said. “And we’re going to come into New York. We’re making a big play for New York, other cities, too. But this city, I love this city.” Trump said New York has “gotten so bad in the last three years, four years.”

“And we’re going to straighten New York out. So running for president, we’re putting a big hit in New York — we could win New York,” Trump said.

The New York Post first reported that Trump would rally at MSG.

While it is unlikely deep blue New York flips red in the White House race, another rally in the state may help Republicans down the ballot, as they try to hold on to their House of Representatives majority in November’s elections.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

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

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Deadspin Loses Major Motion in Defamation Case Over Blackface Column

By: Jonathan Turley | October 9, 2024

We previously discussed the defamation lawsuit against Deadspin and writer Carron Phillips over an article claiming that nine-year-old Holden Armenta appeared at a Chiefs game in 2023 in black face. I noted in a prior column that I believed that the court would view this as a matter that had to go to a jury. It now has. Superior Court Judge Sean Lugg this week rejected Deadspin’s motion to dismiss.

Phillips posted a side image of Holden at a game of the Kansas City Chiefs against the Las Vegas Raiders, showing his face painted black. The 9-year-old was wearing a headdress while doing the signature “Tomahawk Chop.”

Phillips went into full attack mode.

The senior Deadspin writer had a Pavlovian response in a scathing article on the boy’s “racist” and “disrespectful” appearance.

“It takes a lot to disrespect two groups of people at once. But on Sunday afternoon in Las Vegas, a Kansas City Chiefs fan found a way to hate black people and the native Americans at the same time…Despite their age, who taught that person that what they were wearing was appropriate?”

Phillips also denounced the NFL for “relentlessly participating in prejudice.” In a now-deleted tweet, Phillips later called people “idiots” for “treating this as some harmless act.”

Of course, the full picture showed that Armenta had the other half of his face painted in red paint — the Chiefs colors. It also turns out that he is Native American. Indeed, his grandfather is serving on the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.

Deadspin obviously valued Phillips’ take on race as do other journalists and columnists. Despite his past controversial writings, he was selected as the 2019 & 2020 National Association of Black Journalists Award Winner.

Deadspin was sold to Lineup Publishing after the lawsuit by Holden’s parents Raul Jr. and Shannon. However, they appear to have retained Phillips who is still on their website.

In Armenta v. G/O Media, Inc. Lugg wrote that “[h]aving reviewed the complaint, the court concludes that Deadspin’s statements accusing [Holden] of wearing black face and Native headdress ‘to hate black people and the Native American at the same time,’ and that he was taught this hatred by his parents, are provable false assertions of fact and are therefore actionable.”

The opinion turned on whether this could be treated as opinion as opposed to a statement of fact. California law applied in the case and the court focused on two opinions that held that claims of racism can be statements of fact. Lugg wrote:

Generally, statements labeling a person as racist are not actionable. “A term like racist, while exceptionally negative, insulting, and highly charged—is not actionable under defamation-type claims because it is a word that lacks precise meaning and can imply many different kinds of fact.”…

Deadspin argues that the statements alleging H.A. wore Black face are nonactionable for the same reasons that calling him racist would be non-actionable. {“Blackface is used to mock or ridicule Black people; it is considered deeply offensive.” Deadspin, in recasting Black face as “culturally insensitive face paint” in the December 7 Update, recognizes the negative understanding of the descriptive term.} … But there is a legally significant distinction between a statement calling someone a racist and a statement accusing someone of engaging in racist conduct; expressions of opinion are not protected if they imply an assertion of an objective, defamatory fact. Two recent decisions applying California law, Overhill Farms, Inc. v. Lopez (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) and La Liberte v. Reid (2d Cir. 2020), assist in clarifying this distinction.

The Court in Overhill Farms held that “a claim of racially motivated employment termination is a provably false fact.” In that case, a group of employees accused their employer of engaging in racist firings of Hispanic workers as a pretext to hide racist and discriminatory abuse against Latina women immigrants. After the employer sued for defamation, the employees moved to dismiss, arguing that their statements were non-actionable opinions. The California Court of Appeals denied the employees’ motion, reasoning:

[D]efendants did not merely accuse [their employer] of being “racist” in some abstract sense …. [I]n almost every instance, defendants’ characterization of [their employer] as “racist” is supported by a specific reference to its decision to terminate the employment of a large group of Latino immigrant workers. The assertion of racism, when viewed in that specific factual context, is not merely a hyperbolic characterization of [the employer’s] black corporate heart—it represents an accusation of concrete, wrongful conduct…. [T]he statements reflected in defendants’ written press release, leaflets and flyers accused Overhill of more than harboring racist attitudes; they accused Overhill of engaging in a mass employment termination based upon racist and ageist motivations. Such a contention is clearly a “provable fact;” indeed an employer’s motivation for terminating employment is a fact plaintiffs attempt to prove routinely in wrongful termination cases.

In La Liberte v. Reid, a community activist brought suit after a television host republished two photographs of her at a pro-immigration rally with captions alleging racist conduct. The first caption accused the plaintiff of screaming “You are going to be first deported … dirty Mexican!” at a 14-year-old boy. The second caption compared a photograph of the plaintiff to white Americans yelling at the Little Rock Nine. The television host moved to dismiss the activist’s defamation claims, arguing that her statements were “nonactionable statements of opinion.” The trial court agreed and granted dismissal. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, explaining:

A reader could interpret the juxtaposition of the Photograph with the 1957 Little Rock image to mean that [plaintiff] likewise screamed at a child out of racial animus—particularly in light of [defendant’s] comment that “[h]istory sometimes repeats.” That interpretation is bolstered by [defendant’s] description of the white woman in the Little Rock photograph as a “person screaming at a child, with [her] face twisted in rage” and [her] comment that it was “inevitable” that the photos would be juxtaposed. [Defendant] thus portrayed [plaintiff] as a latter-day counterpart of the white woman in 1957 who verbally assaulted a minority child. Like the defendants in Overhill Farms, [defendant] “did not merely accuse [plaintiff] of being ‘racist’ in some abstract sense.” Rather, her July 1 Post could be understood as an “accusation of concrete, wrongful conduct,” which can be proved to be either true or false. That makes it potentially defamatory.

The Armentas contend that the Original Article and its Updates involve defamatory statements regarding conduct that is provably false and, therefore, this Court should be guided by Overhill Farms and La Liberte. These statements include:

(1) H.A. was wearing “Black face;”

(2) H.A.’s conduct in wearing “Black face” was motivated by his hatred of Black people;

(3) H.A.’s wearing of a Native headdress resulted from his hatred of Native Americans;

(4) H.A. is part of a “future generation[ ]” of racists who had “recreate[d] racism better than before”; and

(5) Raul and Shannon Armenta “taught” their son, H.A., “racism and hate” in their home.

Deadspin’s audience could understand its portrayal of H.A. to mean that his entire face was painted black and, because his entire face was painted black, it was H.A.’s intent to disrespect and hate African Americans. The publication went beyond an expression of opinion and flatly stated H.A.’s motivation for appearing as he did.

Similarly, a reader could be left with the belief that H.A. wore a Native American headdress as a signal of disrespect to that population. Any doubt as to the thrust of these representations is resolved in the opening line of the article, where the author unequivocally asserts, “It takes a lot to disrespect two groups of people at once. But on Sunday afternoon in Las Vegas, a Kansas City Chiefs fan found a way to hate Black people and the Native American at the same time.”

While arguably couched as opinion, the author devotes substantial time to describing H.A. and attributing negative racial motivation to him. Further, the article may be reasonably viewed as derogating those who may have taught him—his parents. A reader might not, as Deadspin contends, interpret this assertion as a reflection of the author’s opinion. To say one is a racist may be considered opinion, but to plainly state that one’s attire, presentation, or upbringing demonstrates their learned hatred for identifiable groups is actionable. A reader may reasonably interpret the Article’s assertion that H.A. was wearing Black face as fact….

The CBS broadcast showed H.A. for approximately three seconds. In those three seconds, viewers could see that H.A.’s face was painted two colors: black and red. Deadspin published an image of H.A. that displayed only the portion of H.A.’s face painted black and presented it as a factual assertion that there was a “Chiefs fan in Black face” at the game. The complaint asserts facts that, reasonably interpreted, establish Deadspin’s Original Article and its Updates as provably false assertions of fact….

Deadspin contends that La Liberte and Overhill Farms stand as outliers from decisions recognizing that accusations of racist behavior are “inherently subjective and therefore non-actionable[.]” Not so. They reflect reasoned assessments of the lines between protected and actionable speech and offer a paradigm for identifying and assessing provably false allegations of racial animus. This Court may grant Deadspin’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6) only if “under no reasonable interpretation of the facts alleged could the complaint state a claim for which relief might be granted.” Applying the analytical framework of La Liberte and Overhill Farms to the facts here, the Armentas maintain a “possibility of recovery.” …

This is a well-constructed and well-supported decision that could have lasting importance. In an age of rage, including race-baiting columns like the one in this case, the opinion is a shot across the bow for publications like Deadspin.

We have seen a series of major rulings allowing public figures to go forward in other defamation lawsuits against media companies. In addition to alienating much of their markets with echo journalism, these outlets are now facing mounting legal costs due to attack pieces like this one. The bill is now coming due.

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

Category:

Law, Media, Political

Tagged with:

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

A.F. Branco Cartoon – This Is Nuts

A.F. Branco | on October 9, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-this-is-nuts/

02 Peanuts SM 1080 — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Biden-Harris administration has billions to help Ukraine, Iran, illegal aliens, Lebanon in the Middle East, student Loan bailouts, etc., but only peanuts for American victims of Hurricane Helene and Milton.

Biden-Kamala Regime Burns $1 BILLION in FEMA Funds to Resettle Illegal Immigrants — FEMA Now Lacks Resources for Disaster Response!

By Jim Hoft – Oct 3, 2024

As Hurricane Helene tears through the eastern seaboard, leaving devastation in its wake, the mismanagement of FEMA under the Biden-Harris regime is hitting home with deadly consequences.
The storm’s ferocious winds and torrential rains have claimed at least 190 lives, left millions without power, and trapped countless families in floodwaters across North Carolina and beyond. Entire communities have been cut off from vital resources, with citizens scrambling for help.
Yet, in the face of this national disaster, the Biden-Harris administration’s FEMA appears woefully unprepared. READ MORE…

Category:

HUMOR, Political

Tagged with:

South Dakota Removes 273 Noncitizens from Its Voter Rolls Ahead Of 2024 Election

By: Shawn Fleetwood | October 08, 2024

South Dakota announced Monday it has removed 273 noncitizens from its voter rolls, dealing a major blow to Democrats’ narrative that foreign nationals aren’t interfering in U.S. elections. The announcement was revealed in a Department of Public Safety (DPS) press release, which noted that the “discovery was part of a review to ensure the integrity of South Dakota’s elections and safeguard against improper voter registration.” The agency said the efforts to remove these noncitizens from the rolls are being handled by the office of Republican Secretary of State Monae Johnson.

“Ensuring the integrity of our elections is our highest priority,” Johnson said in a statement. “We are proud of the thorough work done to safeguard South Dakota’s voter rolls. We worked closely with DPS to resolve this issue, and we’re constantly working to make sure that only eligible citizens are participating in our elections.”

While regularly dismissed by Democrats and their media allies as a non-issue, foreign nationals inserting themselves into America’s electoral process is anything but. In recent months, numerous states have collectively removed thousands of noncitizens who were registered to vote in their respective jurisdictions.

On Monday, Oregon announced that state officials identified “an additional 302 people on the state’s voter rolls who didn’t provide proof of citizenship when they were registered to vote,” according to Fox News. That figure brings the total number of suspected noncitizens registering to vote since 2021 up from its previous estimate of 1,259 to 1,561.

In May, the office of Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose discovered 137 voter registrations “assigned to Ohio residents who have twice confirmed their non-citizenship status” to the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. State officials revealed in August they subsequently found an additional 499 noncitizens who were registered to vote.

