Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Political’ Category

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – RNC 2024 Kickoff

A.F. BRANCO |  on March 20, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-rnc-2024-kickoff/

Trumps’s RNC 2024
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

In with the new and out with the old. The Trump people have taken over the RNC with Lara Trump at the helm, so apparent changes are in store, such as removing the RINOs and guiding the party more closely aligned with the conservative base voter as opposed to the elites.

Lara Trump’s Leadership has instant instant effect on GOP’s digital fundraising

Posted by Guest Contributor  March 19, 2024

Lara Trump, the newly appointed co-chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC), declared on Wednesday that the GOP had experienced its “largest digital fundraising weekend since 2020.” The announcement was made via a post on X, where she expressed her pride in the achievement and hinted at more to come, stating, “we are just getting started!”

Although the exact amount raised was not disclosed, the news comes as a welcome relief for the financially beleaguered GOP. The party’s former chair, Ronna McDaniel, had previously been criticized for extravagant spending while achieving limited electoral success. 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.

US Supreme Court Lets Texas Enforce Law on Illegal Border Crossings


Tuesday, 19 March 2024 02:23 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/us/texas-law-illegal/2024/03/19/id/1157850/

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to block a Republican-backed Texas law allowing state law enforcement authorities to arrest people suspected of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, rejecting a request by President Joe Biden’s administration. The administration had asked the justices to freeze a judicial order allowing the Texas law to take effect while the U.S. government’s challenge to the statute proceeds in the lower courts. The administration has argued that the law violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law by interfering with the U.S. government’s power to regulate immigration.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott last December signed the law, known as SB 4, authorizing state law enforcement to arrest people suspected of entering the United States illegally, giving local officers powers long delegated to the U.S. government. Abbott said the law was needed due to Biden’s failure to enforce federal laws criminalizing illegal entry or re-entry, telling a Dec. 18 press conference that “Biden’s deliberate inaction has left Texas to fend for itself.”

The Democrat president’s handling of the record numbers of migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border during his presidency has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans. Abbott and other Republicans have said Biden should have kept the restrictive policies of former President Donald Trump, their party’s candidate challenging Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election.

The Texas law made illegal entry or re-entry into Texas a state crime, with penalties ranging from 180 days in jail to 20 years in prison. Under it, Texas magistrate judges will be required to order migrants to return to Mexico, with up to 20-year sentences for those who refuse to comply.

The Justice Department sued in January to block the measure, which was originally set to take effect on March 5. Biden administration lawyers argued that it violates federal law and constitutional provisions giving the U.S. government the power to regulate commerce with foreign countries and among states, and runs afoul of a 2012 Supreme Court precedent.

Texas-based U.S. District David Ezra on Feb. 29 sided with the administration and agreed to preliminarily block Texas officials from enforcing the law, saying that it “threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice.”

But the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paused Ezra’s ruling in an order that would have let the Texas law take effect on March 10, prompting the administration to file an emergency request to the Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito, who handles certain emergency matters involving cases from a group of states including Texas, on March 4 halted the 5th Circuit ruling — and thus the law — from taking effect, giving the Supreme Court more time to consider the matter.

Texas has pursued a range of measures to deter people who cross illegally under its Operation Lone Star, including deploying National Guard troops to the border, blocking migrants with concertina wire and installing a floating barrier over a stretch of the Rio Grande.

Republicans in February scuttled a bipartisan Senate deal that would have bolstered border security and tightened immigration laws after Trump pushed members of his party to reject it. Biden said blame for the bill’s failure lay with Republican lawmakers who bowed to political pressure from Trump who “thinks it’s bad for him politically.”

An analysis of exit polls conducted by Edison Research following primary election voting in early March showed alarm among many voters over the situation along the border. Many called it their top voting issue. Reuters/Ipsos polling showed Biden’s public approval level at 37% as of Feb. 28.

© 2024 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Dershowitz to Newsmax: $464M Judgment Against Trump Intended to Prevent Appeal


 By Nicole Wells    |   Tuesday, 19 March 2024 11:00 AM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-new-york/2024/03/19/id/1157811/

Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax on Tuesday that the $464 million judgment against Donald Trump in the New York civil fraud case is “unconscionable” and “unconstitutional,” and it is designed to prevent the former president from being able to appeal.

“It encourages lawless judges to simply impose fines that are so high that nobody can ever get the bond to appeal, and it means that they preclude themselves from being reversed on appeal,” Dershowitz said on Newsmax’s “Wake Up America.” “It’s unconscionable, and the state of New York has to change the process. I would hope that the New York Court of Appeals would do something about it.

“It just gives the judges the incentive to impose high fines to avoid being reversed on appeal. In this case, the fine was outrageous and will be lowered on appeal. Nobody has ever heard of a fine of close to a half a billion dollars without a finding of any damage whatsoever. Nobody was hurt. No lender, no bank was hurt. The money was made up.”

Trump has thus far been unable to obtain a bond that would allow him to appeal the $464 million judgment against him without posting the full amount himself, his attorneys said Monday. Trump must either find the cash or post a bond to prevent New York authorities from seizing his properties while he appeals last month’s ruling.

Dershowitz said Justice Arthur Engoron imposed such a high fine to prevent Trump from being able to appeal.

“The purpose of imposing so high a fine was precisely to prevent the appellate courts from slapping down the judge and saying, What are you thinking? That kind of money for this kind of event?” Dershowitz said. “It’s a cruel and unusual fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the process by which he’s being denied an appeal is also in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

“I hope his lawyers will bring these matters to the attention of the higher courts because it affects not only Donald Trump. This kind of a tactic, this ploy, could be used by judges against anybody. Impose a high fine, make it impossible for you to raise the bail and then avoid being reversed on appeal.”

Compounding Trump’s legal woes, Dershowitz said, is the difficulty in obtaining first-rate legal counsel due to a campaign of intimidation.

“Trump has had a hard time getting the top, top, top-tier attorneys in many instances because there’s an organization called Project 65, a McCarthy-ite left-wing organization which has as its goal deterring lawyers from representing Trump,” Dershowitz said. “They file bar charges, including one against me, and any other lawyer who defends Trump.

“I’ve had lawyers call me and say we’d love to defend the former president, but we can’t afford to have a bar charge. I’m obviously fighting mine — everybody should.

“There’s a systematic effort by this McCarthy-ite, unethical Project 65 to prevent lawyers from defending Trump and, unfortunately, it’s working.”

About NEWSMAX TV:

NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!

  • Find Newsmax channel in your home via cable and satellite systems – More Info Here
  • Watch Newsmax+ on your home TV app or smartphone and watch it anywhere! Try it for FREE — See More Here: NewsmaxPlus.com

Nicole Wells 

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

Trump Vows US Will Stay in NATO If Partners Pay Share


By Fran Beyer    |   Tuesday, 19 March 2024 03:22 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/donald-trump-nato-europe/2024/03/19/id/1157853/

Former President Donald Trump said the United States will “100%” stay in NATO if he wins the White House in November — as long as European countries “play fair” and meet their financial obligations to the alliance.

In an interview with Nigel Farage on Tuesday night on British TV channel GB News, Trump asserted his commitment to the transatlantic alliance as long as European nations don’t “take advantage” of U.S. support, according to Politico. The assurance comes as Western leaders worry Trump could formally withdraw the United States from NATO if he wins a second term as commander in chief, the outlet noted.

Trump has been critical of NATO for years, and said last month he’d “encourage” Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries that didn’t meet their financial obligations to the alliance. But Trump’s tone changed in the interview with Farage, the former leader of the U.K.’s Brexit Party — though the message remained the same: Europe must pay “its fair share” of defense costs, Politico reported.

“NATO has to treat the U.S. fairly, because if it’s not for the United States, NATO literally doesn’t even exist,” Trump declared.

Asked if the United States under his presidency would come to the aid of NATO countries under attack, Trump said it would.

“Yeah. But you know, the United States should pay its fair share, not everybody else’s fair share,” Trump said, according to Politico.

“We have an ocean in between some problems … we have a nice big, beautiful ocean,” Trump added. “[NATO] is more important for [European countries], they will take an advantage.”

“So, if they start to play fair, America’s there?” Farage asked.

“Yes — 100%,” Trump replied.

Politico reported that according to NATO, about two-thirds of its 32 member countries are spending on defense at the alliance’s target level of 2% or above of GDP. In his first White House term, Trump criticized the nation’s transatlantic allies — Germany in particular — about increasing defense spending, and Europe continues to worry over the reliability of the decades-old U.S. commitment to European security, Politico reported.

The anxiety is now heightened by Trump’s presidential bid and the gridlock in Washington over an aid package to help Ukraine fend off a Russian invasion, the outlet noted.

Fran Beyer 

Fran Beyer is a writer with Newsmax and covers national politics.

Note to Ketanji Brown Jackson: The First Amendment Should ‘Hamstring’ the Government. That’s the Entire Point.


By: Tyler O’Neil @Tyler2ONeil / March 19, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/19/note-ketanji-brown-jackson-first-amendment-should-hamstring-government-thats-entire-point/

Ketanji Brown Jackson shakes hands with a man in a blue suit while she wears a large necklace above her black robes
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested in oral arguments Monday that the First Amendment should not be allowed to “hamstring” the government amid a crisis. Pictured: Jackson arrives for President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address at the Capitol on March 7. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government strong-armed Big Tech companies into censoring as “disinformation” Americans’ true experiences while effectively mandating government propaganda, which itself turned out to be misinformation. The Supreme Court is currently considering whether that strategy violated the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested during oral arguments Monday that the First Amendment should not be allowed to “hamstring” the government amid a crisis.

Jackson asked J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, the solicitor general of Louisiana, a rather revealing question about the issue.

“So, my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson said.

The Supreme Court justice presented an extremely unlikely hypothetical that most American young people would find very insulting. She presented a scenario in which young people took cellphone video of their peers jumping out of windows, and that trend went viral on social media (preposterous), Big Tech companies failed to take action on their own (very unlikely), and the government wanted to stop it.

She asked Aguiñaga, “What would you have the government do? I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, ‘Kids, this is not safe, don’t do it,’ is not going to get it done.”

“So, I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” Jackson said. “I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”

“I understand that instinct,” Aguiñaga replied. “Our position is not that the government can’t interact with the platforms there … but the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment.”

Jackson suggested it would be unjust for the First Amendment to limit the government’s actions in addressing a hypothetical crisis, but the First Amendment expressly exists in order to hamstring the federal government.

As Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said in response to Jackson’s concern about the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government, “that’s what it’s supposed to do, for goodness’ sake.”

The amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The amendment does not include a “crisis-exemption clause” allowing the government to trample on free speech if the president declares a national emergency. If it did, President Joe Biden might declare a national emergency on climate and strong-arm Big Tech into censoring opposition to the climate alarmist narrative. He might declare a national emergency on the nonexistent “epidemic” of violence against transgender people, and pressure social media to ban any disagreement with gender ideology.

Big Tech platforms already censor conservative speech on those issues, but it could become far worse.

Missouri v. Murthy presents an excellent illustration.

The plaintiffs in the case—Missouri and Louisiana, represented by state Attorneys General Andrew Bailey and Liz Murrill, respectively; doctors who spoke out against the COVID-19 mandates, such as Martin Kulldorff, Jayanta Bhattacharya, and Aaron Kheriaty; Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft; and anti-lockdown advocate and Health Freedom Louisiana Co-Director Jill Hines—allege that the Biden administration “suppressed conservative-leaning free speech” on the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 presidential election; on COVID-19 issues, including its origin, masks, lockdowns, and vaccines; on election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; on the security of voting by mail; on the economy; and on Joe Biden himself.

On July 4, federal Judge Terry Doughty in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued an injunction barring the Biden administration from pressuring Big Tech to censor Americans. Doughty’s injunction named various federal agencies—including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (the agency Dr. Anthony Fauci formerly directed), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the State Department—and officials, including HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit narrowed the extent of Doughty’s injunction, and the Supreme Court stayed the 5th Circuit’s order before taking up the case.

“The Twitter Files” revealed how the process worked: Federal agencies would have frequent meetings with Big Tech companies, warning about “misinformation” and repeatedly pressuring them to remove or suppress content. Federal agents and politicians occasionally threatened that if the companies did not act, the government would reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, removing legal protections the companies enjoyed.

As Justice Samuel Alito noted, federal officials treated Facebook, Twitter (now X), and other social media companies “like their subordinates.”

As part of this lawsuit, Bailey unearthed documents in which Facebook told the White House that it suppressed “often-true content” that might discourage Americans from taking COVID-19 vaccines. In that context, Jackson’s question about the First Amendment “hamstringing the government” seems particularly alarming. The federal government did not act to suppress speech amid an existential crisis like a world war or a civil war. It acted after good data became available showing that COVID-19 poses a deadly threat to the elderly and those with co-morbidities, and while the government was advocating vaccines for all populations, not just the most vulnerable.

Jackson’s question suggests that she wants the government to have more control over speech on social media, even after the abuses this case uncovered. If the First Amendment is good for anything, it should “hamstring” the government from silencing Americans in order to push its own propaganda. Jackson, as a sitting Supreme Court justice, should know that.

Then again, if she can’t define the word “woman,” perhaps Americans shouldn’t be surprised if she doesn’t grasp the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Roadblock

A.F. BRANCO |  on March 17, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-roadblock/

03 MinnUber AN 1080
A Political Cartoon by A. F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Minneapolis City Council cracks down on Uber, making it hard to do business in the city

Uber says it will suspend services in metro area after Minneapolis vote

Lyft said it plans to shut down operations in Minneapolis. Uber and Lyft announced their eventual suspension of services in Minneapolis following the City Council’s authorization of a new city ordinance. Specifically, the ordinance would require Uber and Lyft drivers to be paid a “minimum compensation.” 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.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Get The Flock Out

A.F. BRANCO

 on March 19, 2024 at 5:00 am

Democrats Gaslighting
A Political Cartoon by A. F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Democrats always accuse their enemies of what they themselves are guilty of, right out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals.” Democrats have been beating the “Trump is a danger to Democracy” drum because it is all they have in their war chest with Biden as their candidate. It is actually the Democrats that are the real threat to freedom of speech, the 2nd Amendment, and our constitutional republic as a whole.

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

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

SUMMING UP THE WEEK OF POLITICALLY INCORRECT CARTOONS


March 16, 2024

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – To DEI For

A.F. BRANCO | on March 15, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-to-dei-for/

03 FlyDEI SM 1080
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

Many people feel that Boeing’s problems lately are due to its surrender to the Woke agenda, DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion).

AND ANOTHER ONE: Boeing Plane Forced to Land After Fuel Starts Leaking Out During Takeoff (VIDEO)

By Cullen Linebarger  – March 13, 2024

The woes continue to pile up for Boeing.

As NBC Bay Area reported, a scary scene unfolded Monday after one of the troubled manufacturer’s planes, a 777-300 jet, was forced to land due to fuel leaking from its right landing gear. The incident occurred just 10 seconds after United Airlines Flight 830 from Sydney to San Francisco took off.  Video captured by plane spotter New York Aviation shows clear images of fluid spewing from the plane.  A passenger video also shows the airline crew dumping fuel before the plane lands. WATCH:

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.

Republican Jewish Coalition: Schumer Crossed ‘Red Line’


By Fran Beyer    |   Thursday, 14 March 2024 01:38 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/chuck-schumer-matt-brooks-jewish-republicans/2024/03/14/id/1157291/

A political group supporting Jewish Republicans lashed out Thursday at Democrat Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s call for Israel to hold new elections and oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu amid the continued bombardment of Gaza.

In a stinging response to Schumer’s “anti-Israel speech,” Republican Jewish Coalition leader Matt Brooks declared the New Yorker had “crossed a real red line.”

“As Israel continues to righteously fight to defend itself from barbaric terrorists, the most powerful Democrat in Congress knifed the Jewish state in the back,” a RJC statement said — deriding the Schumer speech as having “demanded that Israel’s democratically-elected government be evicted from power and replaced by one more to his liking.”

“Sen. Schumer crossed a real red line,” the statement said. “It is outrageous and unacceptable to meddle in Israel’s domestic politics by demanding that a democratic ally hold elections on our timetable, particularly when the Jewish state is fighting for its very survival.”

The lashing noted that Schumer “has frequently described himself as the so-called ‘Shomer’, or guardian, of the Jewish people, but that his remarks Thursday were “a ‘Shanda’, a disgrace.”

The denouncement ended with “a clarion call to take back the White House and US Senate from this radical Democrat leadership,” accusing those leaders of “waging political warfare on our key ally Israel and rewarding terrorists.”

The searing criticism comes as Senate Republicans question Schumer’s outrage.

“Chuck Schumer’s demand for new Israeli elections is inappropriate and offensive,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wrote in a statement on social media. “Israel is a close ally and a healthy, vibrant democracy. The last thing Israel needs is the ‘foreign election interference’ that Democrats so often decry here.”

Fran Beyer 

Fran Beyer is a writer with Newsmax and covers national politics.

College Park Under Fire Over Self-Professed Revolutionary “Racial Equity” Leader


JonathanTurley.org | March 14, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/14/college-park-under-fire-over-self-professed-revolutionary-racial-equity-leader/

There is a controversy brewing in the City of College Park, Maryland over its “racial equity” leader Kayla Aliese Carter, who is tasked with eliminating systemic racism in the departments of the liberal city.  Carter has called for the United States to be burned down to allow for “Black Liberation.” The city says that it is investigating, but Carter is an interesting snapshot of what I have called the “radical chic” in academia and society. She is a revolutionary who called for violence while complaining that she is being asked to work for a living.  In addressing the controversy, the City of College Park will now need to establish a free speech principle that will apply equally to revolutionaries and reactionaries alike.

In 2022, Carter joined the city workforce under Mayor Fazlul Kabir to implement a “racial equity” agenda across all city departments, affecting policies, practices, programs and budgets. Under Kabir’s leadership, she was to work on reviewing “all current policies and programs” for any bias and “disparate impact… for Black people.”

Carter however appears to prefer arson to analysis.  She has long voiced violent and racist views. She helps guide fellow armchair revolutionaries on “how we will eat and live and grow after we burn it all down.”  She has little patience with incremental changes and calls for others to “dismantle this s–t.” Carter maintains that it is only the destruction of society that will result in true justice: “I can’t wait for society to collapse so MY ideology can rise from the ashes!”

She also rejects criticism of violence, asking “Why do Black people always have to rationalize our violence and anger?” After all, she noted on Instagram, “we are at war against colonialism.” She has posted on how she has facilitated and co-hosted events with people committed to her view of Black liberation. In these public statements, she repeatedly rejects calls for nonviolence in seeking the destruction of society: In one May 2020 post, she asked “Do y’all understand why the oppressed are constantly shamed out of using violence?? BECAUSE THE OPPRESSOR WANTS TO BE THE SOLE PROFITEER OF VIOLENCE. THEY DON’T WANT TO DEAL WITH BACK TALK. ‘DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO’ FACE A–. No.” Using “yT” for white people, she even slammed those who tried to be inclusive at work:

“This yT man in my meeting just said, ‘I want to take a moment and give the floor to any Black… participants to… tell us what MLK Day this year meant to you.’ I SWEAR I AM WHEEZING WHO HIRES THESE PEOPLE?” While working at one of the most far left governments in the country, she portrays her life as working within a system of white supremacist oppression. In one posting, she added at the end “White man calling, I got to go.”

While the Kabir administration pays her $75,600, she is not happy with having to work to feed herself due to this white supremacist, capitalist system. Instead, she posts how she should be a “collage artist” or a “lady of leisure.” However, her preferred job description may not resonate with employers outside of the City of College Park government: “I need a new job, but the problem is that I don’t want to work I just wanna lay in my bed being a girl can anyone help me with this?”

Yet, she says capitalism is to blame for forcing her back into criminal conduct: “Tired of being so underpaid also tired of applying to new jobs. I don’t wanna go back to s*lling dr*gs but this economy is getting desperate.” Of course, these postings may lead many to ask the same question raised by Carter herself: “I SWEAR I AM WHEEZING WHO HIRES THESE PEOPLE?”

The city has announced that it will look into the matter.

The fact is that Carter has free speech rights in the system that she is committed to burning down. The question is whether the City of College Park would support the same free speech rights for an employee who attacked minorities on social media and called for liberation or violence for white people. We have previously discussed the double standard often applied in academia.

Radical professors are often lionized on campuses. At the University of California Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. 

We have also seen professors advocating detonating white people,” denouncing policecalling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservativescalling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters, and other outrageous statements. University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis defended the murder of a conservative protester and said he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. The university later elevated Loomis to director of graduate studies of history.

Conversely, that support was far more muted or absent when conservative faculty have found themselves at the center of controversies. The recent suspension of Ilya Shapiro is a good example. Other faculty have had to go to court to defend their free speech rights. One professor was suspended for being seen at a controversial protest.

If the City of College Park is going to defend free speech rights, it needs to be clear that it will extend equally to all views and all employees.

As we watch how this controversy will play out, the postings do offer another insight into the radical chic in America, including the call for revolution while hoping to realize the dream of being “lady of leisure.” So, it is not just companies who are complaining about the lack of work ethic among young workers. Revolutionaries are facing the same motivational issues. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote “IT HAS been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.”

They added that in a capitalist system

“Each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape . . .  if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood. . . . in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity, but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow.”

So, in other words, collage artists unite against the yoke of the bourgeois City of College Park and their capitalist masters.

Oh Canada: The Parliament Moves to Impose Potential Life Imprisonment for Speech Crimes


JonathanTurely.org | March 14, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/14/oh-canada-the-parliament-moves-to-impose-potential-life-imprisonment-for-speech-crimes/

We have previously discussed the unrelenting attacks by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his allies on free speech. There has been a steady criminalization of speech, including even jokes and religious speech, in Canada. Now, the Canadian parliament is moving toward a new change that would allow the imposition of life imprisonment on those who post views deemed supportive of genocide. With a growing movement calling Israel’s war in Gaza “genocide,” the potential scope of such a law is readily apparent. That appears to be its very draw for anti-free speech advocates in the country.

The Online Harms Act, or Bill C-63 increases the potential penalties from five years to life imprisonment. It also increases the penalty for the willful promotion of hatred (a dangerously ill-defined crime) from two years to five years. The proposed changes constitute a doubling down on Canada’s commitment to reducing free speech for citizens despite criticism from many in the civil liberties community.

There is also a chilling option for house arrest if a judge believes a defendant “will commit” an offense. In other words, if a judge thinks that a citizen will be undeterred and try to speak freely again.

Justice Minister Arif Virani employed the same hysteria to convince citizens to surrender their freedoms to the government. He expressed how terrified he was with the potential of free speech, stating that he is “terrified of the dangers that lurk on the internet for our children.”

It is not likely to end there. Today the rationale is genocide. However, once the new penalties are in place, a host of other groups will demand similar treatment for those with opposing views on their own causes.  This law already increased the penalties for anything deemed hateful speech.

The law comes after Canada blocked a Russian dissident from becoming a citizen because of her violation of Russian anti-free speech laws. In a telling act, the government said that the same conduct (i.e., free speech) could be a crime in Canada.  Indeed, it may now be punished even more harshly.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Demolition Crew

A.F. BRANCO | on March 14, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-demolition-crew-2/

Democrats Saving Democracy
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

Democrats and Biden continue to shout about saving “democracy.” What they’re really saying is that they want to save and preserve their power in perpetuity at the expense of our Constitutional Republic. Lawfare is one example.

Guest Op-Ed: The Threat to Democracy Is NOT Donald Trump

By Jim Nelles

Imagine, if you will, a country in which local, state, and federal prosecutors coordinate with the ministry of justice, foreign-born billionaires, and the nation’s leader to keep the leader of the opposition party off the election ballot, and then bankrupt and imprison that opposition leader.

That country would face sanctions from the civilized world. Corporate media would decry the role of thugs who want to take the voice of the people away by denying them the ability to vote for their candidate of choice. Perhaps people would even take to the streets to protest such actions and the death of democracy. That could only happen in a third-world banana republic, right? After all, aren’t those the tactics of Putin in Russia, Maduro in Venezuela, and Castro in Cuba? 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.

Former MLB slugger Steve Garvey edges ahead of Adam Schiff in California US Senate primary


Stepheny Price By Stepheny Price Fox News | Published March 13, 2024 4:44pm EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-mlb-slugger-steve-garvey-edges-ahead-adam-schiff-california-us-senate-primary

Baseball legend Steve Garvey has edged ahead of U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff in California’s U.S. Senate primary. As of Wednesday morning, Garvey, a former 10-time MLB All-Star, led Schiff by an incredibly slim margin of just 4,801 votes with more than 5 million votes tallied — about 85% of expected returns.

“As California’s votes are counted, it’s clear that our message of unity, common sense, and compassion resonates across the state,” Garvey said. “I am deeply honored by the trust and support shown in these preliminary results. 

Despite millions being spent against Garvey in the state’s most expensive U.S. Senate primary election, Garvey’s trajectory is remaining competitive to finish in first place.

‘ARROGANT’ DEMOCRATS ‘MASSIVELY SURPRISED’ BY EX-MLB STAR’S SURGE IN CALIFORNIA SENATE RACE, STEVE HILTON SAYS

California Senate primary election
Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, left, and Republican challenger Steve Garvey are likely to face off against one another in California’s Senate election in November.  (Getty Images)

“I’m energized by our campaign’s momentum and ready for the challenge ahead,” Garvey said. “I look forward to a spirited campaign on the critical issues facing us.”

Schiff, one of the leading Democrats in the U.S. House, will face Garvey, a Republican, in November to determine who succeeds the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein. California also puts all candidates, regardless of party, on the same primary ballot, and the two who get the most votes advance to the general election.

EX-MLB STAR IN STATISTICAL TIE WITH SCHIFF IN CALIFORNIA SENATE RACE, SAYS VOTERS ARE ‘MAD’ AT DEMOCRATS

Steve Garvey talking to a veteran
“One of my focuses is going to be getting back to taking care of these veterans, men and women, who sacrificed their lives for our country and not dismiss them once they’re out of service or trying to get back into society,” Garvey told Fox News Digital. (Steve Garvey)

Republican hasn’t been elected to represent California in the U.S. Senate since Pete Wilson in 1988, when he won re-election over Leo T. McCarthy. Wilson stepped down when he became governor of California in 1991 and appointed John Seymour to serve in his place.

Feinstein defeated Seymour in the state’s 1992 election and held the seat until her death in September. Laphonza Butler was appointed to serve out the remainder of Feinstein’s term.