In an August executive order, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin disclosed that the commonwealth’s department of elections had removed 6,303 foreign nationals from the state’s voter rolls since he took office in January 2022. Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen revealed that same month plans to clear 3,251 potential noncitizens from the Yellowhammer State’s voter registration lists.

Texas has similarly removed 6,500 suspected noncitizens from its voter rolls since 2021, according to an August announcement by Gov. Greg Abbott.

[READ: Federal Data: Thousands Of Illegals Are Registered To Vote, But In 21 Years DOJ Has Only Prosecuted 35]

Last month, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird brought charges against Jorge Oscar Sanchez-Vasquez, a noncitizen legally residing in the United States, for allegedly registering to vote and casting a ballot in a 2024 city council race.

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

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

Shawn Fleetwood

Visit on Twitter@ShawnFleetwood

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Kamala Harris Is Poised to Revive the Worst Aspects of FDR’s Socialist Agenda

By: Mary Grabar | October 08, 2024

Mary Grabar

At the Economic Club of Pittsburgh, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris recently said she would “engage in what Franklin Roosevelt called ‘bold, persistent experimentation,’” as he had told the 1932 graduating class at Oglethorpe University. But she did not mention FDR’s vision of “remaking the world,” which included fundamentally changing “our popular economic thought” to see to “a wiser, more equitable distribution of the national income.” Instead, she said she would seek “practical solutions” and even declared, “I am a capitalist.” She said she’s “been working with entrepreneurs and business owners” for her “whole career.” (No one has yet even been able to verify Harris’ job at McDonald’s.)

She also professed her belief in “an active partnership between government and the private sector,” sounding much like FDR at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in September 1932. There he called for a new “economic constitutional order” built together by an “enlightened administration” and “enlightened businessmen” who together would “[adjust] production to consumption.”

Indeed, the desire to control production and fix prices was the aim of the largest contributor to the Roosevelt campaign, Wall Street speculator Bernard Baruch. He got the wish he paid for, the NRA (National Recovery Administration). Similarly, Harris supporter and billionaire Mark Cuban is vying for the position as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission and calling those who call Harris a Marxist “idiots.”

It was natural that Harris would quote Roosevelt. Biden referenced FDR in his speeches, especially in his last State of the Union address, when he invoked the “Four Freedoms,” which became the basis of his campaign (before it was usurped by Harris). The media hailed Barack Obama as the second coming of FDR, with the Nov. 24, 2008, Time magazine cover showing Obama posed as FDR in a convertible, clenching the characteristic cigarette-holder.

But as Ben Shapiro pointed out, Roosevelt’s “bold, persistent experimentation” actually prolonged the Depression. So also warned James Freeman. Relying on Amity Shlaes, Freeman noted that FDR’s impulsiveness made it impossible for businesses to plan ahead.

FDR’s Ignorance

Indeed, as I point out in my book, FDR was barely capable of keeping a sustained thought, flitting from one subject to another, like Harris does in “word salads.” He would tell two advisors with diametrically opposed solutions to compromise. He would incorporate contradictory statements into the same speech. He was ignorant about economics and made no effort to learn. Prejudices learned in childhood guided his foreign policy. Yet, he felt himself qualified to plan the economy and the lives of all Americans.

FDR experimented, indeed. He followed the economic theories of his Brain Trust (“cornfield philosophers” with Ph.D.s, as John T. Flynn called them). Instead of letting prices bottom out and the economy recover as it had after World War I, the Brain Trust ordered farmers late in the spring of 1933 to plow under crops and then taxed processors. The NRA set prices, driving out small businesses.

The result? Food shortages and increased prices for people already hungry.

Harris’ “first-ever federal ban on corporate price gouging” by food companies promises the same results.

The Politically Connected

Another experimental idea was to confiscate the gold that American citizens had been “hoarding.” Average Americans who had tried to protect their investments were ordered, by threat of a 10-year prison term and a $10,000 fine, to hand in gold bars and even Christmas gold coins. FDR then determined the price of gold, sometimes by multiples of “lucky numbers.” But Baruch kept his gold. Today, politically connected stock market speculators, e.g., those married to the former Democratic Speaker of the House, use advance knowledge about legislation to sell stocks at a profit.

Similarly, Harris’ economic policies will not provide the “opportunity” she promises to all equally. Just as FDR doled out federal funds to court votes, federal funds will be doled out selectively. She promises to increase the startup deduction from $5,000 to $50,000 and “provide low- and no-interest loans” to small businesses. On what basis? Will the loans be forgiven, just like student loans? As business owner Chad O. Jackson asks, is even a $5,000 loan needed to start a business?

Redistribution of Wealth

On MSNBC, after her speech, Harris said that she would cut the “red tape” involved in housing and low-income housing construction. She explained, “some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars, and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.”

Out of this holistic mess we can gather that federal assistance will be contingent on where the housing is built (near public transit). Such stipulations indicate more “red tape” and an exacerbation of a housing crisis largely created by the government.

Her “$25,000 down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers,” she explains, would mean “creating the ability of that working person to build intergenerational wealth.”

Like FDR, she wants a redistribution of wealth. Her ideas about “intergenerational wealth,” referred to twice in her speech and then on MSNBC, echo Nikole Hannah-Jones’ argument for reparations because of advantages in white “generational wealth.” Harris is a big fan of Hannah-Jones. She called Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project a “masterpiece” that told the “truth” of how “the very foundation of our country was built on the backs of enslaved people.” Which first-time homebuyers will get $25,000 from the government? Look at the model Evanston, Illinois, reparations program. Number one priority is “restorative housing.”

Democrats seem to think that quoting FDR will magically reassure voters. Vice presidential candidate Tim Walz tried to salvage a disastrous debate by paraphrasing FDR’s nonsensical statement about having nothing to fear but “fear itself.”

FDR’s Real Legacy

History books, overwhelmingly written by FDR fans, quote his line about fear as if it were a gem of profundity and cast the blame for the extended Depression on other factors, such as obstructionist Republicans and judges. Some argue that FDR did not spend enough money. The fact that he was president during the crisis of depression and war, plus his long-established celebrity status as a Roosevelt, etched him into the national memory as a hero.

Historian David M. Kennedy admits that the Great Depression was “a catastrophic economic crisis that Roosevelt failed to resolve, at least not until World War II came along.” But FDR had “larger purposes.” In 1937, as a second depression hit, FDR worried that economic recovery might be “politically premature.” It might “dismantle the fragile edifice of reforms” he had instituted, and it might weaken the executive branch.

So, Roosevelt’s “reforms” and his power in the executive branch were more important than the well-being of Americans, whose life expectancy was declining. According to Kennedy, the president knew the Depression offered “a rare political opportunity, and Roosevelt made the most of it, to the nation’s lasting benefit.”

What is assumed to be the “lasting benefit” includes such things as unemployment insurance, Social Security, and banking deposit insurance. But these programs’ costs are borne by consumers. Americans’ taxes pay for deposit insurance. While “too big to fail” financial institutions were bailed out during the 2008-2009 recession, average Americans lost their homes. Under Democrat “Green New Deals,” politically connected companies, from Solyndra to Blue Whale Materials, get the loans and contracts. Obama’s make-work plan, with huge signs announcing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 at sidewalks that went nowhere, mimicked the make-work boondoggling of the FDR administration. In both administrations, Washington, D.C., grew and prospered. FDR never really pulled the United States out of the Depression. Obama’s first-term recovery was the slowest one ever.

Like FDR, Kamala Harris is interested in growing the government for political power and transforming the country. If more Americans understood the real FDR, they would be able to see that they do have something to fear: another FDR-like administration.

Mary Grabar, Ph.D., a resident fellow at The Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, is the author of “Debunking FDR: The Man and the Myths” (November 2024), “Debunking The 1619 Project,” and “Debunking Howard Zinn.” She taught college English for 20 years and founded the Dissident Prof Education Project (DissidentProf.com). Her writing can be found at marygrabar.com.

Category:

Hstory, Political

Tagged with:

New poll reveals which voter group are fueling Trump to a narrow edge over Harris in battleground

By Paul Steinhauser Fox News | Published October 8, 2024, 2:00pm EDT

Fox News’ Bill Melugin on Kamala Harris’ upcoming Arizona border trip as polls show more voters trust Trump on border policy. Former President Donald Trump holds a razor-thin two-point edge over Vice President Kamala Harris in battleground Arizona, according to a new public opinion poll. Fueling the former president’s margin appears to be support from voters age 50 and over.

Trump stands at 49% among likely voters in Arizona, with Harris at 47%, according to an AARP poll conducted Sept. 24-Oct. 1 and released on Tuesday. According to the survey, Green Party candidate Jill Stein grabs 1% support, with 3% undecided.

The survey points to a generational divide.

WHAT THE LATEST FOX NEWS POLLS IN THE 2024 ELECTION SHOW

Trump speaks in Tucson, Arizona — Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event at the Linda Ronstadt Music Hall on Thursday in Tucson, Arizona. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

“Among voters 50+, Trump is ahead by 7 points, driven by a 14-point lead among voters 50-64,” the poll’s release highlights.

Harris holds a 4-point advantage among voters under 50, according to the survey, “while the race is a tossup with seniors.”

CHECK OUT THE LATEST FOX NEWS POWER RANKINGS IN THE 2024 ELECTION

The poll also points to a gender gap in Arizona which favors Trump. The former president and Republican nominee is up 11-points over the vice president and Democratic nominee among men, but down only 6 points among female voters, the survey indicates.

Harris at Glendale, Arizona rally — While on the presidential campaign trail stopping in battleground states, Vice President Kamala Harris walks out into a packed rally in Glendale, Arizona, on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The survey is the latest to indicate a margin of error race between Harris and Trump in Arizona, a state President Biden narrowly carried over Trump in the 2020 election.

Arizona’s one of seven crucial battlegrounds whose razor-thin margins decided Biden’s White House victory four years ago and are likely to determine if Harris or Trump win the 2024 election.

NEW POLL INDICATES WHETHER HARRIS OR TRUMP IS WINNING KEY VOTERS IN TWO CRUCIAL SOUTHWEST BATTLEGROUNDS

The survey was released on the eve of the kick-off of early in-person voting in Arizona.

Trump and Harris on Philadelphia debate stage — Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump during their first and likely only presidential debate in Philadelphia on Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2024. (Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The major party vice presidential nominees – Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota – each hold campaign events in Arizona on Wednesday. Harris returns to the state on Friday.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Besides being a crucial presidential swing state, Arizona is also holding one of a handful of competitive Senate elections that will decide if the GOP wins back the chamber’s majority. The AARP poll indicates Democratic Senate nominee Rep. Rueben Gallego holding a 51%-44% lead over Republican nominee Kari Lake, a former news anchor who narrowly lost the state’s 2022 gubernatorial election.

The AARP poll was conducted by the bipartisan polling team of Fabrizio Ward (Republican) & Impact Research (Democrat). The firms interviewed 1,358 likely voters in Arizona. The survey’s overall sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Paul Steinhauser is a politics reporter based in New Hampshire.

Category:

Political, Society

Tagged with:

Rep. Luna Seeks Answers from FEMA Over Migrant Spending

By Kate McManus | Tuesday, 08 October 2024 03:29 PM EDT

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., is calling on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to ensure funds are used solely for disaster recovery and not for illegal immigrants, the Daily Caller reported Tuesday. Luna’s district on Florida’s Gulf Coast was impacted by Hurricane Helene and is now preparing to get hit hard by Hurricane Milton sometime this week. In a letter to FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell, obtained by the Daily Caller, Luna raised concerns about the agency’s use of taxpayer money.

“The recent reporting on the Federal Emergency Management Administration’s allocation of congressionally appropriated funds to illegal immigrants, leaving it without the necessary resources to respond to the recent hurricanes, is a matter of urgent concern,” she wrote.

“[Homeland Security] Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas’ statement at a recent press conference, ‘FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season,’ underscores the gravity of the situation. This mismanagement of taxpayer funds is unacceptable and requires immediate remedial action from FEMA.”