Garvey said his campaign is about bringing together Californians from all walks of life to address shared challenges. 

MLB GREAT STEVE GARVEY LOOKS TO REVIVE ‘HEARTBEAT’ OF CALIFORNIA ‘FOR ALL THE PEOPLE’ WITH SENATE RUN

California Senate race
Schiff and Garvey are vying for the California Senate seat formerly held by the late Sen. Diane Feinstein.  (Getty Images)

“I will continue to listen, learn, and lead with compassion and work to build consensus on the real issues that matter to our communities. Thank you to everyone who believes in the California comeback, together, we will make that vision a reality,” Garvey said. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The race will not be finalized until all mail-in ballots are counted, including ballots postmarked on March 5.

Fox News Digital’s Kyle Morris and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Judge Dismisses 6 Charges in Georgia Trump Indictment Ahead of Expected Fani Willis Decision


By: Katelynn Richardson @katesrichardson / March 13, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/13/judge-dismisses-6-charges-in-georgia-trump-indictment-ahead-of-expected-fani-willis-decision/

Judge Scott McAfee sided with defendants in Georgia in a motion to toss certain counts of former President Donald Trump’s indictment. Pictured: Trump speaks during an election-night watch party at Mar-a-Lago on March 5, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The judge overseeing the racketeering case against former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants in Georgia dismissed six counts of the indictment Wednesday. Judge Scott McAfee, who is expected to soon decide whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will be disqualified from the case over an alleged conflict of interest, sided with defendants in a separate motion to toss certain counts.

dailycallerlogoHe wrote that six counts did not “give the Defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the Defendants could have violated the Constitutions and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways.”

McAfee’s ruling said that the state can still bring new indictments on the six charges, which all center on “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer.”

“The Court’s concern is less that the State has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the Defendants—in fact it has alleged an abundance,” he wrote. “However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned’s opinion, fatal. As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited.”

“Under the standards articulated by our appellate courts, the special demurrer must be granted, and Counts 2, 5, 6, 23, 28, and 38 quashed,” he wrote.

McAfee noted in a footnote that his order does not “mean the entire indictment is dismissed.”

“The State may also seek an indictment supplementing these six counts,” he wrote. He also denied defendants’ efforts to dismiss certain overt acts contained in the indictment.

“The Court made the correct legal decision to grant the special demurrers and quash important counts of the indictment brought by DA Fani Willis,” Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead defense counsel, said in a statement provided to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The counts dismissed against President Trump are 5, 28 and 38, which falsely claimed that he solicited GA public officials to violate their oath of office,” Sadow continued. “The ruling is a correct application of the law, as the prosecution failed to make specific allegations of any alleged wrongdoing on those counts. The entire prosecution of President Trump is political, constitutes election interference, and should be dismissed.”

McAfee is also expected to rule on the motion to disqualify Willis by the end of the week. Trump co-defendant Michael Roman accused Willis in a Jan. 8 motion of financially benefiting from appointing her lover Nathan Wade to work as special prosecutor on the case.

Willis and Wade have denied the relationship began before he was hired, though a close friend of Willis testified it began in 2019 and Wade’s former law partner supplied details about their relationship starting earlier to the attorney who filed the motion.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

‘The Pain Grows Every Day,’ says Woman Who Lost Daughter, Mother in Crash with Vehicle Smuggling Illegal Aliens


BY: Virginia Allen @Virginia_Allen5 / March 13, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/13/pain-grows-everyday-says-woman-who-lost-daughter-mother-crash-vehicle-smuggling-illegals/

Emilio Tambunga and his daughter Elisa Tambunga sit on a couch holding pictures of their family members killed in a car crash with a human smuggler.
Emilio Tambunga and his daughter, Elisa Tambunga, lost two of their family members in a car wreck with a vehicle driven by a man said to be a human smuggler in Ozona, Texas, on March 13, 2023. (Photo: The Daily Signal)

One year ago, Wednesday, Elisa Tambunga lost her mother and daughter at the hands of a human smuggler. 

Rassian Comer is accused of speeding through a red light in Ozona, Texas, crashing into Maria Tambunga’s pickup truck. Seven-year-old Emilia was in the back seat, and both she and her grandmother were pronounced dead at the scene of the crash on March 13, 2023. Comer had 11 illegal aliens in his vehicle and was running from police when he collided with Tambunga’s truck. 

“Today marks a year, but the pain grows every day,” Elisa Tambunga told The Daily Signal on Wednesday. “I have vivid flashbacks of how cold they were. How helpless I felt. It plays back for me in slow motion,” the mother said, adding, “That’s why my family and I fight so hard. That is why we haven’t let up.” 

About a month after the accident, Tambunga, her father, and her sister traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with members of Republicans’ Congressional Hispanic Conference and with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. In July, Tambunga testified before Congress, sharing her horrific story and calling for border security. 

“We live in a constant state of pain and grief,” Tambunga said. “We all know that our mom and Emilia were selfless, caring, and loving, and now we try to carry that on by seeking justice and doing our part to ensure this never happens to another family.”

The grandmother and granddaughter were driving home from a play date with cousins when the crash occurred. Two of the illegal aliens Comer was smuggling were also killed in the car accident. 

Gin Jespersen, Tambunga’s sister, lost her mother and her niece that day and told The Daily Signal that Wednesday marks “one year of suffering, crying, and bewilderment as to why [President Joe] Biden and Mayorkas continue to assault their own American citizens at the behest of an ideology to change the fabric of America.”

“It is through death, crime, and injury to Americans like our mom, Maria, and Emilia, 7, that he meets his goal,” she said, adding: “Sinful. Shameful.”

Wednesday was not only the first anniversary of the death of the grandmother and granddaughter, but also the first day of the trial of a man said to be a human smuggler.

Comer, a U.S. citizen, faces multiple charges, including capital murder. The case is being heard in the Crockett County Courthouse, in Ozona, Texas, about 230 miles west of Austin. 

Tragically, Maria and Emilia Tambunga are not the only Americans to have died as a result of the crisis along the southern border. 

  • University of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley was killed in February while jogging. The lead suspect in her slaying is an illegal immigrant from Venezuela. 
  • On March 6, Travis Wolfe, 12, died after being on life support for three months following a car crash with an illegal immigrant. The illegal alien was driving the wrong way at more than 70 mph in Hazelwood, Missouri. 
  • An illegal alien is charged in the fatal shooting of 2-year-old Jeremy Poou-Caceres in Maryland in February. The little boy and his mom were out for a walk when they were caught up in the crossfire of an illegal alien who was in a car and firing, allegedly at another group of people.
  • And in October, 46- year-old Francisco Javier Cuellar was found dead in a home in Florida. An illegal alien from Honduras pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in Cuellar’s death. 

Since Biden became president in January 2021, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has reported encountering more than 8.8 million illegal aliens on America’s borders and at ports of entry. That total doesn’t include what the agency calls 1.7 million “known gotaways.” CBP also said it has encountered about 1,500 individuals on America’s terrorist watchlist at the border since Biden took office. 

While speaking to the press aboard Air Force One on Monday, Biden was asked when “executive action on the border” was coming. The president responded: “I’m counting on the border action happening by itself, the—passing it,” referring to Congress taking action. 

So far, Congress has been unable to find agreement on border security legislation. The House passed a border security bill, HR 2, last May, but the Senate has not taken up the bill. The Senate considered a border bill in February, but it failed in the upper chamber with Republicans citing concerns over the bill’s failure to secure the border and instead enshrining open-border policies into law. 

On this week’s edition of the “Problematic Women” podcast, we discuss the many lives lost due to America’s current border crisis. Also on today’s show, we discuss the House’s passage of the TikTok bill and the choice before the social media company. Plus, rumors are flying over the whereabouts of Kate Middleton, the princess of Wales. Why do people care so much? We discuss that.

And as always, we’ll be crowning our “Problematic Woman of the Week.”


The Hunted and the Hunter: How the Menendez Superseding Indictment Shatters Hunter Biden’s Claim of Selective Prosecution

Below is my column in Fox.com on the superseding indictment of Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), who faces new charges after the cooperation of a former associate. The new charges only magnified the striking similarities between the corruption scandals involving Menendez and Hunter Biden. The timing could not be more interesting given filings the same week by Hunter Biden claiming selective prosecution.

Here is the column:

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., was in court this week for another superseding indictment brought by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. Rather than the four original counts, he now faces 18 counts with his wife, Nadine Arslanian Menendez, and alleged co-conspirators Wael Hana and Fred Daibes.

What is most notable is not the proliferation of counts but the lack of comparative charges in the pending case against Hunter Biden. Some of us have long raised concerns over the striking similarity in the alleged conduct in both cases, but the absence of similar charges against the president’s son. That contrast just got even greater.

The allegations in the two cases draw obvious comparisons.

Menendez is accused of accepting a $60,000 Mercedes-Benz as part of the corrupt practices. In Hunter’s case, it was a $142,000 Fisker sports car.  For Menendez, there were gold bars worth up to $120,000. For Biden, there was the diamond allegedly worth $80,000. Underlying both cases are core allegations of influence peddling and corruption. However, the Justice Department threw the book at Menendez while minimizing the charges against Biden. That includes charging Menendez as an unregistered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Many of us have said for years that the treatment of Hunter under FARA departs significantly from the treatment of various Trump figures like former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort as well as Menendez.

Now, there is a new layer of troubling comparisons to be drawn in the two cases.

The superseding indictment incorporates new charges after the plea and cooperation of Menendez’s former co-defendant and businessman Jose Uribe.

Uribe appears to have supplied the basis for some of the new charges, including a telling account with Nadine Menendez. She allegedly asked Uribe what he would say to law enforcement about the payments used for a Mercedes-Benz convertible and Uribe said that he could say that the payment were a “loan.”  Nadine Menendez responded that “sounded good.”

The loan discussion hit a familiar cord with those of us who have written about the Biden corruption scandal. The Bidens have repeatedly referred to payment from foreign sources as “loans.” That most notoriously included millions given by his counsel Kevin Morris. In some cases, foreign money was received by President Joe Biden’s brother James and then immediately sent to the president’s personal account marked as a loan repayment. James admitted that the $40,000 was coming from the Chinese.

The Justice Department in the Menendez case dismissed the claim of loans as merely a transparent effort to hide influence peddling. That includes not just the convertible payment but  more than $23,000 that one businessman made toward the senator’s wife’s mortgage.

Menendez and Biden share the array of luxury gifts, cars, and loans. However, the most important common denominator was the underlying corruption. Both cases are classic examples of influence peddling, which has long been a cottage industry in Washington, D.C. What they do not share is the same level of prosecution or press support. Menendez is a pariah in Washington and Hunter is the president’s son.

Menendez is blamed by many inside the Beltway not for being corrupt but for being open about it. The fact that others have been prosecuted for conduct similar to his own has not stopped Hunter from claiming victim status. He has told courts that even the few charges brought against him are evidence of selective prosecution.

In the most recent filing, Special Counsel David Weiss dismissed many of Hunter’s claims as “patently false” and noted that Hunter Biden virtually flaunted his violations and engaged in obvious efforts to evade taxes and hide his crimes. Weiss further noted that other defendants did not write “a memoir in which they made countless statements proving their crimes and drawing further attention to their criminal conduct.” It was a devastating take-down of Hunter’s claims, but it did not address the conspicuous omission of charges brought against Menendez, including FARA charges.

It also does not address the fact that the Justice Department not only allowed the statute of limitations to run on major crimes but sought to finalize an obscene plea agreement with no jail time for Hunter. It only fell apart when a judge decided to ask a couple of cursory questions of the prosecutor, who admitted that he had never seen an agreement this generous for a defendant. Weiss noted in his filing that they filed new charges only after Hunter’s legal counsel refused to change the agreement and insisted that it remained fully enforceable.

As Hunter continues to claim to be the victim of selective prosecution in various courts, judges need only to look over the Menendez case to see the truth of the matter. Hunter is not the victim of selective prosecution but the beneficiary of special treatment in the legal system.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney. He is a Fox News contributor.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Boody Call

A.F. BRANCO | on March 13, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-boody-call/

Fani Willis Corruption
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

It looks like Fani Willis’ deranged passion for destroying President Trump bit off more than she expected, like her own fanny. Her corruption has been exposed and has jeopardized her case against Trump.

NEW REPORT: Fani Willis Conspired with Liz Cheney’s Faux J6 Committee – J6 Committee Shared Video Recordings with Fani Willis But Then Deleted the Video to Prevent Republican Lawmakers from Gaining Access To It

By Jim Hoft – March 12, 2024

Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) released his January 6 Initial Findings Report on Monday, March 11. Rep. Loudermilk is the Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman. “For nearly two years former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s January 6th Select Committee promoted hearsay and cherry-picked information to promote its political goal – to legislatively prosecute former President Donald Trump,” said Chairman Loudermilk on Monday.

“It was no surprise that the Select Committee’s final report focused primarily on former President Trump and his supporters, not the security failures and reforms needed to ensure the United States Capitol is safer today than in 2021.” 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.

Loophole In ‘Weak’ North Carolina Voter ID Law Lets Just About Anyone Cast A Ballot


BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | MARCH 12, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/12/loophole-in-weak-north-carolina-voter-id-law-lets-just-about-anyone-cast-a-ballot/

Sign in New Hampshire requiring photo ID

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

MORE ARTICLES

North Carolinians who didn’t present a photo ID when voting during the presidential primary last week were still permitted to cast a ballot, thanks to exceptions that Soros-backed groups supported including in the state’s voter ID law.