Mayorkas said earlier this month that FEMA didn’t have enough money to cover the rest of the hurricane season.

In the letter, Luna asked how much FEMA has spent since January 2021 to cover expenses related to the migrant crisis, including funds sent to cities, nonprofits, and other organizations. She also inquired about the steps being taken to recover those funds. Luna also is seeking assurance that no future FEMA taxpayer funds will be diverted to cover “costs imposed by the illegal migrant crisis.”

Newsmax reached out to FEMA for comment.

Hurricane Helene hit Florida on Sept. 26 as a Category 4 storm, causing widespread damage in six states. FEMA has been under fire for how it responded to that storm. Meanwhile, Florida is bracing for Hurricane Milton, which is expected to make landfall in the Tampa area, likely as a Category 3 storm.

Kate McManus ✉

Kate McManus is a New Jersey-based Newsmax writer who’s spent more than two decades as a journalist.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

FEMA Is Broke

By: Peter St. Onge | October 08, 2024

Peter St. Onge@profstonge

Peter St. Onge is a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of the accompanying video from professor Peter St. Onge.

It’s America last as the nation’s disaster relief agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, reports it is broke because it wasted billions on illegals, Ukraine, and other foreign aid instead of, say, the American people.

So says the Department of Homeland Security, with Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas confessing, “FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season.”

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Note this is after Dems strong-armed $12 billion last year by holding it hostage to Ukraine aid, then House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Ky., poured in another $20 billion just weeks ago.

FEMA’s foreigner-depleted cupboards could be part of why the White House dragged its feet declaring Title 10—which sends military resources into disaster zones to help rescue operations.

That largely left rescue to private volunteers—truck drivers, helicopter pilots, and people who have boats, dubbed the Cajun Navy. Some of whom, incidentally, have been threatened with arrest.

Of course, even if you don’t arrest them, there’s only so many private volunteers with helicopters, and they don’t have billions of dollars hijacked from taxpayers then given away to import new voters or pay military contractors.

For example, considering the 82nd Airborne is literally based in North Carolina and in hours deploys halfway around the world, it might be nice to get some help.

Ironically enough, just last week, President Joe Biden announced another $2.4 billion to Ukraine, aid that has historically included generators and transformers bought by USAID that are now desperately needed in North Carolina.

Of course, it wasn’t just Ukraine; everybody from Taiwan to Djibouti apparently has been feasting while our own people go without.

That apparently includes the millions of illegal aliens who showed up uninvited.

Thanks to X, we have the receipts for program after program shipping out FEMA money for illegals a hundred million at a time. The New York Post tallies these for a total of at least $1.4 billion in disaster relief repurposed to bribe sanctuary cities to import replacement voters—especially in swing states.

As America First Legal put it: “Over the last 4 years the Biden-Harris admin has steadily transformed FEMA into an illegal alien resettlement agency.”

So, it’s red carpets for illegals, $200 billion for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and boiling swamp water for North Carolina.

So, what’s next?

For literally millennia, disaster relief has been the touchstone of a functioning government. In China, for example, a poor response to a natural disaster was taken as a revocation of the “Mandate of Heaven”—a sovereign’s right to rule.

This is part of the reason that, even today, countries like Japan, where I am now, take natural disasters very seriously. Because the people are watching. And remembering.

In America, our federal government has long since lost that mandate.

FEMA was a disaster in Hurricane Katrina. In COVID-19. In East Palestine, Ohio. And now in North Carolina.

How did it get this bad? Easy: Because the bureaucracy took over, replacing the people via something called the Pendleton Act, which I’ll cover in an upcoming video.

This means the government’s goal is not serving the people but feathering its own nest—expanding its power and rewarding the donors and lobbyists who pay the politicians to expand that power.

One video out of North Carolina captures the shift perfectly: A police officer threatens to arrest a local couple trying to salvage their flooded store before looters get to it.

There was a time when that officer would have rolled up his sleeves and pitched in. Because his job was to protect and serve. But those days are gone: Protect and serve is now neglect and harass.

At least if you’re American.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Kamala’s True Grit: Harris Embraces a Gun Vilified During the Biden-Harris Administration

By: Jonathan Turley | October 8, 2024

The reinvention of Vice President Kamala Harris in this election has been a thing to behold. In politics, candidates often reconstruct their records to secure votes, but Harris appears to have constructed an entirely mythical being. Once ranked to the left of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and viewed as among the most liberal members of the Senate, Harris has sought to convince the public that she is actually a frack-loving, gun-toting, border-defending moderate. This last week, Harris sounded like she has hired Neo as her new campaign manager from the Matrix. When asked “what do you need, besides a miracle?” Neo replied “Guns. Lots of Guns.”

Recently, that remake was on full display during a softball interview with Oprah, who has endorsed Harris. The Vice President declared that she is a gun owner and “if somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot.” She repeated the claim in a CBS Sixty Minutes interview and noted that she has fired the gun at a pistol range. The gun is reportedly a semiautomatic Glock handgun. Many Glocks are semiautomatics that use 9mm ammunition.

When CBS’s Bill Whitaker expressed shock at her gun-toting persona on the campaign trail, he asked if she actually fired it. Harris then did her best Rooster Cogburn, who noted “Well a gun that ain’t loaded, ain’t much good for nuthin.” Harris said that she has of course fired the gun in her trips to the firing range.

While she was referring to defending her home, Harris’s pledge to gun down intruders stands in stark contrast to her opposition to stand your ground laws. When she was the San Fransisco District Attorney, Kamala Harris was one of the signatories on the District Attorneys’ amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller — in support the handgun ban. The Court rejected the position of Harris and her fellow Democratic DAs and held that there is an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

Harris’ true grit has delighted activists who are trying to lure male voters back to the Democratic Party. It may not be as thrilling to some in the Biden-Harris Administration including President Joe Biden.

As we have previously discussed, Biden and other Democrats have repeatedly denounced semiautomatics and some have suggested that, with a change in the Supreme Court, they might be banned. While the Administration has repeatedly called for a ban on AR-15s, the most popular weapon in America, President Biden has suggested in the past that he might seek to ban 9mm weapons.

In reference to guns that use 9mm ammunition, Biden declared “there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection.”

It is a call that has been echoed in Canada where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his government is introducing legislation to “implement a national freeze on handgun ownership.” He said Canadians would no longer be able “to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” adding that “there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives.”

While the White House subsequently tried to walk back his comments, Biden saying there’s “no rational basis” to own 9mms makes the new Harris look . . . well . . . irrational. Both Biden and Harris have made sweeping, unsupportable statements about guns and constitutional protections. For example, despite being repeatedly corrected, President Biden continues to repeat the same false statements about bans on weapons when the Second Amendment was ratified.

Likewise, in support of the ban on AR-15s, Harris declared: “Do you know what an assault weapon is? It was designed for a specific purpose, to kill a lot of human beings quickly. An assault weapon is a weapon of war, with no place, no place in a civil society.”

Yet, courts likely would press a Harris administration on why it is seeking to ban this model when other higher-caliber weapons are sold. AR-15s can handle a variety of calibers. However, they are no more powerful than other semi-automatic rifles of the same caliber and actually have a lower caliber than some commonly sold weapons which use .30-06, .308 and .300 ammunition; many of these guns fire at the same — or near the same rate — as the AR-15. None of these weapons are classified as actual military “assault weapons,” and most civilians cannot own an automatic weapon.

As discussed earlier, President Biden showed the same disconnect as Harris between the factual and the rhetorical basis for some gun-control measures. He condemned “high-caliber weapons” like 9mm handguns and said “a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.”

Biden has not made any comment on Harris promising to blow away anyone coming into her house with her own Glock.

Yet, before condemning Harris for her implied threat to “blow lungs out of bodies,” Biden should again check both the constitutional and practical statements about handguns.

Gun experts mocked the notion that 9mm rounds blow organs out of bodies, but 9mm ammunition is the most popular handgun caliber in the U.S., with more than half of all handguns produced in 2019 using that round, according to Shooting Industry magazine. If Biden pushed a ban, he would target more than 40 percent of all pistols produced in the U.S., including many Glocks.

Again, in fairness to Harris, she is not the first politician to reinvent herself on the campaign trail. For now, Harris wants to be clear that “I have a Glock, and I’ve had it for quite some time.” For critics, the reload is a bit much given her record. Yet, in a close election, many activists want voters in states like Pennsylvania to know that Harris is the virtual Jed Clampett of the Beverly Hills set. Indeed, you get the impression that she would use her Glock to frack, if only she could.

While 9mm’s have been vilified by the Biden-Harris Administration, it just happens to be one of the most popular guns in the United States . . . and Harris wants people to know that she has one and knows how to use it.

As a politician reinventing herself in a higher-caliber image, she chose wisely. Indeed, other politicians may want to take heed and listen to Deputy Marshall Sam Gerard in U.S. Marshalls: “Get yourself a Glock and get rid of the nickel-plated sissy-pistol.”

The Largest-Ever Survey of American Gun Owners Finds That Defensive Use of Firearms Is Common

The results also confirm that “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines are widely used for lawful purposes.

Jacob Sullum | 9.9.2022 5:05 PM

Share on Facebook Share on X Share on Reddit Share by email Print friendly versionCopy page URL

(Jiri Hera/Dreamstime)

The largest and most comprehensive survey of American gun owners ever conducted suggests that they use firearms in self-defense about 1.7 million times a year. It also confirms that AR-15-style rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, frequent targets of gun control legislation, are in common use for lawful purposes, which the Supreme Court has said is the test for arms covered by the Second Amendment.

The online survey, which was conducted by Centiment in February and March of 2021, was based on a representative sample of about 54,000 adults, 16,708 of whom were gun owners. Georgetown University political economist William English, who commissioned the survey as part of a book project, presents its major findings in a recent paper available on the Social Science Research Network.

The overall adult gun ownership rate estimated by the survey, 32 percent, is consistent with recent research by Gallup and the Pew Research Center. So is the finding that the rate varies across racial and ethnic groups: It was about 25 percent among African Americans, 28 percent among Hispanics, 19 percent among Asians, and 34 percent among whites. Men accounted for about 58 percent of gun owners.

Because of the unusually large sample, the survey was able to produce state-specific estimates that are apt to be more reliable than previous estimates. Gun ownership rates ranged from about 16 percent in Massachusetts and Hawaii to more than 50 percent in Idaho and West Virginia.

The survey results indicate that Americans own some 415 million firearms, including 171 million handguns, 146 million rifles, and 98 million shotguns. About 30 percent of respondents reported that they had ever owned AR-15s or similar rifles, which are classified as “assault weapons” under several state laws and a proposed federal ban. Such legislation also commonly imposes a limit on magazine capacity, typically 10 rounds. Nearly half of the respondents (48 percent) said they had ever owned magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Those results underline the practical challenges that legislators face when they try to eliminate “assault weapons” or “large capacity” magazines. The survey suggests that up to 44 million AR-15-style rifles and up to 542 million magazines with capacities exceeding 10 rounds are already in circulation.

Those are upper-bound estimates, since people who reported that they ever owned such rifles or magazines may have subsequently sold them. But even allowing for some double counting, these numbers suggest how unrealistic it is to suppose that bans will have a significant impact on criminal use of the targeted products. At the same time, widespread ownership of those products by law-abiding Americans makes the bans vulnerable to constitutional challenges.

Two-thirds of the respondents who reported owning AR-15-style rifles said they used them for recreational target shooting, while half mentioned hunting and a third mentioned competitive shooting. Sixty-two percent said they used such rifles for home defense, and 35 percent cited defense outside the home. Yet politicians who want to ban these rifles insist they are good for nothing but mass murder.

Owners of “large capacity” magazines likewise cited a variety of lawful uses. Recreational target shooting (64 percent) was the most common, followed by home defense (62 percent), hunting (47 percent), defense outside the home (42 percent), and competitive shooting (27 percent).

Politicians who favor a 10-round limit argue that no one except for criminals and police officers really needs a larger magazine. Yet respondents described various situations, based on their personal experiences, where “it would have been useful for defensive purposes to have a firearm with a magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds.” These ranged from muggings and home invasions by multiple attackers to encounters with wild animals.

Maybe these gun owners were wrong to think the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading was important in those situations. But judging from the responses that English quotes, they had cogent reasons for believing that. Bans on “large capacity” magazines routinely exempt current and retired police officers, on the theory that they are especially likely to face threats (such as multiple assailants) that may require more than 10 rounds. It strains credulity to suggest that ordinary citizens never face such threats, and this survey provides further reason to doubt that assumption.

Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.

That reality helps explain the wide divergence in estimates of defensive gun uses. The self-reports of gun owners may not be entirely reliable, since they could be exaggerated, mistaken, or dishonest. But limiting the analysis to cases in which an attacker was wounded or killed, or to incidents that were covered by newspapers or reported to the police, is bound to overlook much more common encounters with less dramatic outcomes.

About half of the defensive gun uses identified by the survey involved more than one assailant. Four-fifths occurred inside the gun owner’s home or on his property, while 9 percent happened in a public place and 3 percent happened at work. The most commonly used firearms were handguns (66 percent), followed by shotguns (21 percent) and rifles (13 percent).

Based on the number of incidents that gun owners reported, English estimates that “guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year.” That number does not include cases where people defended themselves with guns owned by others, which could help explain why English’s figure is lower than a previous estimate by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Based on a 1993 telephone survey with a substantially smaller sample, Kleck and Gertz put the annual number at more than 2 million.

Although less than one in 10 of the defensive gun uses identified by English’s survey happened in public places, most of the respondents (56 percent) said they had carried handguns for self-defense. More than a third (35 percent) said they did so “sometimes,” “often,” or “always or almost always.” About the same percentage reported that they had wanted to carry handguns in circumstances where local rules prohibited it.

At the time of the survey, the ability to legally carry handguns in public varied widely across jurisdictions. Some states had highly restrictive laws that gave local officials wide discretion to reject carry permit applications, a policy that the Supreme Court recently deemed unconstitutional. Even after that ruling, some states plan to enforce licensing requirements and/or location restrictions that make it difficult for residents to carry handguns for self-defense. Depending on your perspective, the results of this survey demonstrate either the wisdom or the injustice of that strategy.

English’s survey also asked about incidents in which respondents believed that the visible presence of a gun had neutralized a potentially violent threat. He says that category would include, for example, “a situation in which a combative customer calmed down after noticing that shop owner had a handgun on his or her hip, or a situation in which a trespasser cooperatively left a property when questioned by a landowner who had a rifle slung over his or her shoulder, or a situation in which a friend showed up with a firearm to help [defuse] a dangerous situation.”

Nearly a third of gun owners reported such incidents, and some said they had witnessed them more than once. English says the results imply “approximately 1.5 million incidents per year [in] which the presence of a firearm deterred crime.” That estimate, of course, depends on the respondents’ subjective impressions, so it is probably less reliable than the estimate of explicit defensive uses, which itself is open to the usual questions about the accuracy of respondents’ interpretations and recollections. But even taken with the appropriate measure of salt, the results suggest that competing studies may grossly underestimate the defensive value of guns.

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

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

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Follow The Money

A.F. Branco | on October 8, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-follow-the-money/

FEMA Dollars To Illegals — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Mayorkas reports FEMA is out of money for victims of Helene after spending it on illegal immigrants. Kamala is offering $750.00 per victim, while individual illegals are getting over 3000 a month and being housed in 5-star hotels.

FEMA, Whose Mission is to Support Citizens, Caught in a Lie: Claims ‘No Money is Being Diverted from Disaster Response’ While Funding Illegal Immigrant Resettlement

By Jim Hoft – Oct. 4, 2024 – The Gateway Pundit

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been caught in a web of deception regarding its spending priorities.
As Americans grapple with the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Helene, FEMA insists that no funds are being diverted from disaster relief to support illegal immigrant resettlement. Yet, evidence suggests otherwise.
According to the Department of Energy and Environment’s website, FEMA’s “mission is to support the citizens and first responders to promote that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.”… (READ MORE)

Category:

HUMOR, Political

Tagged with:

Walz Tried to Clean Up Falsehoods in Fox News Interview, But He Got Clobbered by the Facts Instead

By: Tristan Justice | October 07, 2024

Author Tristan Justice profile

Tristan Justice

Visit on Twitter@JusticeTristan

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz did the interview with Fox News his running mate never will, but instead of moving on from his record of dishonesty, he had another brutal run-in with the truth. On Sunday, Walz joined Shannon Bream for the network’s flagship Sunday political program, where Bream grilled the Democrats’ vice-presidential nominee on a range of issues from the serial falsehoods about his personal life to Iran. ABC News characterized the interview as a “cleanup” operation. It came days after the debate with Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, when Walz celebrated friendships with school shooters and struggled to explain his lie about where he was during the 1989 massacre in Tiananmen Square. Walz has also previously exaggerated his military service and wrongly claimed his own children were conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF).

“What do you say to the American people who think, ‘I don’t know that I can trust this guy with all those modifications to be the potential commander-in-chief of this country?’” asked Bream.

“I think they heard me,” Walz said, “… and I got to be honest with you, Shannon. I don’t think people care whether I used IUI or IVF when we talk about this. What they understand is Donald Trump would resist those things.”

https://twitter.com/AlphaNewsMN/status/1843026524406210964?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1843026524406210964%7Ctwgr%5Eb299f985477bd020acd2f91ad0086bd3418f00a0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2024%2F10%2F07%2Fwalz-tried-to-clean-up-falsehoods-in-fox-news-interview-but-he-got-clobbered-by-the-facts-instead%2F

Bream, however, corrected Walz on former President Donald Trump’s platform, which explicitly endorses IVF. “If we’re going to deal in truth,” Bream said, “both the president, the former president and his nominee have said they are very supportive of IVF.”

Earlier in the interview, Bream pressed Walz about the incumbent immigration crisis that is unfolding under Vice President Harris, the administration’s “border czar.”

“She has policies that make a difference,” Walz said. “Her border policies are the most strongest, the fairest we’ve seen.”

“Governor, you know a lot of people, including your own party, would not join that statement,” Bream said, in light of the fact that more than 10 million illegals having entered the United States under President Joe Biden.

Walz pivoted to complain about Republicans in Congress rejecting a bill, negotiated by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., that would have codified an open border. “This is a real bill that has bipartisan support. It has the experts on board, and it starts to tackle these issues,” Walz said. The bill, however, also grants asylum for all, with 5,000 crossings permitted on a daily basis.

https://twitter.com/GrageDustin/status/1842935798129442993?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1842935798129442993%7Ctwgr%5Eb299f985477bd020acd2f91ad0086bd3418f00a0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2024%2F10%2F07%2Fwalz-tried-to-clean-up-falsehoods-in-fox-news-interview-but-he-got-clobbered-by-the-facts-instead%2F

“That piece of legislation,” Bream said, “does … include the wall. … You’ve disparaged that. I mean, the vice president has as well. So, I don’t know if she really intends to move forward with that.”

In fact, here’s what Harris wrote about the border wall in her 2019 book, The Truths We Hold, when recounting the 2018 budget debate over the barrier:

A useless wall on the southern border would be nothing more than a symbol, a monument standing in opposition to not just everything I value, but to the fundamental values upon which this country was built. … How could I vote to build what would be little more than a monument, designed to send the cold, hard message “KEEP OUT”?

[LISTEN: Kamala Harris: The Machine Candidate]

Walz ran into another fact-check when he blamed the death of a Georgia woman on Republican abortion laws. “States like Georgia force women to cross the border and then we have a death of Amber Thurman,” Walz said. “Trying to cut hairs on an issue on this is not where the American public is at. They want the restoration of Roe versus Wade. Vice President Harris said she would sign it.”

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1842933624133316685?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1842933624133316685%7Ctwgr%5Eb299f985477bd020acd2f91ad0086bd3418f00a0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2024%2F10%2F07%2Fwalz-tried-to-clean-up-falsehoods-in-fox-news-interview-but-he-got-clobbered-by-the-facts-instead%2F

Bream clarified the Democrats’ support for on-demand abortion goes well beyond the precedent previously established in Roe v. Wade, and then corrected the record on Thurman’s death.

“What her family has said is it was a complication from an abortion pill that she received, and she didn’t get proper care when she went to a Georgia hospital, which had multiple opportunities to intervene there,” Bream said. “Her own attorney, the family’s attorney, says it wasn’t the Georgia law, it was the hospital.”

“I’m a knucklehead at times,” Walz said in last week’s CBS debate with a performance so disastrous, the writers of Saturday Night Live (SNL) mocked him this weekend.

https://twitter.com/floridanow1/status/1842885271303458873?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1842885271303458873%7Ctwgr%5Eb299f985477bd020acd2f91ad0086bd3418f00a0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2024%2F10%2F07%2Fwalz-tried-to-clean-up-falsehoods-in-fox-news-interview-but-he-got-clobbered-by-the-facts-instead%2F

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

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Karine Jean-Pierre leaves briefing after Doocy questions Lebanon funding during hurricane season

By Hannah Grossman Fox News | Published October 7, 2024 4:57pm EDT

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre got into a heated exchange with Fox News Channel’s Peter Doocy over the White House sending aid to Lebanon during the hurricane season, which has had devastating effects on North Carolina.

Harris pledged Saturday to send $157 million of “additional assistance” to Lebanon while Israel attacks Hezbollah infrastructure and targets in the country. Harris argued the country was “facing an increasingly dire humanitarian situation.” Doocy asked Jean-Pierre why the Biden administration was soliciting congressional input before sending disaster loan funds to North Carolina, but not to send the slush funds to a foreign country.

“On this issue of funding, the administration has money to send to Lebanon without Congress coming back. But Congress does have to come back to approve money to send to people in North Carolina. Do I have that right?” Doocy said.

“The president and the vice president has had a robust whole-of-government response to this… More than $200 million, …for the disaster help,” Jean-Pierre responded, adding that “people want to do disinformation, misinformation, which is dangerous.”

KAMALA HARRIS CAMPAIGN FRUSTRATED BY RECENT BIDEN MEDIA APPEARANCES, SAYS CNN REPORTER

Karine Jean-Pierrie Peter Doocy — Karine Jean-Pierre gets into heated exchange with Fox News Peter Doocy Monday. (Fox News Digital)

Doocy asked whether the president’s letter to Congress soliciting their help was misinformation.

“No. The way you’re asking me the question is misinformation. There is money that we are allocating to the impacted areas, and there’s money there to help people who truly need it. There are survivors who need the funding, who need the funding. And it’s there,” she said.

“You can’t call a question you don’t like misinformation,” Doocy said.

BIDEN GETS DEFENSIVE WHEN PUSHED ON WHO’S ‘COMMANDING’ HURRICANE HELENE RESPONSE

“No, what you’re asking me is why Congress needs to come back and do their job. That’s what you’re asking me. Congress needs to come back and do their job and provide extra assistance, extra funding for the disaster relief fund. That’s what Congress needs to do,” she responded. “You may not want that, but that’s okay. That’s what this president wants, and that’s what the vice president wants.”

Jean-Pierre then stormed out of the briefing room.

The administration has been accused of mismanaging funds after Homeland Security’s Alejandro Mayorkas said Wednesday “FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season.”

man wades through helene waters in NC — Workers, community members, and business owners clean up debris in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene in Marshall, North Carolina on Monday, Sept. 30, 2024. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Critics on social media were quick to slam Harris for touting the foreign aid to Lebanon, arguing that many North Carolina residents are struggling to recover from Hurricane Helene.

“Kamala is touting giving money to the people of Lebanon-while stiff-arming the humanitarian crisis in North Carolina,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said on X. “This is Kamala’s Katrina.”