On March 5, more than 1.7 million North Carolina voters were asked to show a photo ID to vote in the presidential primary, in the first major election since the law went into effect. Most of those voters appeared to successfully present an ID and cast a ballot. Still, according to preliminary counts, more than 1,000 voters cast what is known as a “provisional ballot” due to “ID not provided,” according to the state’s election board (NCSBE). Of those more than 1,000 voters, 546 later returned to show their IDs. But another 607 voters never showed a photo ID, instead simply signing a form claiming that a “reasonable impediment” prevented them from presenting an ID.

The Law Doesn’t Actually Compel Voters to Show Photo ID

The North Carolina general assembly initially passed a series of election-related laws in 2013. After facing legal challenges to the voter ID requirement, the state legislature presented a revised voter ID law in 2015 that included the “reasonable impediment” exception, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit nevertheless struck down the voter ID requirement in 2016. Republicans spent the next several years fighting in the courts to pass some type of voter ID laws while North Carolinians voted in 2018 to approve a state constitutional amendment establishing a photo ID requirement.

Most recently, the North Carolina Supreme Court — which had flipped from a Democrat-majority to a Republican-majority — overturned a past decision by the same court and thus permitted the photo ID requirement to go into effect.

The current version says that a voter who does not present a photo ID due to a “reasonable impediment” may still cast a provisional ballot so long as he provides “a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document,” his voter registration card, or the last four digits of his Social Security number and birth date.

If a voter still fails to present any of those documents, the law says he can simply complete a declaration stating that he is who he says he is — aka the “honor system.” He must also designate on the form that a “reasonable impediment” — such as disability or illness, lack of transportation, lack of birth certificate or other documents needed to obtain a photo ID, work schedule, or family responsibilities — has prevented him from providing an ID. Other acceptable reasons include a voter having lost his ID or simply “not know[ing] photo ID was required for voting.”

The ID exception form is also accepted for mail-in voters who cannot include a copy of their photo ID with their ballots, according to voting instructions posted by the Mecklenburg County government.

‘Nobody Will Be Turned Away’

Thirty-six other states currently mandate some form of voter ID, but Republicans who have worked on election integrity efforts say North Carolina’s law is the “weakest” of them all.

“You can literally put any kind of excuse you want on the ‘Reasonable Impediment’ form and be given a ballot. It’s not hard at all to vote,” Chairman of the Lee County Republican Party James Womack told The Federalist.

“This ‘Reasonable Impediment’ thing is really a weakness in the law, it’s the weakest voter ID law in the country when you consider almost anyone can walk in and say ‘Oh, I lost my ID’ and cast a provisional ballot,” Womack continued. “They really didn’t make an attempt this year, in Senate Bill 747, to update anything that was in the case of ‘Reasonable Impediment.’”

Executive Director of Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina Jay DeLancy wrote in 2015 after an earlier, similar version of the law was passed that it was a “stunning betrayal” to all state residents who wanted to see “real voter ID” laws. DeLancy said at the time that, while he did not believe Republicans in the legislature purposely gutted the photo ID provisions, “their inexperience in election fraud analysis leads them to believe the new loophole ‘won’t be a big deal’ in our state.”

Provisional ballots can theoretically be rejected, but those cast based on a “reasonable impediment” to providing voter ID can only be rejected if a county elections board unanimously finds that the information a voter gives in the ID exception form is false. It’s unclear, however, how a county board would be able to discern whether a person’s claimed impediment to obtaining an ID is genuine. Besides, Womack noted these voters likely wouldn’t be rejected due to a fear that lawsuits would be lodged alleging voter suppression.

“What they did, this law, neuters the ability of the board to reject those ballots no matter how ridiculous the excuse is that the voter uses,” DeLancy told The Federalist. “It defies common sense.”

DeLancy told The Federalist he believes Republicans in the legislature thought they would be “clever” and include the “reasonable impediment” provision as a way to avoid having the voter ID law tossed.

Womack speculated that then-House Rules Chairman Rep. David Lewis included the last-minute “compromise language” to help the legislation pass. He noted Republicans had to work in bipartisan fashion since, at the time, they did not hold a supermajority in either state legislature and the Reasonable Impediment provision would alleviate concerns from the left that there would be an “undue burden on people who didn’t have photo ID.”

Womack said the provision likely didn’t get much attention since the legislation got stuck in the courts for years but argued that now that it has gone into effect “people are starting to expose its weaknesses.”

“There’s all kinds of excuses you can put on the form and you’ll still be granted the right to vote, nobody will be turned away,” he added.

DeLancy said the provision should be fixed ahead of November’s election “or else” it leaves the door open for potential abuse.

Soros-Linked Group Cheered ‘Reasonable Impediment’ Exception

When North Carolina’s 2013 law was challenged in court shortly after it was signed, the leftist groups behind the legal fight included the NAACP and the Advancement Project. The Advancement Project had received nearly $4 million between 1999 and 2012 from the Soros-funded Open Society Project. The Foundation to Promote Open Society contributed more than half a million to the Advancement Project between 2009 and 2012, according to Influence Watch. Later suits targeting the law were brought by other election-interference groups like the ACLU.

When Republicans proposed a revision adding the “reasonable impediment” exception to the law in 2015, the Soros-backed group Democracy North Carolina spent weeks “encouraging hundreds of citizens to attend and speak out” at hearings regarding the legislation and celebrated the inclusion of the “reasonable impediment” provision.


Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

Not A Single Democrat Witness In Congress Agreed Only Citizens Should Vote In Federal Elections


BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | MARCH 12, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/12/not-a-single-democrat-witness-in-congress-agreed-only-citizens-should-vote-in-federal-elections/

Witnesses testify at Senate Judiciary Hearing

None of Democrats’ witnesses in a congressional hearing Tuesday could say resolutely that they believe only citizens should be able to vote in a federal election.

During a Senate Judiciary Hearing on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee asked the witnesses to provide a basic “yes” or “no” answer to a series of questions about non-citizens voting.

“Do you believe that only citizens of the United States should be able to vote in federal elections?” Lee asked each of the witnesses.

“We don’t have a position about non-citizens voting in federal elections, we believe that’s what the current laws are, and so we’re certainly fighting for everyone who is eligible under current law to vote,” Executive Director of The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Damon T. Hewitt said.

“That’s a decision of the state law but I want to emphasize –” President of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project Lydia Camarillo said.

“It’s a decision of state law as to who should vote in federal elections?” Lee interjected.

“States decide who gets to vote in various elections, and in federal elections I believe that we should be encouraging people to naturalize and then vote,” Camarillo said.

“Okay but you’re saying that the federal government should have no say in who votes in a federal election?” Lee pressed.

“I don’t have a position on that,” Camarillo responded.

Director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project Sophia Lin Lakin told Lee, “Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections and our focus is on enabling all eligible voters to be able to vote and cast their ballot.”

Only two witnesses, counsel at Public Interest Legal Foundation Maureen Riordan and Manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation Hans von Spakovsky said they do not believe non-citizens should be able to vote. Both were Republican witnesses.

Lee then asked all the witnesses whether “people registering to vote should provide documentary proof of their citizenship in order to register to vote.” Hewitt replied the real question is how asking people to provide proof of citizenship affects them.

“I think your first question kind of answers the second. Based upon the applicable rules, federal or state elections, what have you, we know we have to follow those rules. The question is what is the impact of those rules?” He said in response.

Camarillo called the question “redundant” and said, “It’s already being asked.”

Current federal law stipulates voters must simply check on a form that they are a U.S. citizen, but they do not have to provide any proof.

Lakin flat-out argued asking people to prove they are U.S. citizens to vote amounts to discrimination: “Documentary proof of citizenship or requirements are often discriminatory,” she said.

Riordan and Spakovsky agreed voters should be required to prove they are citizens. Lee said he was troubled that not every witness could simply answer “yes” to both of his questions.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Act seeks to federalize all elections by stripping states and local jurisdictions from making changes to their elections without approval from federal bureaucrats. If the legislation is passed, the U.S. Justice Department could essentially take over an election if its left-wing allies claim minority voters are being harmed by something as simple as requiring an ID or proving citizenship to vote.

A federal judge recently ruled Arizona’s law requiring individuals to prove U.S. citizenship in order to vote in a statewide election is not discriminatory and could proceed after leftists lodged a series of suits.

“Arizona’s interests in preventing non-citizens from voting and promoting public confidence in Arizona’s elections outweighs the limited burden voters might encounter when required to provide” proof of citizenship, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.


Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

MORE ARTICLES

Turns Out Biden Lied About Hur, Beau, And Why He Pilfered Classified Documents


BY: DAVID HARSANYI | MARCH 12, 2024

Read ore at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/12/turns-out-biden-lied-about-hur-beau-and-why-he-pilfered-classified-documents/

Elderly man with a poor memory

Author David Harsanyi profile

DAVID HARSANYI

VISIT ON TWITTER@DAVIDHARSANYI

MORE ARTICLES

One of the big takeaways from the newly released transcript of Joe Biden’s two-day interview with Robert Hur is that the special counsel was being exceedingly generous when describing the president as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Much of the conversation with Hur is littered with barely incoherent answers and spiraling word salads. Though, the reader is occasionally entertained by Biden’s blowhard-y non-sequiturs. We learn about Biden’s Corvette — twice. We learn that the president is a frustrated architect but an excellent archer. Biden jokes that there might be risqué pictures of Dr. First Lady Jill Biden.

Then again, the fact that the entire two-day interview isn’t a giant nonsensical rant is not as impressive as his defenders might believe. The president is, indeed, completely coherent at times. And those are the times he’s probably lying.

When Hur released his report last month, for example, it noted that Biden couldn’t recall the year his son died. This is not the kind of event that typically slips a healthy person’s mind — not even one who is constantly trying to emotionally manipulate the public with misleading claims about the cause of his son’s death.

Recall that Biden feigned great anger about this interaction. “There’s even a reference that I don’t remember when my son died,” he barked at reporters when the report was released. “How in the hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself: It wasn’t any of their damn business.”

The transcript shows that it was Biden who brought up his late son Beau, not Hur. The president claimed he believed Beau had died in 2017 or 2018 when he had tragically died of brain cancer in 2015.

Who knows? Maybe Biden forgot what he said? Reading the full context of his answer, and considering the president’s lifelong fabulism, it is not entirely out of the question that the president purposely floated the wrong date to try and justify his pilfering of classified documents. Either way, it’s bad.

Here is the key interaction:

MR. HUR: So, during this time when you were living at Chain Bridge Road and there were documents relating to the Penn Biden Center, or the Biden Institute, or the Cancer Moonshot, or your book, where did you keep papers that related to those things that you were actively working on?

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, um .. . I , I, I, I, I don’ t know. This is, what, 2017, 2018, that area?

MR. HUR: Yes, sir.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Remember, in this timeframe, my son is either been deployed or is dying, and, and so it was and by the way, there were still a lot of people at the time when I got out of the Senate that were encouraging me to run in this period, except the President. I’m not — and not a mean thing to say. He just thought that she had a better shot of winning the presidency than I did. And so I hadn’t, I hadn’t, at this point — even though I’m at Penn, I hadn’t walked away from the idea that I may run for office again. But if I ran again, I’d be running for President. And, and so what was happening, though – what month did Beau die? Oh, God, May 30th –

MS. COTTON: 2015.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: 2015.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Was it 2015 he had died?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: It was May of 2015.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: It was 2015.

By the way, just as Beau did not die in Iraq, Joe was never “at Penn,” not in any real way. The outgoing vice president was bequeathed an honorary professor position at the school, which the Philadelphia Inquirer noted in 2019 was “a vaguely defined role that involved no regular classes and around a dozen public appearances on campus, mostly in big, ticketed events.”

More importantly, Biden also contradicted himself when speaking about the documents themselves.

When Hur asked the president about the classified papers in his possession, the president contended that he “had no purpose for them, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to keep clearly classified documents.” But Hur, in his prepared testimony for Congress, says: “We also identified other recorded conversations during which Mr. Biden read classified information aloud to his ghostwriter.”

So, the documents did have a very specific purpose. Those files were used, according to Amtrak Joe, to help earn $8 million writing a book after leaving the Obama administration. Yet, when the Hur report was released, the left wing did what they always do when confronted with bad news: they feigned a meltdown. They smeared the messenger. They concoct conspiracy theories. They denied reality. They’re doing the same right now.

The media continues to frame Hur’s findings as an exoneration of Biden to head off the (correct) perception that there is a stark, selective prosecution when it comes to the hoarding of classified documents. Donald Trump, yes. Biden and Hillary Clinton, no.

In The New York Times, Charlie Savage begins the paper’s story on the leaked transcripts by misleading readers with the contention that Hur had found “insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden.” This is not true. Hur’s report concluded that Biden came off as too feeble-minded to be convicted by a jury for his decades-long mishandling of classified information. According to the special counsel, the president had “willfully retained classified information.” And he had done it for years before winning the presidency.

During today’s hearing Democrats falsely used the word “exoneration” a number of times. Hur noted that the word “does not appear anywhere in my report, and that is not my conclusion.”