“Could this be any more tone deaf? We have Americans suffering and in danger right now after the hurricane and this is what Kamala has to announce. America First!” Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-N.Y., said on X.

The controversial tweet comes as the Biden administration has continued to face backlash for its handling of Helene, with former President Trump calling the federal response to the disaster the “most incompetently managed ‘storm,’ at the federal level, ever seen before.”

Fox News’ Michael Lee contributed to this report.

Hannah Grossman is a Reporter at Fox News Digital.

Category:

Political

Jack Smith’s October Surprise Was Not That Surprising . . . and that is the Problem

By: Jonathan Turley | October 7, 2024

Below is my column in The Hill on the release of the filing by Special Counsel Jack Smith just weeks before the election. Even Judge Tanya Chutkan described the move as “irregular,” but still ordered the release. While the usual voices heralded the move, others, including the CNN senior legal analyst, denounced the release as a raw political act by the court and the Special Counsel. The problem is that it was not in the least bit surprising.

Here is the column:

“The most stupendous and atrocious fraud.” Those words from federal prosecutors could have been ripped from the filing this week of Special Counsel Jack Smith defending his prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

Yet they were actually from a Justice Department filing 184 years ago, just days from the 1840 presidential election. Democratic President Martin Van Buren was struggling for reelection against Whig William Henry Harrison, and his Justice Department waited until just before voters went to the polls to allege that Whig Party officials had paid Pennsylvanians to travel to New York to vote for Whig candidates two years earlier. It was considered by many to be the first “October Surprise,” the last-minute pre-election scandal or major event intended to sway voters.

To avoid such allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states “Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”

Jack Smith, however, has long dismissed such considerations. For years, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial. Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.

After the Supreme Court rendered parts of his indictment against Trump presumptively unconstitutional, Smith made clear that he was prepared to prosecute Trump up to the very day of his inauguration. True to his reputation and record, Smith refused to drop the main allegations against Trump to avoid official decisions or acts that the court found to be protected in Trump v. United States. Instead, he stripped out some prior evidence linked to Trump’s presidency, including witnesses serving in the White House. Yet the same underlying allegations remain. Smith just repeatedly uses references to Trump as acting as “a private citizen.”

It is like a customer complaining that he did not order a Coke and the waiter pouring it into a Mountain Dew bottle and saying, “Done!”

Smith even refused to drop the obstruction of official proceedings, despite another recent Supreme Court decision (Fischer v. United States) rendering that charge presumptively invalid.

Smith is making his case not to Judge Tanya Chutkan, but to America’s voters. Chutkan has consistently ruled with Smith to help him expedite the case. She permitted his hastened “rocket docket” despite declaring that she would not consider the election schedule as a factor in the pace of filings or even of the trial itself.

For critics, Judge Chutkan has proven far too motivated in the case. Indeed, many thought that she should have recused herself given her statement from a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022. Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her courtroom for trial by Smith.

In their latest move, Chutkan and Smith used the Supreme Court decision to file a type of preemptive defense — an excuse to lay out the allegations against Trump in a 165-page filing filled with damaging accounts and testimonials against Trump, just weeks ahead of the election.

Even Chutkin herself acknowledged that Smith’s request was “procedurally irregular,” but she still allowed it. This was a premature exercise that would ordinarily occur months later, after defense filings. She could have scheduled such filings just a few weeks from now. She could have easily kept the filing under seal to avoid the appearance of political machinations. But the political effect appears to be the point. Chutkin again selected the most politically impactful option, at Smith’s urging.

This was so “irregular” that ordinarily anti-Trump legal analysts, such as CNN’s senior legal analyst Elie Honig, denounced Smith’s filing as “an unprincipled, norm-breaking practice.” He added that “Smith has essentially abandoned any pretense; he’ll bend any rule, switch up on any practice — so long as he gets to chip away at Trump’s electoral prospects.”

Others, as expected, applauded the filing as not just well-directed but well-timed. Smith was making his closing election argument to voters because he knows that the 2024 election will be the largest jury verdict in history. If voters reelect Trump, then neither Chutkin nor Smith will likely see a jury in the case. This is why they must convict Trump now in the public eye, or else admit to an effective acquittal by plebiscite.

Their timing could well backfire. The weaponization of the legal system is central to this election, including the role of the Justice Department in pushing the debunked Russia-collusion allegations from the 2016 race. For many, the content of Smith’s filing is not nearly as important as the time stamp over the case caption. Titled a “Motion for Immunity Determination,” it seems more like a “Motion for an Election Determination.”

Smith’s raw political calculation should be troubling for anyone who values the rule of law. None of this excuses anything in these allegations against Trump. But the most disturbing part of Smith’s October Surprise was that it was not in the least bit surprising.

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

Category:

Crime, Law, Political

Tagged with:

“We Lose Total Control”: Clinton Continues Her Censorship Campaign on CNN

By: Jonathan Turley | October 7, 2024

Hillary Clinton is continuing her global efforts to get countries, including the United States, to crackdown on opposing views. Clinton went on CNN to lament the continued resistance to censorship and to call upon Congress to limit free speech. In pushing her latest book, “Something Lost and Something Gained,” Clinton amplified on her warnings about the dangers of free speech. What is clear is that the gain of greater power for leaders like Clinton would be the loss of free speech for ordinary citizens.

Clinton heralded the growing anti-free speech movement and noted that “there are people who are championing it, but it’s been a long and difficult road to getting anything done.” She is right, of course. As I discuss in my book, the challenge for anti-free speech champions like Clinton is that it is not easy to convince a free people to give up their freedom. That is why figures like Clinton are going “old school” and turning to government or corporations to simply crackdown on citizens. One of the lowest moments came after Elon Musk bought Twitter on a pledge to restore free speech protections, Clinton called upon European officials to force Elon Musk to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). This is a former democratic presidential nominee calling upon Europeans to force the censorship of Americans.

She was joined recently by another former democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, who called for government crackdowns on free speech. Other democrats have praised Brazil for banning X. For her part, Clinton praised the anti-free speech efforts in California and New York and called for the rest of the country to replicate the approach of those states.

Clinton added a particularly illuminating line that said the quiet part out loud. This is all about power and the fear that she and others will “lose control” over speech:

“Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects it’s real harm, it’s child porn and threats of violence, things that are terribly dangerous.”

Clinton continues to offer a textbook example of the anti-free speech narrative. While seeking sweeping censorship for anything deemed disinformation, Clinton cites specific examples that are already barred under federal law like child porn.

Despite the amplified message on sites like CNN, most citizens may not be as aggrieved as Clinton that she and her allies could “lose total control” over the Internet. The greater fear is that she and her allies could regain control of social media. The Internet is the single greatest invention for free speech since the printing press. That is precisely why figures like Clinton are panicked over the inability to control it.

If citizens remain true to their values and this indispensable right, Clinton will hopefully continue to face “a long and difficult road to getting anything done” in limiting the free speech of her fellow citizens.

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

Category:

censorship, Free Speech, Law, Political

Tagged with:

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

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Meltdown

A.F. Branco | on October 6, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-meltdown/

Vance Walz Debate — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Vance demolished Walz in the last debate, and all he used was the truth, while Walz fumbled under the weight of his lies.

Tim Walz melts down at debate when pressed to explain his China trip, admits he ‘misspoke’

By Mariane Angela – Oct 2, 2024

When confronted with the discrepancy by the host, Walz responded with a lengthy discourse on his background and various accomplishments.
(Daily Caller News Foundation) — Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz faltered when pressed to clarify his previous claims that he was present in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 during the vice presidential debate against Republican Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance.
Despite earlier claims of being in the region during the pivotal events of spring 1989, credible reports from Minnesota Public Radio and other outlets have shown that Walz did not travel to Asia until several months later, as pointed out by the debate host. When confronted with the discrepancy by the host, Walz responded with a lengthy discourse on his background and various… (READ MORE)

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Joy to the Rescue

A.F. Branco | on October 7, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-joy-to-the-recue/

Kamala $750 To Victims of Helene — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – After Kamala’s Administration blew all the FEMA money on illegals, she’s offering $750.00 to the victims of Helene. Billions have gone to Ukraine, and now millions are going to Lebanon.

Smash-Mouth Marxism: Kamala Harris Brags Online About Sending $157 Million to Lebanon As Southeast US Suffers Through Historic Flooding and FEMA Admits It Blew Money on Illegals

By Jim Hoft – Oct. 6, 2024

This is what you call smash-mouth Marxism. They mock you in your suffering because they know they can. As long as elections can be stolen this is what you can expect from your ‘representative’ government.
On Saturday, Kamala Harris bragged online about the Biden regime sending $157 million to war-ravaged Lebanon. She then added that over $385 million has gone to assist Hezbollah-ruled Lebanon over the past year. (READ MORE)

Category:

HUMOR, Political

Tagged with:

Summing Up the Week of October 4, 2024, Politically INCORRECT Cartoons, Memes and Facts

Category:

Free Speech, HUMOR, Political

Tagged with:

MSNBC Producer: ‘Network Is Indistinguishable’ From Democrat Party, Makes Viewers ‘Dumber’

By: Eddie Scarry | October 04, 2024

It’s not exactly breaking news that MSNBC is dedicated to advancing Democrat Party power, but it is truly fascinating to witness one of its producers so openly disdain the channel and its viewers.

On Thursday journalist James O’Keefe released another sting operation-style video that shows a man identified as MSNBC producer Basel Hamden chatting with a woman who is surreptitiously recording the conversation. Hamden talks at length about MSNBC as less of a news operation and more of a hype machine for the national Democrat agenda, with amplifying party messaging as its sole purpose.

When asked about the ways MSNBC has been able to “help” Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, Hamden says, “They’re doing all they can,” adding, “What her message of the day is, is their message of the day.”

He says MSNBC’s reporters and anchors are “often saying the same exact things” as Democrat Party leaders. “This news network is indistinguishable from the party,” he says. When Hamden’s undercover interlocutor calls that “bad journalism,” he replies, “They’ve made their viewers dumber over the years.”

BREAKING: @MSNBC Producer Admits MSNBC Is 'Doing All They Can to Help’ the Harris Campaign

During an undercover date with an OMG journalist, Basel Hamdan (@BaselYHamdan), a writer and producer for MSNBC’s show “Ayman,” (@AymanMSNBC) was asked what the network has done to assist… pic.twitter.com/y9Yk8o1UX7
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 3, 2024

To be fair to the poor schlub, he showed some loyalty to his employer by accusing MSNBC’s competitor, Fox News, of producing “racist propaganda.” So at least he has that going for him.

I’m sure this is a highly embarrassing affair for Hamden, but he should know that he’s done a good thing, even if it was unintentional. He told the truth out loud about MSNBC’s real purpose (aiding Democrats) and the real consequence of its programming (dumber viewers).

Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone.”

Author Eddie Scarry profile

Eddie Scarry

Visit on Twitter@eScarry

Category:

Media, Political

Tagged with:

Elon Musk: FEMA ‘Actively Blocking’ Volunteer Help in N.C.

By Nicole Wells | Friday, 04 October 2024, 01:57 PM EDT

Rep. Andy Harris on Salcedo

Tech billionaire Elon Musk took to X on Friday afternoon to claim the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is “actively blocking” volunteers who try to help the struggling citizens of western North Carolina in the wake of Hurricane Helene.

“Just received this note from a SpaceX engineer helping on the ground in North Carolina,” Musk wrote. “@FEMA is not merely failing to adequately help people in trouble but is actively blocking citizens who try to help!”

“Hey Elon, update here on site of Asheville, NC,” Musk said his employee wrote. “We have powered up two large operating bases for choppers to deliver goods into hands. We’ve deployed 300+ starlinks and outpour is it has saved many lives.’

“The big issue is FEMA is actively blocking shipments and seizing goods and services locally and locking them away to state they are their own,” the post continued. “It’s very real and scary how much they have taken control to stop people helping. We are blocked now on the shipments of new starlinks coming in until we get an escort from the fire dept. but that may not be enough.”

Musk’s allegation is not the only report of volunteers being blocked from assisting in the North Carolina rescue operations. A helicopter pilot hailing from South Carolina said he was threatened with arrest over the weekend for his efforts to rescue people trapped in the mountains.

Since making landfall over a week ago, Hurricane Helene has been blamed for the deaths of more than 200 people across several states in the Southeast, including North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia.

Nicole Wells ✉

Nicole Wells, a Newsmax general assignment reporter covers news, politics, and culture. She is a National Newspaper Association award-winning journalist.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Swing State Sued for Withholding Names of Over 200,000 Registered Voters Who Did Not Provide Proof of Citizenship

By: Jason Hopkins | October 04, 2024

“Vote here” signage is stored at a warehouse at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center ahead of the 2024 elections in Phoenix on June 3, 2024. (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP/Getty Images)

Jason Hopkins@thejasonhopkins

Jason Hopkins is a reporter covering immigration issues for the Daily Caller News Foundation.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—America First Legal on Thursday announced a lawsuit against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes for refusing to hand over the names of over 200,000 registered voters who have allegedly not provided proof of citizenship.

Fontes is breaking the law by refusing to comply with a records request that demands the names of roughly 218,000 individuals who are registered to vote but did not provide proof of citizenship, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit comes just weeks before Election Day, with former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris remaining in a dead heat in the state.

“America First Legal continues to lead the fight for election integrity,” Stephen Miller, America First Legal president and former senior adviser in the Trump administration, said in a press release. “We are suing the state of Arizona for refusing to provide the list of 218,000 voters who failed or refused to establish citizenship.”

“It is absolutely imperative that we stop the dire threat of illegal alien voting, which is the gravest form of foreign election interference,” Miller continued.

Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer identified in September a glitch in the voter roll system that marked more than 97,000 registered voters as having provided documentary proof of citizenship—which is required under Arizona law—even though these individuals had not done so. Richer filed an emergency petition in the Arizona Supreme Court on Sept. 17 in order to prevent these voter registrants from participating in local and state elections.

Fontes announced Monday that his office had discovered an additional “set of approximately 120,000 Arizonans who may be affected by a data coding oversight within [the Arizona Department of Transportation’s] Motor Vehicle Division and Arizona registration databases.”

The recent disclosure puts the total number of registered voters in the state who allegedly did not provide proof of citizenship up to roughly 218,000. The 2020 presidential election in Arizona was decided by a margin of less than 11,000 votes.

Immediately after Richer’s lawsuit, America First Legal filed a public records request asking the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office to hand over the list of all individuals who had unlawfully registered to vote, according to a press release from the organization. Fontes denied the request, alleging that disclosure of the names would lead to their harassment and that compiling the list would be too burdensome for staff.

America First Legal argues that Arizona’s public records request laws require Fontes to produce this type of information when requested.

“There have been major failures in the administration of just about every general election in Arizona from 2016 until now,” stated James Rogers, America First Legal senior counsel. “And every time anyone expresses concern, how does Secretary Fontes react? Victim blaming.”

“That is not what Arizonans expect from their elected leaders. The law requires Secretary Fontes to produce these records, and AFL will work to hold him accountable until he does,” Rogers continued.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona, also known as “EZAZ.org.”

Fontes did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Category:

corruption, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Here Are More “X” Videos of People Begging for Help, and Those Who are Trying to get that Help to Them

October 4, 2024

MUST LISTEN 🚨 Kamala Harris Admin ARRESTED a man for bringing helicopter full of supplies to Hurricane Helene victims

“There was a man that took off yesterday in his helicopter to go up in the mountains to drop off food. He landed and got arrested and said he was interfering… pic.twitter.com/I0OjFyVqMq
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) October 4, 2024

Keep in mind as you watch it that Biden said the states affected by Hurricane Helene are getting everything they need and are “very happy.”

There isn’t a single federal entity in this town helping these people, and they’re already on day six! WTF?! pic.twitter.com/VZREId4Ee6
— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) October 4, 2024

“It’s over, the choice is clear. You don’t have to like him but you see what America first was and now we see what America last is. You can’t defend this administration.”

Fact check: True pic.twitter.com/Tx92gZExvS
— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) October 4, 2024

WEAPONIZATION: Elon Musk posted that one of his SpaceX engineers on the ground in North Carolina is reporting that FEMA is blocking and seizing shipments of aid including Starlink receivers. The engineer reports that all Starlink shipments are on hold until they can get an escort… https://t.co/E3PqcsmHSa pic.twitter.com/YwkzZjjsU1
— @amuse (@amuse) October 4, 2024

we’re all being lied to #helene #NorthCarolina pic.twitter.com/VhZSm602V6
— Blake Clark (@laladaniella) October 4, 2024

My God listen to this pic.twitter.com/Ganam1NaFz
— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) October 4, 2024

This is disturbing. Land grab of Chimney Rock, NC.
Town to be bulldozed before removal of the deceased. Sicking and disrespectful. America is truly lost. Lord help us. pic.twitter.com/lXMg2nvWx9
— Pooh Say 💕 (@cathill17) October 3, 2024

The more videos I watch, the more convinced I am that we need to dismantle our government and start from scratch. pic.twitter.com/wkWgNGzE6c
— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) October 4, 2024

Biden has ordered a stand down of over a thousand military helicopter crews in the south. Every branch is reporting that they are waiting on orders while people die. This is an unprecedented action by the Biden/Harris crime syndicate. The hurricane conveniently destroyed the… https://t.co/YdcE7y3Tpd
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) October 3, 2024

A group of private helicopter pilots working *on their own* at great risk to rescue people deep in the mountains of storm-ravaged Western North Carolina. Their time, money, heart, soul.
Their day started like this. pic.twitter.com/XUChBt8AjW
— Dagen McDowell (@dagenmcdowell) October 3, 2024

“We don’t roll over! We don’t back down! We will get to our brothers and sisters without you! We don’t need you!”

WOW 🔥🔥🔥

Chills. pic.twitter.com/vQan2lPips
— TONY™ (@TONYxTWO) October 4, 2024

Category:

Family, Political, Society

Tagged with:

“Schencking” Free Speech: Walz Makes the Case for the Most Anti-Free Speech Ticket in History

By: Jonathan Turley | October 4, 2024

Below is my column in USA Today on the most chilling moment from the Vance-Walz debate when the Democratic nominee showed why he is part of the dream ticket for the anti-free speech movement.

Here is the column:

In the vice-presidential debate Tuesday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz pulled the fire alarm. His opponent, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, cited the massive system of censorship supported by Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate. Walz proceeded to quote the line from a 1919 case in which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said you do not have the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. It is the favorite mantra of the anti-free speech movement. It also is fundamentally wrong.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the justice’s line from his opinion in Schenck v. United States. Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

‘Fire in a theater’ case supported government censorship

As I discuss in the book, the line was largely lifted from a brief in an earlier free speech case. It has since become the rationale for politicians and pundits seeking to curtail free speech in America.

For example, when I testified last year before Congress against a censorship system that has been described by one federal court as “similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., interjected with the fire-in-a-theater question to say such censorship is needed and constitutional. In other words, the internet is now a huge, crowded theater and those with opposing views are shouting fire.

Goldman and Walz both cited a case in which socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Their “crime” was to pass out flyers in opposition to the military draft during World War I. Schenck and Baer called on their fellow citizens not to “submit to intimidation” and to “assert your rights.” They argued, “If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain.” They also described the military draft as “involuntary servitude.”

Holmes used his “fire in a theater” line to justify the abusive conviction and incarceration. At the House hearing, when I was trying to explain that the justice later walked away from the line and Schenck was effectively overturned in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio, Goldman cut me off and said, “We don’t need a law class here.”

In the vice-presidential debate, Walz showed that he and other Democratic leaders most certainly do need a class in First Amendment law. As I have said, the Biden-Harris administration has proved to be the most anti-free speech administration in two centuries. You have to go back to John Adams’ administration to find the equal of this administration.

Harris has been an outspoken champion of censorship in an administration that supports targeting disinformation, misinformation and “malinformation.” That last category was defined by the Biden administration as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

In the debate, Walz also returned to his favorite dismissal of censorship objections by saying that it is all just inflammatory rhetoric. Recently, Walz went on MSNBC to support censoring disinformation and declared, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” That is entirely untrue and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the right called “indispensable” by the Supreme Court. Even after some of us condemned his claim as ironically dangerous disinformation, Walz continues to repeat it.

Free speech advocates view Harris as a threat

This is why, for the free speech community, the prospect of a Harris-Walz administration is chilling. Where President Joe Biden was viewed as supporting censorship out of political opportunism, Harris and Walz are viewed as true believers.

We are living through the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in American history. We have never before faced the current alliance of government, corporate, academic and media forces aligned against free speech. A Harris-Walz administration with a supportive Congress could make this right entirely dispensable.

Others are laying the groundwork for precisely that moment. University of Michigan Law School professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade has said that free speech “can also be our Achilles’ heel.”

Columbia law professor Tim Wu, a former Biden White House aide, wrote a New York Times op-ed with the headline, “The First Amendment Is Out of Control.” He told readers that free speech “now mostly protects corporate interests” and threatens “essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.”

Walz said in the debate that Vice President Harris is promoting the “politics of joy.” Indeed, the wrong people are perfectly ecstatic. Harris and Walz are the dream team for the anti-free speech movement.

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

Category:

Free Speech, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Biden-Harris Admin Claims FEMA Is Out of Money. Here’s Where the Money Went

By: Tristan Justice | October 03, 2024

Author Tristan Justice profile

Tristan Justice

Visit on Twitter@JusticeTristan

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is pleading with lawmakers to send the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) more money after the disaster relief agency emptied the coffers to provide services for illegal immigrants.

“FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season,” Mayorkas told reporters on Air Force One Wednesday, with hurricane season running from June 1 through Nov. 30.

“We are meeting the immediate needs with the money that we have,” he said, after Hurricane Helene brought devastation to the southeastern United States.

(PLEASE SEE https://mrb562.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=96067&action=edit FOR TESTIMONIALS OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING)

The storm crashed into Florida as a Category 4 hurricane last week and poured a record-breaking 40 trillion gallons of water across the South, washing away entire Appalachian towns. Ryan Cole, the assistant director for emergency services in Buncombe County where Asheville became isolated due to broken roads and no power or cell service, characterized the aftermath as “Biblical.”

“You’ve heard us say, ‘catastrophic devastation within our county.’ I would go a little bit further and say we have Biblical devastation through the county,” Cole said Sunday. “We’ve had Biblical flooding here, and it has been extremely significant.”

But while communities across southern Appalachia scramble to rebuild following the torrential downpour that killed roughly 200 people, federal relief efforts have come up short. One woman named Alyse Adams, who s poke to NBC News about her family stuck in the North Carolina mountains, said she’s been stunned by the slow response from the Biden-Harris administration.

“I don’t know how you did not have a formal press conference or something from either President Biden or Kamala Harris,” Adams said. “FEMA is not on the ground there at all. They are not in these cities, not in these towns, and not in these villages.”

This woman has family trapped in Spruce Pine, North Carolina for 4 days… She just called out Biden and Harris live on NBC: pic.twitter.com/FFT11nuOPM
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 1, 2024

While the emergency response agency is typically proactive, with pre-staged supplies ready for immediate rescue operations, that same support was clearly not available to the Appalachian towns where Hurricane Helene wrought havoc. Instead, the Biden-Harris administration restructured FEMA to provide services for illegal migrants with a new bureaucratic mandate to instill “equity as a foundation of emergency management.” Storm preparedness ranks as a third priority for the disaster relief task force under “lead[ing] whole of community in climate resilience.”

According to the government’s website, FEMA has spent more than $1 billion “to provide humanitarian services to noncitizen migrants following their release from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)” under the “Shelter and Services Program” just within the last two years. The agency allocated nearly $364 million to the program in the fiscal year 2023 and $650 million for 2024.