So, the fact remains that there are two ways to look at the Hur report. Either the president lacks the mental acuity to be charged for breaking the law, or he should be charged for breaking the law. Pick one.


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

Gaetz presses Hur over not charging Biden ghostwriter: ‘What does somebody have to do?’


Gabriel Hays By Gabriel Hays Fox News | Published March 12, 2024 3:58pm EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-gop-exposes-woke-items-bidens-7-3-trillion-budget

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., grilled former Special Counsel Robert Hur during a House hearing on Tuesday over not charging President Biden’s ghostwriter for destroying evidence pertaining to Hur’s investigation of Biden’s handling of classified documents.

“What does somebody have to do to get charged with obstruction of justice by you?” Gaetz said to Hur, suggesting that the special counsel let Mark Zwonitzer – the ghostwriter on Biden’s memoir “Promise Me, Dad” – off the hook for deleting evidence.

According to Hur’s much-publicized report on the classified documents probe, Zwonitzer erased audio files in his possession that contained “significant evidentiary value” related to the documents held by Biden.

Hur’s report states, “Zwonitzer’s later actions – including the production to the special counsel of transcripts that mention classified information – suggest that his decision to delete the recordings was not aimed at concealing those materials from investigators. Significantly, Zwonitzer voluntarily consented to two interviews and could have, but did not, invoke the Fifth Amendment to decline to produce the transcripts, his laptop, and the external hard drive. And when FBI agents contacted Zwonitzer, they were unaware that audio recordings existed or where Zwonitzer’s electronic devices were located.”

NO CHARGES FOR BIDEN AFTER SPECIAL COUNSEL PROBE INTO IMPROPER HANDLING OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS

Hur speaks to Gaetz
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., grills former Special Counsel Robert Hur during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday. (Screenshot/CSPAN feed)

However, Hur’s report noted that Zwonitzer admitted to the FBI that he “was aware that there was an investigation” when he deleted the evidence, though he denied that he deleted them to prevent investigators from finding them. He also said in the report of the ongoing probe, “I’m not going to say how much of the percentage it was of my motivation.”

Gaetz was nonplussed.

“So, the ghostwriter purposefully deletes this evidence that seems to … show culpability of Biden’s crimes, and you don’t charge him?” Gaetz asked.

Hur said Zwonitzer told investigators he was “aware that I had been appointed special counsel and was conducting an investigation.”

BIDEN ‘DID NOT REMEMBER WHEN HE WAS VICE PRESIDENT,’ WHEN HIS SON, BEAU, DIED DURING SPECIAL COUNSEL INTERVIEWS

Robert Hur, Joe Biden
Special Counsel Robert Hur and President Biden (Getty Images)

Gaetz took it from there, saying, “Just so everybody knows, the ghostwriter didn’t delete the recordings just as a matter of happenstance. Ghostwriter has recordings of Biden making admissions of crime. He then learns that you’ve been appointed. He then deletes the information that is the evidence, and you don’t charge him?”

He then asked what someone would have to do to get charged.

“If, like, deleting evidence of crimes doesn’t count, what would meet the standard?” he added.

Hur explained the decision by saying that as he noted in his report, Zwonitzer did not delete “transcripts of the recordings that he had created, that included inculpatory evidence relating to Mr. Biden.”

Gaetz did not appear to buy the justification for how Hur handled the ghostwriter.

“Oh, so, if you destroy some evidence but not other evidence that somehow absolves you of the evidence you destroy,” he said. “Like, here’s what I see. Zwonitzer should have been charged, wasn’t. Biden and Trump should have been treated equally. They weren’t. And that is the double standard that I think a lot of Americans are concerned about.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Gabriel Hays is an associate editor for Fox News Digital. 

Robert Hur Claps Back at Dems: Biden Not Exonerated


By Mark Swanson    |   Tuesday, 12 March 2024 04:10 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/hur-testimony-house/2024/03/12/id/1156991/

Former Special Counsel Robert Hur corrected House Democrats, who persisted in their assertions during a public hearing that he had “exonerated” President Joe Biden in the classified documents case.

Hur submitted a 345-page report in early February, outlining his decision against charging Biden for mishandling classified docs, but the word “exonerate” does not appear anywhere in his ruling, a fact he brought up multiple times during his hours-long testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Committee ranking member Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., used his opening preamble to say Hur’s report “represents the complete and total exoneration of President Biden.”

“That is not what the report says,” Hur said later in the hearing. “The report is not an exoneration. That word does not appear in my report.”

Committee member Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., also asserted that Hur’s report was a “complete exoneration” of Biden.

“I need to go back and make sure that I take note of a word that you used, exoneration. That is not a word that appears in the report. That’s not part of my task as a prosecutor,” Hur said.

Regardless, Hur’s decision not to charge Biden, exoneration or not, fueled the ire of Republican committee member Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., who railed against Hur’s decision as a “glaring double standard” of justice, given former President Donald Trump is facing a federal trial for mishandling classified docs in Florida.

“The fact the only person being prosecuted for this offense happens to be the president’s political opponent makes it an unprecedented assault on our democracy. This is the worst we could expect from a banana republic,” McClintock told Hur, who is not the special counsel bringing Trump to trial. Jack Smith is.

In fact, Hur left the Justice Department last week.

Hur would not comment further on the difference between the cases, but in his report, he acknowledged Biden’s cooperation vs. Trump’s refusal to hand over classified material. That and the fact Biden is a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

“That’s one of the points you make, President Biden is likely to be an elderly sympathetic person with a poor memory. How does that bear on any individual’s guilt or innocence?” McClintock said. “Isn’t that a question for a judge … after guilt or innocence is determined? Here’s the problem. Donald Trump is being prosecuted for the same act that you’ve documented Joe Biden committed.”

McClintock went on, “All I have to do when I am caught taking home classified materials, ‘I’m sorry, I’m getting old, my memory isn’t so great?’ This is the doctrine that you’ve established in our laws now and it is frightening.”

Hur responded, “Congressman, my intent is certainly not to establish any sort of doctrine. I had a particular task. I had a particular set of evidence to consider and make a judgment to one particular set of evidence and that’s what I did.”

McClintock had the last word.

“The foundation of our justice system is equal justice under law. That’s what gave the law its respect and its legitimacy. … It doesn’t matter who comes before her, all are treated equally. You’ve destroyed this foundation. And the rule of law becomes a sick mockery. It becomes a weapon to wield against political rivals and a tool. And I’m desperately afraid this decision of the Department of Justice has now crossed a very bright line,” he concluded.

Mark Swanson 

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

Biden Gave ‘Not Credible’ Response in Classified Documents Probe, Hur Testifies


By: Fred Lucas @FredLucasWH / March 12, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/12/biden-gave-not-credible-response-in-classified-documents-probe-hur-testifies/

Special counsel Robert K. Hur prepares to testify Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington. Hur investigated President Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents and published a report with contentious conclusions about Biden’s manner and memory. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

President Joe Biden provided information deemed “not credible” to federal prosecutors during an investigation that determined he knowingly retained and shared classified documents, special counsel Robert Hur told the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Hur released his report in February, concluding that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials” after his vice presidency ended in early 2009. However, the special counsel opted not to bring charges, writing that a jury would be unlikely to convict because of Biden’s “diminished faculties in advancing age.”

During the hearing, which went into recess at 1:52 p.m., the committee’s Democrats repeatedly brought up former President Donald Trump’s own classified documents case. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., ranking member of the committee, noted that Trump was charged with trying to obstruct the investigation into classified documents stored at his Florida estate.

“At any point in your investigation, do you have any reason to believe that President Biden lied to you?” Nadler asked, then seemed to be surprised by the answer he got from Hur.

The special counsel named by Attorney General Merrick Garland, a Biden appointee, referred to the Feb. 8 report from his office.

“I do address in my report one response the president gave to a question we posed to him that we deemed to be not credible,” Hur said.

Nadler moved on to talking more about Trump.

But other committee members talked significantly about Biden’s sharing information with the ghostwriter of his 2017 book “Promise Me, Dad,” which the report said Biden was getting up to $8 million to produce for the publisher.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said there were “8 million reasons” why Biden might have knowingly violated the law on classified information.

“It wasn’t just the money, it wasn’t just $8 million,” Jordan said. “It was also his ego. Pride and money is why he knowingly violated the rules.”

Jordan read aloud from Hur’s report: “President Biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his new book.”

“That’s a key word. We’re getting a motive now,” Jordan said, later adding: “Why did he have strong motivations? Because he decided months before leaving office to write a book.”

Later in the hearing, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., asked more about the matter, reading aloud from the transcript in which a federal prosecutor questions Biden.

“Mr. President, why did you share classified information with your ghostwriter?” the lawyer on the special counsel’s team asks.

The president answers: “I did not share classified information. … I guarantee I did not.”

“That’s not true, is it, Mr. Hur?” Gaetz asked.

“That is inconsistent with the evidence of the findings in my report,” Hur responded.

Gaetz followed by asking: “It’s a lie is what regular people would say, right?”

Hur smiled, but didn’t answer directly.

Gaetz read again from the transcript, quoting Biden as saying: “All the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were locked or able to be locked.”

“That wasn’t true either, was it?” Gaetz said.

Hur replied: “That was inconsistent with the findings of our investigation.”

“Another lie, people might say,” Gaetz said.

Report: Trump Did Propose 10,000 National Guard Troops on January 6th


Jonathan Turley | March 12, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/12/report-trump-did-propose-10000-national-guard-troops-on-january-6th/

One of the long-standing unanswered questions from the January 6th riot has been why the Capitol was so poorly prepared and defended on that day. A newly released transcript has caused a firestorm in Washington over allegations that the J6 Committee downplayed or even suppressed evidence that former President Donald Trump personally suggested the deployment of 10,000 national guard troops to prevent violence.

The transcript also includes contradictions of major allegations that ran wild in the media. That includes the claim that Trump tried to physically grab the steering wheel of the presidential limo, “The Beast,” when Secret Service refused to take him to the Capitol. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson was the source of the claim, which appeared in most of the media and was highlighted in her testimony. However, it appears that the J6 Committee had testimony of secret service agents directly contradicting that account, including the driver.

However, it is the National Guard question that is more weighty for historical purposes.

Trump has long claimed that he proposed the deployment of the National Guard troops (as was done previously at the White House during violent protests). The January 6th Committee said that was a lie. The release of the transcript by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R., Ga.) triggered attacks on the J6 Committee. The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway wrote a column titled “Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence.” That triggered an angry response from former co-chair Liz Cheney which led to an even angrier reply from commentator Mark Levin.

The anger is nothing new in a J6 investigation that seemed to produce more heat than light. Cheney’s spokesperson called the Federalist report “flatly false” and added “no transcripts were destroyed” while acknowledging that some material was not published “to allow the Secret Service to protect sensitive security information for interviews of its agents before preserving that testimony in the archives.”

The issue of the suppression or destruction of the evidence has drawn a lot of attention, but the more troubling question is the fact that such an offer was made and declined.

The Committee found “no evidence” that the Trump administration called for 10,000 National Guard members to Washington, D.C., to protect the Capitol. That now stands contradicted, and the question is whether Cheney or other members knew the public was being misled on the question. For example, the Washington Post “debunked” Trump’s comments with an award of “Four Pinocchios.”

The Post’s Glenn Kessler admitted that Trump raised the issue but noted that he might have been suggesting the troops “not because he wanted to protect the Capitol,” but to suggest that he and his supporters were being threatened. He added that “Trump brought up the issue on at least three occasions but in such vague and obtuse ways that no senior official regarded his words as an order.”

However, the issue is not whether Trump issued “an order” but made an offer that was declined. For those of us who were covering the event on that day, the question has always been prominent in our minds. I was critical of Trump’s speech while he was still giving it. However, before the Capitol was breached, I also noted that I had never seen the Capitol so thinly protected in a major protest. We had just seen violent protests outside of the White House with a large number of police officers injured and extensive property damage, including arson. President Trump and his family had to be moved to a secure location out of concern of an imminent breach of the White House. National Guard were deployed and fencing installed.

Even without an offer, it remains unclear why the violence around the White House did not prompt Congress to install the same barriers and deploy the same troops. (They ultimately took both steps but only after the rioters gained entry into the Capitol). Moreover, if an offer was clearly made, it undermines the allegations that Trump was actively seeking an insurrection. While he has never been charged with an insurrection or even incitement, that allegation was used more recently to support his disqualification from the ballots in Colorado, Maine, and Illinois.

The transcript contains the testimony of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato’s interview on January 2022 with Cheney present. Ornato states that he clearly recalled the offer of 10,000 troops being made by Trump in a conversation with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser:

“I was there, and he was on the phone with her and wanted to make sure she had everything that she needed. Because I think it was the concern of anti and pro groups clashing is what I recall…I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, the President wants to make sure that you have enough. You know, he is willing to ask for 10,000. I remember that number.”

Ornato said that Browser said that they would not need the troops. (She ultimately asked for only 300 troops). There are also reports that then Speaker Nancy Pelosi was worried about the “optics” of military reinforcements at the Capitol.

Ornato also said that he recalled that, after Bowser refused additional National Guard members, the White House requested the Defense Department have a “quick reaction force” ready on that day. He gave details on meetings with the Defense Department and follow up from Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Hemingway noted in her report that Ornato’s testimony was supported by former Trump administration aide Kash Patel. Cheney has attacked Patel as unreliable.