“Over the last 4 years the Biden-Harris admin has steadily transformed FEMA — the agency responsible for responding to natural disasters like Hurricane Helene — into an illegal alien resettlement agency that emphasizes DEI over public safety,” reported America First Legal, a conservative non-profit. AFL published a series on online posts outlining where FEMA spent tax dollars meant to assist Americans in the aftermath of major storms and hurricanes.

“The Shelter and Services Program is designed to exclusively provide shelter and services to illegal aliens,” AFL reported, with millions in grants spent to groups primarily across the Southwest. AFL also highlighted the “Emergency Food and Shelter Program” as a “separate program” that has given $685 million “to fund illegal aliens.”

/4 Moreover, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program has been reshaped to provide funding to “families and individuals encountered by the Department of Homeland Security” – aka illegal aliens.

This is a SEPARATE program.

$685 MILLION has been allocated to fund illegal aliens. pic.twitter.com/QmLZvQLfYt
— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) September 30, 2024

According to the Congressional Budget Office, FEMA gets most of its funding from supplemental appropriations bills passed by lawmakers following natural disasters. This hurricane season, however, has only brought two major storms to the U.S. that caused widespread devastation: Helene and Beryl, which hit Texas in June. Yet Mayorkas is now demanding more funding for FEMA after the administration diverted the agency’s resources for the continued migrant crisis under President Biden’s “border czar,” Kamala Harris.

“We have, of course, made a significant request of Congress with respect to stable funding for the Federal Emergency Management Administration, which should not be a political issue,” Mayorkas said Wednesday. “This is something that Americans need desperately.”

Americans in the washed-out towns of southern Appalachia also need the support of their federal government more than the illegal border crossers in California and Texas, desperately.

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

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tim Walz Endorsed Censorship In Front Of Millions Of Americans And No One Cares

By: Mark Hemingway | October 03, 2024

Author Mark Hemingway profile

Mark Hemingway

Visit on Twitter@heminator

The most important exchange in Tuesday’s vice-presidential debate has been almost entirely ignored by the corporate media. Not surprisingly, that’s because it makes Walz look like an authoritarian and a fool in one fell swoop:

J.D. Vance: The most sacred right under the United States democracy is the First Amendment. You yourself have said there’s no First Amendment right to misinformation. Kamala Harris wants to use …

Tim Walz: …[inaudible] threatening or hate speech …

J.D. Vance: … the power of government and Big Tech to silence people from speaking their minds. That is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this present political moment. I would like Democrats and Republicans to both reject censorship. Let’s persuade one another. Let’s argue about ideas, and then let’s come together afterwards.

Tim Walz: You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test.

J.D. Vance: Tim. Fire in a crowded theater? You guys wanted to kick people off of Facebook for saying that toddlers should not wear masks.

CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell: Senator, the governor does have the floor.

Tim Walz: Sorry.

Ok, let’s unpack what happened here. Walz challenged Vance on Trump’s questioning of the 2020 election results and Jan. 6, and Vance countered by saying that if Walz and his running mate, Kamala Harris, were so concerned about the fate of democracy they wouldn’t be so adamantly pro-censorship. Specifically, Walz has previously said, quite incorrectly from any legal or moral standpoint, that there’s no First Amendment right to “misinformation.”

Walz interjects to, near as I can tell, try and clarify that he was also talking about limiting “threatening” words or “hate speech.” Interestingly, I looked at multiple debate transcriptions, and none of them had this quite audible interjection included — though the first word or two is hard to discern, the part about “threatening or hate speech” is quite clear. In any event, to the extent that Walz is trying to defend himself he’s doing an awful job.

The legal standards for “threatening” speech or incitement might be clearer, but it’s still a fraught issue. As for “hate speech,” he has no idea what he’s talking about. You may not like it, but “hate speech” is absolutely protected speech. The First Amendment is absolutely a right to offend people without legal sanction, even gratuitously. Otherwise, policing speech is just a tool for government oppression. After all, who defines what constitutes “hate speech?” Walz seems to be suggesting he wants to throw people in jail for not using preferred pronouns and the like.

But the coup de grace for sinister ignorance is Walz saying, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test.” Now if you know anything about First Amendment issues, the “fire in a crowded theater” line makes civil libertarians break out in hives. Somewhat surprisingly, The Atlantic had a very good article a few years back about the origin of the phrase:

In reality, though, shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater is not a broad First Amendment loophole permitting the regulation of speech. The phrase originated in a case that did not involve yelling or fires or crowds or theaters. Charles T. Schenck, the general secretary of the U.S. Socialist Party, was convicted in a Philadelphia federal court for violating the Espionage Act by printing leaflets that criticized the military draft as unconstitutional.

In a six-paragraph opinion issued on March 3, 1919, Justice Holmes wrote for a unanimous Court that Schenck’s conviction was justified because the leaflets advocated for obstructing military recruiting and therefore constituted a “clear and present danger” during a time of war. “We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights,” Holmes wrote. “But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

The rest of the article is worth reading for the full history, but in short, arresting people for handing out anti-war literature was justified by comparing it to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Which is unconscionable. Holmes himself later did an about-face on his own reasoning a year later, and the Supreme Court decision above was overturned by the court quite definitively by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. “Fire in a crowded theater” was never a reliable “Supreme Court test” as Walz put it, and it’s been totally inoperable as a matter of law since Walz was in kindergarten.

This is not some small matter here. I have no interest in defending what happened on Jan. 6 (though I do think a great many people have been subject to grossly unfair legal penalties for their participation in the riot, and that this has been done out of partisan spite). But Vance is absolutely correct when he says the Democrat Party’s embrace of censorship is far more threatening than anything on Jan. 6.

How do I know this? Well, to start, unlike Jan. 6, censorship has affected far more people and is an ongoing concern. This publication is involved in a lawsuit with The Daily Wire and the state of Texas against the State Department for promoting Big Tech censorship tools. The State Department justifies what they’re doing as part of a frightening attempt to police “misinformation” — which is routinely defined as any news that liberal academics and federal bureaucrats don’t think is politically expedient.

Earlier this week, Rep. Adam Schiff, who knowingly spread lies about President Trump treasonously colluding with Russia to undermine a fairly elected president, sent a letter to tech companies telling them to censor “false, hateful, and violent content” because it is a “threat” to the upcoming election. But who decides what content is false, hateful, or violent here? Adam Schiff is an especially unworthy judge of these matters, but then again, there’s no elected official that should be deciding who gets to say what. And sending letters that attempt to intimidate private companies into preventing Americans from exercising their most fundamental constitutional right … well, perhaps we live in more civil times, but I have an idea of how the Sons of Liberty would have responded to such a politician.

And it’s not just politicians, the First Amendment is also being actively undermined by the people who, in theory, have the biggest stake in protecting it. Our corporate media’s silence is further proof they quietly agree that the censorship of unruly citizens is necessary. After all, if they continue to do things like refuse a vaccine that doesn’t actually prevent transmission of the disease, stubbornly point out the octogenarian the White House has dementia, and won’t vote for who they’re told to — how exactly do they expect journalism’s current business model to succeed?

The fact remains that fewer people are going to read this very article because it’s being actively suppressed by Big Tech right now. Even if I didn’t have the receipts to show that this publication was being intentionally and unconstitutionally singled out for suppression by the feds, just the fact I typed “vaccine” in the preceding paragraph was probably enough to alert The Algorithms such that this article will forever show up on page six of any relevant search results. The writer in me wants to note the twisted irony of an article warning about the obliteration of the First Amendment being actively censored; the citizen in me just understands this as simple tyranny.

Unlike so many of my peers — alas, I think my parents have taken to telling their friends I sell used cars to spare themselves the shame of admitting I’m a journalist — I’m not going to tell you how to vote. But it is entirely fair to say that Tim Walz and his ilk do not understand the First Amendment, and they sure as hell don’t respect it.

And when people like that get in power, we all lose.

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

Category:

censorship, Free Speech, Political

Tagged with:

“Curbing” Free Speech: John Kerry Criticizes the First Amendment as “a Major Block” for Censorship

By: Jonathan Turley | October 3, 2024

Below is my column in the New York Post on the recent remarks of former Secretary of State John Kerry to the World Economic Forum, the latest in an array of powerful American politicians warning about the dangers of free speech and calling for government controls. He joins his fellow former Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton in reaching out to the global elite for help in censoring their fellow Americans.

Here is the column:

If you want to know how hostile the global elite are to free speech, look no further than John Kerry’s recent speech to the World Economic Forum. Rather than extol the benefits of democratic liberty versus dictatorships and oligarchs, Kerry called the First Amendment a “major block” to keeping people from believing the “wrong” things.

The former secretary of state and aide to the Biden-Harris administration told the sympathetic audience:

“You know, there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you’re going to have some accountability on facts, etc. But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.

“So, what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.”

Free rein on social media

The “freedom” to be won in this election is to liberate officials who like himself can set about controlling what can be said, read or heard. Kerry insisted that the problem with social media is that no one is controlling what they can say or read. “The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing. It is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue,” he said.

“It’s really hard to govern today. The referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn’t a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree. And people go and self-select where they go for their news, for their information. And then you get into a vicious cycle.”

Kerry continued: “Democracies around the world now are struggling with the absence of a sort of truth arbiter, and there’s no one who defines what facts really are.”

It is not clear when in our history we allowed “referees” to “determine what is a fact.”

Since the First Amendment has been in place since 1791, it is hard to imagine when referees were used in conformity with our Constitution. The Founders would have been repulsed by the idea of a “truth arbiter.” Yet it was a pitch that clearly went over big with the crowd at the World Economic Forum.

Located in Geneva, Switzerland, it is funded by over 1,000 member companies around the world. It is the perfect body for the selection of our new governing “arbiters.” The greatest irony was that, after fearmongering about this supposed parade of horrible that comes from free speech, Kerry insisted, “If we could strip away some of the fearmongering that’s taking place and get down to the realities of what’s here for people, this is the biggest economic opportunity.”

It was like Ed Wood denouncing cheesy jump scares in horror movies. Kerry is only the latest Democratic leader or pundit to denounce the First Amendment.

In my book on free speech, I discuss the growing anti-free speech movement being led by law professors and supported by both politicians and journalists. They include Michigan law professor and MSNBC commentator Barbara McQuade, who has called free speech America’s “Achilles’ heel.”

Columbia law professor Tim Wu, a former Biden White House aide, wrote an op-ed declaring “The First Amendment Is Out of Control.” He explained that free speech “now mostly protects corporate interests” and threatens “essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.”

George Washington University Law’s Mary Ann Franks complains that the First Amendment (and also the Second) is too “aggressively individualistic” and endangers “domestic tranquility” and “general welfare.”

‘Will we break the fever?’

Kerry hit all of the top talking points for the anti-free speech movement. He portrayed the First Amendment as hopelessly out of date and dangerous. He argued that citizens would be far better off if an elite could tell them what was information and what was disinformation.

Other political contemporaries are working on the same problem. Hillary Clinton has called upon Europeans to use the Digital Services Act to force the censoring of Americans. She has also suggested the arrest of Americans who she views as spreading disinformation.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D.-Mass.) has called for companies like Amazon to use enlightened algorithms to steer readers to “true” books on subjects like climate change to protect them from their own poor reading choices.

Kerry explained how the true heroes are those poor suffering government officials seeking to protect citizens from unbridled, unregulated thoughts:

“I think democracies are very challenged right now and have not proven they can move fast enough or big enough to deal with the challenges they are facing, and to me, that is part of what this election is all about. Will we break the fever in the United States?”

The “fever” of free speech is undeniably hard to break. You have to convince a free people to give up part of their freedom. To do so, they have to be very angry or very afraid. There is, of course, another possibility: that there is no existential danger of disinformation. Rather there are powerful figures who want to control speech in the world for their own purposes. These are the same rationales and the same voices that have been throughout our history for censorship.