Ornato also testified that Meadows and others were frustrated by the delay in getting those troops to the Hill. The delay was blamed on the logistics, not some conspiracy to enable or facilitate an insurrection.

The Federalist article makes additional allegations, including that Cheney was behind an op-ed by her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, opposing any use of national guard troops on January 6th. However, even proving such duplicity would hardly be news for Washington. Likewise, it does not negate criticism over Trump’s comments on that day or his delay in publicly calling for supporters to withdraw.

Yet, again, what is more important historically  is whether the J6 Committee had direct evidence that Trump made the offer of thousands of troops and that the White House pushed for rapid deployment troops on that day.

I have previously criticized the one-sided J6 Report and the biased framing of the hearings held by the members. The Committee could have been so much more than the echo chamber that it became.  However, this latest transcript adds questions over the perplexing failure of Congress to take obvious steps to prevent a riot.

Had Congress simply installed the same fencing previously used at the White House and deployed such troops, the J6 riot would likely have never occurred. Given the cost and trauma to our nation, we should want to know the full story of what occurred on January 6th.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Crooked Skies

A.F. BRANCO | on March 12, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-crooked-skies/

03 FewChips AC 1080
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

With the border out of control, inflation through the roof, and the economy and the world in disaster, due mainly to Bidens and Democrat policies, Crooked Joe has decided to take aim at shrinkflation. Something he himself caused.

Snickers Bar Maker Denies Biden’s State of the Union “Shrinkflation” Charge

By Kristinn Taylor March 11, 2024

The maker of the Snickers candy bar released a statement refuting Joe Biden’s “shrinkflation” charge made in Thursday’s State of the Union address that the candy maker has reduced the size of Snickers bars but kept the same price.

Scott Jennings, a conservative commenter on CNN, queried Mars, Inc., the maker of Snickers for comment. The reply confirmed his suspicions about Biden’s claim “As I suspected. The president is literally slandering a candy bar. Official statement given to me by the ⁦Mars/Snickers people. Will literally slander anything and anyone. Total hack.” 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.

Media Attack New RNC Chair For Election Integrity Efforts, But GOP Critics Say He Could Do More


BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | MARCH 11, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/11/media-attack-new-rnc-chair-for-election-integrity-efforts-but-gop-critics-say-he-could-do-more/

Then-President Donald Trump speaks at rally in North Carolina

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

MORE ARTICLES

The Republican National Committee (RNC) replaced its chairwoman Ronna McDaniel on Friday with the now-former North Carolina Republican Party (NCGOP) chair Michael Whatley, who was the Trump-backed frontrunner. Ever since Whatley’s name was floated, the corporate media predictably deployed the “election denier” smear they assign to any Republican who has ever shown an interest in protecting the integrity of elections.

Whatley has a track record of emphasizing election integrity — and that’s enough, in the eyes of the corporate press, to paint him as a radical election-denying extremist. But with the high stakes of the 2024 election cycle, some of Whatley’s critics say he needs to amp up his election integrity efforts to another level in his anticipated post at the RNC.

Attacks From the Corporate Media

Whatley, who had served as NCGOP chair since narrowly defeating his opponents Jim Womack and John Lewis in 2019, has been the target of hand-wringing pieces from corporate media ever since he was tapped as former President Trump’s choice to lead the RNC. In an MSNBC column, North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton clutched her pearls about the “danger” Whatley poses. 

“It’s clear that Trump is looking for an RNC leader who won’t hesitate to disenfranchise voters, rig elections or dismantle our democracy,” Clayton melodramatically wrote. “[Whatley] has helped lead efforts to defy the will of the people and infringe on North Carolinians’ rights.”

CNN ran a piece entitled “Likely frontrunner for RNC chair parroted Trump’s 2020 election lies.”

Multiple outlets affiliated with States Newsroom — a network launched by a Democrat dark-money group — shuddered at the thought that Whatley teamed up with organizations like Cleta Mitchell’s Election Integrity Network that trains poll watchers, under the headline: “Trump’s pick for RNC chief worked with top election denier’s group.”

Russia hoax lawyer Marc Elias’ Democracy Docket joined in the attacks, saying Trump’s “endorsement of Whatley signals that the party is continuing down its path of pushing false election fraud narratives ahead of the November general election.”

What did Whatley do to be smeared as an election conspiracy theorist? In November 2020, he alleged that there was “massive fraud” in “places like Milwaukee and Detroit and Philadelphia.” Of course, even the Associated Press has admitted the existence of voter fraud in the 2020 election, just simply not enough for their liking to denote it as “widespread.”

As Whatley told CNN, “changes to the 2020 election process … weakened safeguards on absentee and mail-in votes in some states,” which “led to distrust by many across the country.”

Whatley’s Work on Election Integrity

Whatley’s supporters tout major wins for the state’s courts and election integrity efforts under his leadership.

“I think [election integrity] is probably [Whatley’s] greatest strength,” Nash County Republican Party Chair Mark Edwards said. “Coming out of the 2020 election there was a lot of angst and energy among Republicans about election integrity and rather than stoke some of the more outlandish and extreme and outrageous reactions to what happened in 2020, Whatley stood above it and saw that this is where the concerns of the party were.”

“He took it upon himself to grab the election integrity issue by the horns and direct that energy into productive use by setting up the Election Integrity Review Committee within the party,” Edwards added, crediting Whatley with “hiring legal staff to help head up the election integrity efforts of the party, and work very closely with Republican legislators to craft legislation that was drafted, introduced and passed and is now being implemented.”

The NCGOP established the Election Integrity Committee in 2021 to recruit, train and send out attorneys and poll watchers to observe “absentee-by-mail approval meetings, early voting polls, election day polls, county canvasses, recount meetings, and protest hearings.”

In 2022, “Whatley doubled down on his efforts to recruit and train poll observers and lawyers,” said former NCGOP legal counsel Philip Thomas. The NCGOP was unable to provide numbers for how many poll watchers were appointed over the course of Whatley’s tenure. Whatley critic Jay DeLancy, however, said it might be difficult for the NCGOP to obtain that data since individual counties appoint observers and the process is decentralized.

Senior legal fellow at the Conservative Partnership Institute Cleta Mitchell said Whatley “understands that there is more to winning elections than just turning out votes and voters.”

“He has a sense of the need to focus on the election system itself,” Mitchell added. “While sometimes he has too narrow a focus, such as thinking that volunteer lawyers on Election Day will somehow overcome the billions of dollars that the left has invested in changing the entire voting system in our country, Michael is at least aware that there is more to winning than the historic or traditional ‘If we have a good candidate and good issues and a good campaign, our side will win.’ Those days are long gone and at some level, Michael understands that.”

Whatley also created the Judicial Victory Fund, which states its goal is “raising the resources needed to support … statewide conservative judicial candidates.” NCGOP Communications Director Matt Mercer said the fund is “something that really can’t be overstated enough.”

“Whatley campaigned on ‘Reset in Raleigh’ and overturning a 6-1 Republican deficit on the Supreme Court,” Mercer said. “Whatley has been undefeated [in judicial races] in 2020 and 2022 with the Judicial Victory Fund and the partners at the county and district levels.”

Mercer also credits Whatley with helping get voter ID “past the finish line” by flipping the balance of the court, adding while the NCGOP will miss him, “it’s going to be a benefit for the RNC to have someone of his caliber there.”

The fund was particularly handy during the 2020 election for the North Carolina Supreme Court’s chief justice between Democrat incumbent Cheri Beasley and Republican Associate Justice Paul Newby. Beasley refused to concede after she lost by about 400 votes and attempted to restore thousands of ballots. Of the 2,800 of those ballots analyzed by The News & Observer at the time, 70 percent belonged to Democrats and just nine ballots belonged to Republicans.  

Some of the ballots Beasley tried to force election officials to accept were ballots that had already been counted, WRAL News reported. But the NCGOP says her attempts ultimately failed after they used resources from the Judicial Victory Fund to fight back.

Republicans also managed to flip the balance of the state’s Supreme Court in 2022 after Republicans Trey Allen and Richard Dietz won their races, giving Republicans a 5-2 majority. 

“If you’re a state party chairman and you don’t have critics, you probably aren’t doing your job,” former chairman of the NCGOP Tom Fetzer told The Federalist. “It’s something that anybody who has ever been a state party chairman accepts and deals with.”

GOP Critics Say Whatley Could Do More

Womack and John Kane, who tried to unseat Whatley in 2022, say he is being given too much credit and should be doing more for election integrity.

“He’s taking credit for [the Judicial Victory Fund] as a great accomplishment, but the credit needs to be shared with … the attorneys that were working on the judicial campaigns, there were different districts that were raising money,” Womack said. 

And when it comes to fighting to secure elections, Womack said the real effort comes from the RNC. In October, the NCGOP and RNC intervened in a lawsuit wherein Democrats attacked a state senate bill that “prevents non-citizens from voting, protects bipartisan poll watchers, and eliminates dark money in elections.”

“The RNC is taking the lead on their lawyers so the NCGOP is just saying, ‘Me too,’” Womack told The Federalist. “We do have a general counsel who is pretty good but the RNC is the one floating all these costs for the lawsuits nationwide.” Aside from the RNC’s election integrity efforts, he added, grassroots Republicans have also worked behind the scenes to ensure the state has a fair process.

This criticism was echoed by Executive Director of Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina, Jay DeLancy, who claimed the NCGOP only addressed allegations of dead people voting in the Beasley-Newby race after his organization took the lead and began investigating.

“It wasn’t [the NCGOP] idea, it was ours,” DeLancy said, adding however that he was pleased the NCGOP helped ramp up efforts. DeLancy also argued that while he has “no complaints about [the NCGOP] lawsuits” and said he gives “credit” to the “effective” legal action that was taken, securing elections starts from the bottom up.

“Election integrity takes creativity, you have to think about how the bad guys are doing things and get into the process,” he said. “What we’re more concerned with is day-to-day ground game and where people are cheating, where the rubber meets the road at the polls.”

“When things go south at the polls, we train our poll workers to pull out the law and show the clerk where they’re wrong. [NCGOP] doesn’t, they just say, ‘call us’…and log it unless they feel they can take legal action,” DeLancy added. “I would love to have seen someone who took election integrity seriously as RNC chairman but at the end of the day, all they really care about is get out the vote efforts and they’re not serious about election integrity.”

Mitchell expressed similar thoughts, saying while recruiting volunteer lawyers and poll observers is “absolutely vital,” she hopes Whatley “will be open to hearing about and understanding” that Republicans need to “fight the left on every single issue and every inflection point regarding the election system.”

“We cannot hope to counter their massive funding and organizational advantage that has nothing to do with the DNC or the normal political campaigns,” Mitchell said. “We are in a different world now and hopefully, Michael and the new RNC leadership will want to learn and do something about it. Banking early votes or ballot harvesting as a singular strategy has the left rolling in the aisles laughing at us.”

Womack and Kane also expressed concerns about whether Whatley could actually fundraise for the party.

“The state party would be broke if it weren’t for RNC subsidies,” Womack said. Kane also attributed the state party’s funds to the RNC.

Womack acknowledged, however, that Whatley likely wouldn’t need to worry about doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to fundraising because Trump would be able to drum up most of the support himself.

“Trump’s train has left the station,” Womack said. “I think he’s gonna do well regardless of who the RNC chair is so I’m guessing it really doesn’t matter who leads the RNC.”


Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

GOP Slams Biden’s $7.3T Budget, $5.5T in Tax Hikes


By Charlie McCarthy    |   Monday, 11 March 2024 01:49 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/house-gop-leadership/2024/03/11/id/1156805/

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and House GOP leadership members say President Joe Biden’s proposed 2025 fiscal year budget “is a roadmap to accelerate America’s decline.”

Biden on Monday unveiled a $7.3 trillion spending wish list that is as much an election-year pitch to voters — one that slams Republicans and former President Donald Trump by name — as it is a policy proposal.

“The price tag of President Biden’s proposed budget is yet another glaring reminder of this Administration’s insatiable appetite for reckless spending and the Democrats’ disregard for fiscal responsibility,” Johnson, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., and Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., said in a joint statement.

“Biden’s budget doesn’t just miss the mark — it is a roadmap to accelerate America’s decline.”

It has been widely reported Biden wants to raise $5.5 trillion in tax on corporations and high earners during the next decade, the 2025 budget showed. That would help cut the federal deficit and pay for new programs to assist those who make less cope with high housing and child care costs, according to The Associated Press.

“While hardworking Americans struggle with crushing inflation and mounting national debt, the President would increase their pain to spend trillions of additional taxpayer dollars to advance his left-wing agenda,” the GOP leaders said in their statement.

They added that the House Republican Conference has “taken action to steer our nation back to a path of fiscal sanity.”

“Our efforts to rein in the runaway spending spree from last year’s budget have already yielded results, lowering projected deficits by $2.6 trillion over the next decade,” they said in the statement.

“The House’s budget plan for the next fiscal year, preceding the President’s proposal, reflects the values of hardworking Americans who know that in tough economic times, fiscal discipline is non-negotiable. House Republicans understand the American people expect and deserve nothing less from their government.”

Although Biden released his proposed 2025 budget, Congress has yet to pass full funding for federal agencies for the current fiscal year. House Republicans on Thursday issued a plan that aims to balance the federal budget within a decade by cutting $14 trillion in federal spending, including green energy subsides and student loan forgiveness, while reducing taxes. The White House, though, called that plan unworkable.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which provides independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues to support the Congressional budget process, released a Feb. 7 report that offered a budget and economic outlook for 2024 to 2034. In CBO’s projections, federal budget deficits total $20 trillion over the 2025–2034 period and federal debt held by the public reaches 116 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Charlie McCarthy 

Charlie McCarthy, a writer/editor at Newsmax, has nearly 40 years of experience covering news, sports, and politics.

Border Council Chief to Newsmax: Biden Won’t Define Problem


By Brian Freeman    |   Monday, 11 March 2024 12:49 PM EDT

The illegal immigration problem can’t be solved without defining it, making it frustrating that President Joe Biden retracted the “illegal” label of the man who was charged in the murder of nursing student Laken Riley, Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told Newsmax on Monday.

“Its ridiculous that President Biden is not willing to define this problem, and by not defining it, he is not going to come up with solutions,” Judd said on “Wake Up America,” adding that is “what really frustrates every single one of us.”

Judd reiterated that Biden “is not going to come up with a solution to the problem by watering down what this problem actually is.”

Instead, by walking back his comments, Biden is “inviting so many people to cross our borders illegally,” Judd said.

Judd, who has endorsed former President Donald Trump in this year’s presidential election, said that when Biden came into office, he reversed 97 of Trump’s policies on the border, explaining that is why the nation has had a surge in illegal crossings.

Still, Judd said his organization backed a recent bipartisan Senate immigration bill that Trump and Republicans sabotaged.

Judd said that the compromise proposal would have been “absolutely better than what we currently have” by, for example, removing the backed-up judiciary from the process and raising the credible fear standard, which would have severely reduced the number of migrants able to use that argument to stay in the country.

He stressed that his organization wanted to see it to go to the floor for debate and amendment in order to get rid of the bad items that were in the proposal.

Judd, however, blamed Biden for “weaponizing” his group’s backing for the bill by failing to give the “proper context for our support at the time.”

He stressed that this is one of the reasons that the public should have “zero confidence” in the Biden administration.

Brian Freeman 

Brian Freeman, a Newsmax writer based in Israel, has more than three decades writing and editing about culture and politics for newspapers, online and television.

DOJ Keeps Plan Secret for Biden’s Election Executive Order 


By: Fred Lucas @FredLucasWH / March 11, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/11/doj-keeps-plan-secret-for-bidens-election-executive-order/

The Justice Department, run by Attorney General Merrick Garland, is keeping secret its strategic plan to implement President Joe Biden’s executive order on getting out the vote. Pictured: Biden, appearing via teleconference, looks on as Garland attends a meeting Aug. 3, 2022, in the White House complex. (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Biden Justice Department continues to claim presidential privilege to block release of its strategic plan to turn out the vote, although at least two other federal agencies have made their plans public. In defending a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, the Justice Department is keeping under wraps its plans to implement President Joe Biden’s 2021 executive order, under which most federal agencies are required to develop a strategic plan for increasing voter participation in elections. 

The plaintiff in that case, the Foundation for Government Accountability, contends that privilege claim is undermined by two federal agencies releasing their plans to implement Biden’s Executive Order 14019, which he signed in March 2021.  Notably, the U.S. Trade Representative, an agency that is part of the Executive Office of the President, made its plan public through a public records request, as The Daily Signal reported last week. The Railroad Retirement Board also released its strategic plan for boosting voting, The Daily Signal reported. 

“Now that at least two agencies have handed out their strategic plans, the Justice Department’s claim [that the plan] is protected by presidential privilege in our case is questionable,” Stewart Whitson, legal director for the Foundation for Government Accountability, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

The Foundation for Government Accountability first sued the Justice Department under the Freedom of Information Act in April 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. 

“The DOJ is supposed to be the arbiter of following the law, and they are doing the opposite,” Whitson said in the interview. 

My book “The Myth of Voter Suppression” details how executives at the liberal think tank Demos—one of the private groups working with federal agencies on voter turnout—drafted an executive order in December 2020, the month before Biden took office, suggesting how he should turn government bureaucracies into voter registration agencies. 

Possibly more ambiguous is the Defense Department, which said it updated an existing strategic plan to fit Biden’s executive order on voting. The Pentagon’s strategic plan isn’t dated, but appears to have been drafted in 2021 after Biden signed the order that March. The Defense Department, unlike most other federal agencies, consistently has dealt with voting issues for military personnel. 

The Justice Department didn’t respond to The Daily Signal’s inquiries for this report. Federal agencies frequently decline to comment on ongoing litigation. Publicly, however, the Justice Department said in an October 2022 court filing that releasing documents about its strategic plan to implement Biden’s order could cause “public confusion.” 

“To qualify for protection under this privilege, material must be inter- or intra-agency, and both pre-decisional and deliberative,” the Justice Department’s motion in the lawsuit says.

In a March 3 speech, Attorney General Merrick Garland said voter ID and other election reforms were “discriminatory, burdensome and unnecessary,” and that the Justice Department would “fight back” against such measures. 

Numerous House and Senate Republicans have sought information about the documents related to Biden’s order telling government agencies to register voters. Critics have said the order could cause federal employees to engage in illegal activity by participating in elective politics. They point to potential violation of the Hatch Act, a law prohibiting partisan political activity using government time or resources, and the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits executive branch agencies from spending money for purposes not designated by Congress.

The Department of Education released a “toolkit” to expand voting among college students and to provide information about voting for students in grades K-12.

Also under Biden’s initiative, the Department of Homeland Security registers new voters during naturalization ceremonies. It’s not clear what else the DHS–which also is charged with stopping illegal immigration–has done to implement Biden’s executive order. 

As The Daily Signal previously reported, the Biden administration carved out paid administrative leave to encourage federal bureaucrats—seen as a loyal Democrat constituency—to volunteer as poll workers during elections. The Daily Signal also reported that federal agencies are working to carry out Biden’s order on voting with Demos and other liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union

In 2021, the White House announced that the Justice Department would focus on the Bureau of Prisons to “provide information about voting to individuals in federal custody, facilitate voting by those who remain eligible to do so while in federal custody, and educate individuals before reentry about voting rules and voting rights in their states.” 

The Biden administration has made little other information available, however. 

Nightmare Scenario: How a Trump Trial Could Now Run Up to (or Through) the 2024 Election


By: Jonathan Turley | March 11, 2024

Below is my column in the Hill on the real possibility of a federal trial of former president Donald Trump just before or even through the 2024 election. The claim that this schedule is the result of treating Trump like other criminal defendants is increasingly dubious given statements of courts and the Special Counsel.

Here is the column:

“This trial will not yield to the election cycle.” Those words of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan last year made clear that she will not consider that Donald Trump will likely be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee in setting the schedule for his federal trial in Washington, D.C.

Most recently, in the federal prosecution in Florida, Special Counsel Jack Smith declared that he will not consider himself bound by the Justice Department’s longstanding policy of not bringing charges or holding trials of candidates close to an election.

With the Supreme Court reviewing the immunity question (and a decision not expected until June), a nightmare scenario is unfolding in which Trump could be tried not just before the general election, but actually through November’s election.

Chutkan has insisted that her refusal to consider Trump’s candidacy is simply denying special treatment to the former president. But there is nothing typical about how she and others have handled the case. The fact that Chutkan was pushing for a March trial date shows just how extraordinary her handling has been.

In the D.C. courts, with thousands of stacked up cases, that would be a rocket docket for a complex case of this kind. There are roughly 770,000 pending cases in roughly 100 district courts around the country. The backlog of pending criminal cases in the federal court system increased by more than a quarter in the last five years. Even when defendants plead guilty, criminal cases average 10 months. If a trial is needed, it runs on average to two years, absent serious complications over classified or privileged material. Smith indicted Trump less than a year ago.

At every juncture, Smith has tried to expedite and spur the case along. This has included an attempt to cut off standard appellate options for Trump. It seems as if the entire point is to try Trump before the election. Smith has offered no reason, other than that he wants voters to consider the outcome of the trial. It is a rare acknowledgement of a desire for a trial to become a factor in an election.

Judge Chutkan has shown the same determination. The judge was criticized for comments she made before any charges were brought that strongly suggested she thought Trump should be criminally charged. Chutkan told one defendant that he showed “blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” In another case, Chutkan told the defendant that it was unfair that he might go to prison but “the architects of that horrific event will likely never be charged.”

When asked to recuse herself, Chutkan denied the clear implication of her own words. She insisted that she has not expressly stated that “’President Trump should be prosecuted’ and imprisoned… And the defense does not cite any instance of the court ever uttering those words or anything similar.”

Of course, neither the court nor the prosecutors seem willing to apply a similarly deferential view of the meaning of Trump’s words within the context of the case. There, the implications are sufficient for that “one person” described earlier by the court.

Chutkan is now reportedly telling parties in other cases that she will be out of the country in August, and that defendants will have to delay any proceedings in light of her plans…unless she can try Trump. She told lawyers that she will stick with her schedule unless “I’m in trial in another matter that has not yet returned to my calendar.”

Given the apparent motivation of the trial court to try Trump before the election, the only other source of restraint would be the Justice Department itself. Smith, however, has insisted that he will show no such restraint, even if he tries Trump through the election.

In his filings in Florida, Smith insisted that the oft-cited Justice Department policy to avoid such proceedings within 60 days of an election would not be applied in Trump’s case. He insisted that, since everyone knows about the allegations, there would be no harm or foul in holding him for trial for the weeks before the election as his opponent, President Biden, is free to traverse the country campaigning.

Smith’s position was applauded by commentators who had previously invoked the rule to oppose charges that might have helped Trump before prior elections. Take Andrew Weissmann, who served as the controversial top aide to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Now an MSNBC legal analyst, Weissmann assured viewers that there was no problem trying Trump just before the election because this is just “an internal rule. It is not a law.”

He then added “Second, the rule does not apply! For anyone who has been at the Justice Department, this is such a red herring.” He insisted this is only meant to avoid some “covert cases” being tried “because you don’t want to influence the election when that person — the candidate — doesn’t have an opportunity to get to trial.”

However, when the issue was the possibility of Special Counsel John Durham charging figures in the Russia investigation before the 2020 election, Weissmann and Professor Ryan Goodman wrote a column not only invoking the rule but encouraging prosecutors to refuse to assist Durham.

I have previously written about the ambiguity of this rule and the selectivity of its applications. However, Weissmann and Goodman were adamant that such prosecutions would be dangerous. Even though no actual election candidate would have been charged, they invoked this Justice Department “norm” and declared, “The Justice Department should not take action that could distort an election and influence the electorate. If someone is charged immediately before an election, for instance, that person has no time to offer a defense to counter the charges. The closer the election, the greater the risk that the department is impermissibly acting based on political considerations, which is always prohibited.”

It is certainly true that these charges have been known for a while, but Trump may not have an ability to present a complete defense before the election. It is also clear that he will have to choose between campaigning for office and defending his liberty.

Moreover, this is the leading candidate for the presidency, and the opponent to the current incumbent. A 2023 poll found that a 47 percent plurality of Americans already believe the charges are politically motivated. That appearance will only worsen as the election approaches, a recognition that should force a modicum of restraint upon both the court and the prosecution. Finally, Smith is referencing the election as the reason to expedite the trial precisely because it may have an influence on voters.

The Trump trials are troubling precisely because they are being handled differently because of who the defendant is. No one can seriously suggest that Judge Chutkan would be moving other cases or canceling trips in order to shoehorn them into the calendar this year, if it were not for the election and the name of the defendant. Such cases are, after all, notorious for taking years to work out complicated pre-trial matters.

Most citizens already see that reality. State prosecutors in New York and Georgia waited for years to charge Trump, then pushed for expedited schedules in order to try him before the election.

That brings us back to Judge Chutkan’s pledge to “not yield to the election cycle.” Yet the expedited effort of the court seems clearly motivated by the election cycle. She and Smith are depending on the election cycle as they struggle to pull Trump into court at the height of a presidential campaign. It is a schedule conceived for the “one person” described by Chutkan in the earlier cases. As the calendar continues to shrink, claims of blind justice increasingly look like the blind pursuit of a specific person.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Ready, Aim, Ban

A.F. BRANCO | on March 10, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-ready-aim-ban/

Minnesota Gun Ammo Bill
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

One of Minnesota’s fastest-growing high school sports is in danger of becoming too expensive for its athletes if a bill circulating in the state House and Senate comes to pass.

Shooting league calls DFL bill an ‘attack on a school-approved activity they don’t like

Sen. Jen McEwen, DFL-Duluth, says SF3792 is focused on keeping youth shooting athletes and the environment safe from lead-based ammunition. One of Minnesota’s fastest growing high school sports is in danger of becoming too expensive for its athletes if a bill circulating in the state House and Senate comes to pass.  That’s according to organizers for the USA Clay Target League who say a proposal sponsored by a handful of DFL legislators that would ban lead-based ammunition would “more than double” the costs of ammunition for trap shooting athletes and result in many no longer being able to afford the sport. READ MORE

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Operation No-Opposition

A.F. BRANCO | on March 11, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-operation-no-opposition/

Election Interference Lawfare
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

It is now abundantly clear that the Democrats and Biden are using lawfare to remove their political opposition, mainly Trump and his supporters. All the indictments are from hardcore leftists within the justice system.