Give me liberty

Each generation of government officials insists that they face some unprecedented threat, whether it was the printing press at the start of our republic or social media in this century. Only the solution remains the same: to hand over control of what we read or hear to a governing elite like Kerry.

In 1860, Frederick Douglass gave a “Plea for Free Speech in Boston,” and warned them that all of their struggles meant nothing if the “freedom of speech is struck down” because “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.” Douglass denounced those seeking to deny or limit free speech as making their “freedom a mockery.” Of course, Douglass knew nothing of social media, and he certainly never met the likes of John Kerry.

However, if we embrace our new arbiters of truth we deserve to be mocked as a people who held true freedom only to surrender it to a governing elite.

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

Category:

censorship, Free Speech, Law, Political

Tagged with:

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

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Foreigners First

A.F. Branco | on October 3, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-foreigners-first/

Money For Ukraine Barely Any for Helene Victims — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – After giving 174 billion to Ukraine, Biden tells flood victims of Helene, We’ve given all we have. It appears that Trump and Elon Musk acted more like effective leaders than Kamala or Biden. Kamala did pretend she was talking on the phone, not plugged in, though, while Biden was hanging out at the beach – Again.

Joe Biden Tells Americans Suffering in Flood Disaster Zone… “No.” There Won’t be More Resources Coming… “We’ve Given Them All We Have” (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft – Sept 30, 2024 – The GAteway Pundit

Another devastating disaster hit the southern United States this week and the Biden-Harris administration is nowhere to be found.
The Southeastern United States was plunged into devastation after Category 4 Hurricane Helene, the strongest hurricane to ever strike Florida’s Big Bend region, unleashed catastrophic destruction across six states.
Helene’s ferocious winds and torrential rains have claimed at least 95 lives, left millions without power, and trapped countless families in floodwaters, particularly in North Carolina, where entire communities have been cut off from vital resources… READ MORE…

Category:

HUMOR, Political

Tagged with:

Here are Some People Who are in the Disaster Areas. Again, the Biden Administration is Lying to all of us.

October 3, 2024

🚨🚨MAKE IT GO VIRAL!

“They are literally allowing this people to fvcking die in the mountains right now because we can’t get helicopters.”

Jonathan Howard with the Florida State Guard Special Mission Unit who is assisting Aerial Recovery says they desperately NEED… pic.twitter.com/EtWrkYtYc4
— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) October 2, 2024

Hurricane Helene: Tennessee Resident Says Tennessee/ FEMA Sending Out Text Messages Telling Everyone Do Not Help Neighbors In Need

Messages saying “We don't want you to donate stuff to other people. You need to just donate money and stuff to us and get your instructions from us… pic.twitter.com/gzuF8owjmF
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) October 2, 2024

!! https://t.co/JW4iMlqDNN
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2024

MUST WATCH & MUST SHARE ! If you don’t fear the government yet , you will after watching this 👇 Apply logic to your question WHY ! So they can make life of disaster victims as miserable as possible ; where people give up , leave their homes never to return…. #AbandonedAmerica pic.twitter.com/GtdzuTTBqz
— VeBee🇺🇸✝️ (@VeBo1991) October 3, 2024

Something very sinister is going on…

This 6-minute video is a must watch.

America is waking up, and it's not going to be pretty. pic.twitter.com/vQZ8jNbi8j
— Biden is not Lolas President ❤ (@TrumpLola) October 3, 2024

Citizen just LIT UP columnist Paul Krugman at CUNY over Helene victims, billions to Ukraine, and the Economy

“We’re getting evicted and you’re making millions!” pic.twitter.com/t0bj2YhIQM
— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 3, 2024

Appalachia Strong! 👊👇 pic.twitter.com/V2YtihOg5e
— ⚔Dennis⚔ (@clovis1931) October 3, 2024

“FEMA is present but they’re in the way! They are interrupting our ability to conduct missions and operations.

Rooms aren’t available for victims because Federal Employees taken all of them.”

KAMALA’S AMERICA. pic.twitter.com/4mbu3PdOzk
— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) October 3, 2024

Kamala Harris telling stranded flood victims they can apply ONLINE for $750 in immediate assistance…

This is a joke, right? pic.twitter.com/VpX6BVpBk3
— Jane Adams (@iLoveJaneAdams) October 2, 2024

If this doesn't make your blood boil, nothing will. https://t.co/biJNV5W5xA
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) October 3, 2024

Hurricane survivor torches Biden and Harris for their lack of response. pic.twitter.com/1iEuu1s6LQ
— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) October 2, 2024

Category:

Family, General, Political, Society

Tagged with:

Hurricane survivors

I Just Saw This and Wanted to Share it With You ASAP

Wow. The day after the Teamsters released their survey results showing 60% support among their members for Trump, a Steamfitters Union member announces that 70% of his members support Trump.

Trump has UNPRECEDENTED support with blue collar workers.pic.twitter.com/aHqteibKgo
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) September 19, 2024

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

NEWT GINGRICH Op-ed: At VP debate a star is born and Trump is vindicated

By Newt Gingrich Gingrich360.com | Published October 2, 2024, 2:36pm EDT

The vice-presidential debate on Tuesday night was staggeringly one-sided.

Sen. JD Vance was poised, calm, friendly, likable, and in control of the facts and himself.

By contrast, Gov. Tim Walz began the debate so nervous it was painful to watch. Then he made a series of mistakes which were cumulatively disqualifying. It was hard to believe he is on a national ticket.

VANCE VS. WALZ DEBATE: TOP TAKEAWAYS FROM VP CANDIDATES’ FACE-OFF

Callista and I went to bed on Tuesday night convinced that Sen. Vance had won a substantial triumph. In that victory, he also vindicated President Donald J. Trump’s gamble in selecting a running mate so early in his career. At 40, with only two years in the U.S. Senate, Vance is only a few months older than Richard Nixon when President Dwight Eisenhower picked him to be the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 1952. Nixon would remain a major part of the political scene for 42 years. That would give Sen. Vance a potential role in American government and politics until 2066.

When I got up on Wednesday morning, virtually all the commentaries validated the sense that the debate was something extraordinary.

Video

This new reality was best summarized by Mark Halperin in the Wide World of News newsletter:

“1. One can pretend, as most of the Dominant Media does, that Tim Walz was not ‘clobbered’ by JD Vance, but, as honest Joe Klein (fully credentialed as second-to-none in contempt for Donald Trump and Vance) told the world, Walz was indeed clobbered, so badly that it ‘wasn’t as bad as Biden’s debilitated performance in June, but it was close.’ Remember: Biden’s perf[romance] was so bad it ended his candidacy and career.”

Pollster Frank Luntz tweeted that his focus group voted 12 to 2 that Vance had won.

Glenn Greenwald posted on X: “The most bizarre part of that debate was how Tim Walz repeatedly and flagrantly undercut Dems’ core attack on Trump/Vance: that they’re “weird,” freakish dangers wildly out of the mainstream.

“Everything Walz said treated Vance as a totally normal, reasonable, likable colleague.”

The most bizarre part of that debate was how Tim Walz repeatedly and flagrantly undercut Dems' core attack on Trump/Vance: that they're "weird," freakish dangers wildly out of the mainstream.

Everything Walz said treated Vance as a totally normal, reasonable, likable colleague.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 2, 2024

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat posted: “I would rate that the most successful Republican debate performance of this century, eclipsing Romney in the first debate with Obama in 2012.”

Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume had no regard for the performances of moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, saying they were “obnoxious” and made the debate a three-on-one proposition against Vance.

Video

These were just a few. The Trump-Vance campaign collected no fewer than 22 journalists and public figures who agreed that Vance trounced Walz. Donald Trump Jr. was the third big winner in this debate. He had strongly backed Sen. Vance as a running mate and worked to get his father to pick him. That choice certainly seemed to work out brilliantly.

As Caitlin Doornbos in the NY Post wrote, Gov. Walz’s problems started at the beginning. “Tim Walz got one chance to make a first impression at Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate, and blew it before his opponent, JD Vance, even got the chance to speak.”

His nerves clearly kept him from meeting the challenge.

Video

Finally, Gov. Walz said a couple of things that were just weird. In a clear moment of confusion, he said he’d become “friends with school shooters.” When asked why he had lied about being at Tiananmen Square during the 1989 suppression and killing of students demonstrating for democracy, Walz ultimately called himself a “knucklehead” for simply saying something that was false. Being the “knucklehead candidate” is not a good way to campaign for the last five weeks before the election.

After last night, Sen. Vance is a huge national figure among Republicans and conservatives. He will have much more impact campaigning than he did before the debate.

After Tuesday night, Gov. Walz will be seen by most Americans as someone who is clearly not ready to be president or vice president.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s comment that she was exhausted and sleepless when she picked him will now look like a first step toward minimizing his role – and her ability to make decisions under pressure.

A vindicated President Trump will campaign with more enthusiasm and a greater sense of certainty that he has built a winning ticket.

It was a much bigger night than I expected.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM NEWT GINGRICH

Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999 and a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He is chairman of Gingrich 360.

Category:

Opinion, Political

Tagged with:

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Political’ Category

By: Jonathan Turley | October 15, 2024

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

Share this:

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Uncle Barack

Black Men Respond to Obama’s Scolding, Double Down on Support for Donald Trump: ‘I Got a Dad, I Know Who He Is, And He Ain’t You’

Share this:

Share this:

By: Logan Washburn | October 14, 2024

Briefings by Professional Censorship Gurus

Attempt to Cancel a Professor for Retweeting Election Post

Called Free Speech a ‘Thorn in the Side of My Office’

Share this:

Bill Clinton suggests Laken Riley would still be alive if border ‘properly’ secured, hitting Republicans

Share this:

By: Jonathan Turley | October 14, 2024

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

Share this:

Many of these items could only be fulfilled by knowingly gutting the Constitution and assuming the powers of a monarch. That includes just canceling all student and medical debt in defiance of both the courts and Congress.

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

Share this:

By: Jonathan Turley | October 14, 2024

Share this:

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Governor Knucklehead

Tim Walz says Electoral College ‘needs to go’ during fundraiser with Gavin Newsom

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Final Showdown

“THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!” – President Trump Announces No More Showdowns With Comrade Kamala Harris and Claims Victory

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

By: Ashley Bateman | October 11, 2024

‘Medicine’s Ability to Harm Is Nearly Limitless’

Refusing to Acknowledge Detransitioners

Warring Medical Organizations

Share this:

By: Jordan Boyd | October 11, 2024

Share this:

By Mark Swanson | Friday, 11 October 2024 05:01 PM EDT

Mark Swanson ✉

Mark Swanson, a Newsmax writer and editor, has nearly three decades of experience covering news, culture and politics.

Share this:

By: Jonathan Turley | October 11, 2024

Share this:

By: The Federalist Staff | October 10, 2024

Arizona

Georgia

Michigan

Nevada

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Share this:

By Julia Johnson Fox News | Published October 10, 2024, 4:28pm EDT

Julia Johnson is a politics writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business, leading coverage of the U.S. Senate. She was previously a politics reporter at the Washington Examiner.

Follow Julia’s reporting on X at @JuliaaJohnson_ and send tips to Julia.Johnson@fox.com.

Share this:

By Alec Schemmel Fox News | Published October 10, 2024, 1:41pm EDT

Share this:

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

Share this:

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Chutzpah

Share this:

By: Shawn Fleetwood | October 09, 2024

Share this:

By: Beth Brelje | October 09, 2024

Babies’ Lives Matter

That is enough babies to fill the University of Michigan’s “Big House” football stadium 10 times.

Pro-Life Americans’ Lives Matter

Policies Honoring Life Matter

Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.

Share this:

By Brooke Singman , Paul Steinhauser Fox News | Published October 9, 2024 12:31pm EDT

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

Share this:

By: Jonathan Turley | October 9, 2024

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

Share this:

A.F. Branco Cartoon – This Is Nuts

Biden-Kamala Regime Burns $1 BILLION in FEMA Funds to Resettle Illegal Immigrants — FEMA Now Lacks Resources for Disaster Response!