LAWFARE: Trump Posts $91.6 Million Bond to Appeal E. Jean Carroll Defamation Judgment

By Cristina Laila – March , 2024

President Trump on Friday posted a $91.6 million bond as he appeals the E. Jean Carroll judgment. The money will be returned to Trump if he wins his appeal.  Judge Lewis Kaplan, a Clinton appointee on Thursday denied Trump’s second request to delay paying Carroll.

In January, a 9-person jury ordered Trump to pay a total of $83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll for statements he made defending himself against false rape accusations. The Trump team argued that the evidence Carroll deleted proves that she was receiving threats before President Trump ever commented on her allegations. Judge Kaplan defended Carroll and said Trump offered no evidence that he ever attempted to recover the deleted messages. READ MORE…

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

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

SUMMING OF THE WEEK OF POLITICALLY INCORRECT CARTOONS


March 9, 2024

Exclusive: Liz Cheney, January 6 Committee Suppressed Exonerating Evidence Of Trump’s Push For National Guard


BY: MOLLIE HEMINGWAY | MARCH 08, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/08/exclusive-liz-cheney-january-6-committee-suppressed-exonerating-evidence-of-trumps-push-for-national-guard/

Liz cheney

Author Mollie Hemingway profile

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY

VISIT ON TWITTER@MZHEMINGWAY

MORE ARTICLES

Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, a previously hidden transcript obtained by The Federalist shows.

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.

Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato’s first transcribed interview with the committee was conducted on January 28, 2022. In it, he told Cheney and her investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city.

He also testified President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021. Ornato also described White House frustration with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s slow deployment of assistance on the afternoon of January 6, 2021.

Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review. On top of that, committee allies began publishing critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato ahead of follow-up interviews with him. Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to the security position in the White House.

Cheney frequently points skeptics of her investigation to the Government Publishing Office website that posted, she said, “transcripts, documents, exhibits & our meticulously sourced 800+ page final report.” That website provides “supporting documents” to the claims made by Cheney and fellow anti-Trump enthusiasts.

However, transcripts of fewer than half of the 1,000 interviews the committee claims it conducted are posted on that site. It is unclear how many of the hidden transcripts include exonerating information suppressed by the committee.

Those documents support the committee’s narrative rather than the truth of the events leading up to January 6, 2021, said Rep. Barry Loudermilk, chairman of the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight.

“The former J6 Select Committee apparently withheld Mr. Ornato’s critical witness testimony from the American people because it contradicted their pre-determined narrative. Mr. Ornato’s testimony proves what Mr. Meadows has said all along: President Trump did in fact offer 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol, which was turned down,” said the Georgia Republican.

His subcommittee is reviewing the work of the January 6 committee, which has been accused of other unethical behavior at the expense of accuracy, as well as collusion with other Democrat efforts to prosecute political opponents.

“This is just one example of important information the former Select Committee hid from the public because it contradicted what they wanted the American people to believe,” Loudermilk said. “And this is exactly why my investigation is committed to uncovering all the facts, no matter the outcome.”

Early Corroboration For Contested Claim

A January 6 committee staffer asked Ornato, “When it comes to the National Guard statement about having 10,000 troops or any other number of troops, do you recall any discussion prior to the 6th about whether and how many National Guard troops to deploy on January 6th?” Ornato surprised the committee by noting he did recall a conversation between Meadows and Bowser: “He was on the phone with her and wanted to make sure she had everything that she needed,” Ornato told investigators.

Ornato said White House concerns about January 6 were related to fears that left-wing groups would clash with Trump protesters and that no one in the White House anticipated a riot at the Capitol. Antifa and other left-wing groups were planning protests for the same day. Left-wing groups had been involved in violent assaults on Trump supporters following public protests.

Meadows “wanted to know if she need any more guardsmen,” Ornato testified. “And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, ‘The president wants to make sure that you have enough.’ You know, ‘He is willing to ask for 10,000.’ I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it. And that she was all set. She had, I think it was like 350 or so for intersection control, and those types of things not in the law enforcement capacity at the time.”

Ornato was correct. Bowser declined the offer, asking only for a few hundred National Guard and requiring them to serve in a very limited capacity.

“No DCNG personnel shall be armed during this mission, and at no time, will DCNG personnel or assets be engaged in domestic surveillance, searches, or seizures of US persons,” Bowser wrote in her letter requesting the D.C. National Guard. Bowser had been a strenuous critic of Republican efforts to limit rioting from leftwing political activists in U.S. cities during 2020’s summer of violence.

Bowser’s decision to decline help from the White House did not end the Trump team’s efforts to secure troops ahead of the protest. When the D.C. mayor declined Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops, Ornato said the White House requested a “quick reaction force” out of the Defense Department in case it was needed.

“The only thing I remember with DOD and the National Guard was even though the mayor didn’t want any more National Guard in D.C., that a request was made to have kind of a, lack of better term, a quick reaction force out at Joint Base Andrews being that it was a military installation,” Ornato told investigators in the previously concealed interview. “I remember Chief Meadows talking to DOD about that, I believe. I remember Chief Meadows letting me know that, ‘Hey, there was going to be National Guard that’s going to be at Joint Base Andrews in case they’re going to need some more, we’re going to — the Mayor would need any, we’re going to make sure they’re out there.’”

Meadows was concerned that D.C. would be unprepared for the size of the crowd coming to protest the controversial 2020 election in which hundreds of laws and processes were changed to enable tens of millions of unsupervised mail-in ballots to flood the country. The January 6 Committee prevented an investigation into Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s preparation — or lack thereof — for Capitol security ahead of the event, so it is unclear if she was as concerned about keeping the peace as Meadows and the Trump White House were.

“And, again, the crowd sizes were, you know, the organizers were saying, you know, there may be 50,000 here. So that’s where it started, I think, to scare the chief a little bit of how many people were coming in for this event, and wanted to make sure that they would be able to bring in National Guard if needed for this size of this many people inside D.C.,” Ornato said.

Once the Capitol was breached, the Trump White House pushed for immediate help from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and grew frustrated at the slow deployment of that help, according to the testimony.

“So, then I remember the chief saying, ‘Hey, I’m calling secretary of defense to get that [quick reaction force] in here,” Ornato said. Later he said, “And then I remember the chief telling Miller, ‘Get them in here, get them in here to secure the Capitol now.’”

Still later, he said, “[T]he constant was, you know, where is the National Guard? Why isn’t — you know, we’ve got to get control of this.” And again, “But, you know, [Meadows] understood the urgency, that’s for sure. And he kept, you know, getting Miller on the phone, wanting to know where they were, why aren’t they there yet.”

Days prior, Cheney had “secretly orchestrated” a pressure campaign to prevent the Defense Department from deploying resources on January 6, 2021. She organized an op-ed for the Washington Post from her father and other former secretaries of defense specifically to discourage Miller from taking action.

Ornato described Meadows’ strenuous efforts to quicken the Defense Department’s deployment of the National Guard: “Every time [Meadows] would ask, ‘What’s taking so long?’ It would be, like, you know, ‘This isn’t just start the car and we’re there. We have to muster them up, we have to’ — so it was constant excuses coming of — not excuses, but what they were actually doing to get them there. So, you know, ‘We only have so many here right now. They’re given an hour to get ready.’ So, there’s, like, all these timelines that was being explained to the chief. And he relayed that, like, you know — he’s like, ‘I don’t care, just get them here,’ you know, and ‘Get them to the Capitol, not to the White House.’”

Cheney hid this testimony and instead asserted in her report that President Trump “never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on January 6th or on any other day. Nor did he instruct any Federal law enforcement agency to assist.”

Her report noted that the secretary of defense “ultimately did deploy the Guard. Although evidence identifies a likely miscommunication between members of the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense impacting the timing of deployment, the Committee has found no evidence that the Department of Defense intentionally delayed deployment of the National Guard. The Select Committee recognizes that some at the Department had genuine concerns, counseling caution, that President Trump might give an illegal order to use the military in support of his efforts to overturn the election.”

Cheney has never addressed the effects of her secretly orchestrated campaign to prevent Miller from acting ahead of the January 6, 2021 protest. A new book confirms prior reporting that Cheney secretly conspired with District Attorney Fani Willis in Fulton County’s prosecution of Republicans and that she viewed it as a “platform for her to resuscitate her political career” and would “provide a springboard for a Cheney presidential run.”

Ornato’s description of events also matched testimony offered by Kash Patel, the former chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense, in the Colorado Supreme Court hearing about Democrat efforts to limit the ability of Americans to vote for the candidate of their choice. The Colorado court, whose efforts to remove Trump from the ballot were so extreme they were overturned this week by a unanimous Supreme Court, claimed Patel’s “testimony regarding Trump authorizing” at least 10,000 National Guardsmen was “illogical” and “completely devoid of any evidence in the record.” Because Ornato’s corroborating information had been suppressed from the public record by the January 6 committee, the Colorado Supreme Court improperly dismissed evidence.

‘I Never Heard Anything Like That’

Cheney and her committee did devote 2,000 words in their final report to an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that President Trump had physically overcome a Secret Service agent in his zeal to join protesters at the Capitol. That story had been told by Cassidy Hutchinson, Cheney’s friend and star witness, along with other stories that eyewitnesses disputed. (Disclosure: Hutchinson falsely claimed this reporter received classified information from a Secret Service handler in a clandestine Georgetown meeting. She has thus far refused formal requests to correct her theatrical claim.) While the story of Trump overcoming a Secret Service agent would not be told for months, Ornato pre-rebutted it in his testimony.

Asked if he ever heard anything about Trump deciding to go to the Capitol that day, Ornato said he hadn’t. Ornato said Trump had driven by a previous rally, had flown over another, and that handlers had previously decided against him joining the day’s events.

“No. I did not know that. I mean, I don’t think — that couldn’t have happened. Nobody had — nobody would be prepared for that. There would be no security to do that. There would be no — I mean, that was like I said, talked about a couple of days, whenever it was prior, and it was scoffed at and moved on, and I never heard about it again,” Ornato said, adding that he never heard anything about Trump wanting to go to the Capitol that day. “Usually somebody would, you know, report it up or report over, like, ‘Hey, this is what I overheard’ or something, but I never heard anything like that.”

Later, Hutchinson would claim Ornato had been the source of her dramatic tale that Trump had commandeered the presidential vehicle and demanded to be taken to the Capitol. Other Secret Service sources also strongly repudiated the outlandish claim.


Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor. She is the co-author of Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. She is the author of “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections.” Reach her at mzhemingway@thefederalist.com

The Right to Vote Is a Privilege Reserved for Citizens, Not for Illegal Immigrants


By: Armstrong Williams @Arightside / March 07, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/07/right-privilege-vote/

Should individuals who immigrate here in pursuit of economic prosperity gain the right to vote? Eventually, but only after they go through the lengthy process to become legally naturalized citizens and do so without jumping the line. (Photo: Shironosov/iStock/Getty Images)

The New York City Legislature, following in the footsteps of Washington, D.C., passed a groundbreaking bill into law in 2022. The law would have allowed any lawful permanent resident or green card holder to vote in a New York City election. That law was met with legal challenges as quickly as it was passed, which was to be expected, given that it flagrantly infringed upon the state’s constitution.

The Constitution of New York states unequivocally, “every citizen shall be entitled to vote … .” This provision’s meaning is so obvious that it has been painful to see the far-left liberal New York City Council pass a law that violates it. It is evident that the New York City Legislature misplaced its reading glasses, as it would not have enacted a law that contradicts the New York Constitution in such a bizarre way.

The majority opinion, authored by appellate Judge Paul Wooten, stated, “The plain language of this provision provides that the right to vote in ‘every election for all officers elected by the people’ is available exclusively to citizens.”

Unsurprisingly, pro-immigrant organizations denounced the decision, calling it “shameful” and saying it “disenfranchise[s] residents.” Disenfranchises? Really? This remark is as illogical as it is absurd. The only people disenfranchised by this law are United States citizens.

Voter disenfranchisement entails impeding an individual’s ability to exercise his or her right to vote or diminishing the value of his or her vote. The reason the Electoral College is reviled by the Left is because, according to its worldview, it confers greater value on specific votes than others, especially in smaller states.

The right to vote is sacred. However, the Left has forgotten that it must be earned, not given. Not earned in the conventional sense of passing a test to acquire, like the racist literacy tests of the past; rather, acquired through enduring the complexities and challenges associated with being a citizen. Becoming a citizen is not a simple task. Individuals must either be so lucky as to be born in the United States or endure a laborious and sometimes yearslong application process. There are discernible indicators in both processes that demonstrate an individual is prepared and deserving of the right to vote.

A person born in the United States has lived and grown in that country. He or she has gone through the government-mandated educational system and complied with the laws of this country for his or her entire lives. They have fulfilled their responsibilities through compliance and, in the case of some, hardship brought upon by our laws.

Individuals who obtain citizenship have demonstrated their readiness to undertake substantial obligations and sacrifices to integrate into a foreign nation. They have sworn allegiance to a new nation after navigating a complex legal system, and many have become proficient in a foreign language.

Nothing of the sort applies to noncitizens. There are undoubtedly many noncitizens loyal to this country, but they, like everyone else, must undergo the same process to demonstrate that they have earned the right to vote. It is inequitable to accord equal weight to the votes of transient individuals who enter the country for economic purposes, return their funds to their country of origin, or who are mere public charges, in comparison to those who have sworn allegiance to the United States and who have gone through the process to become a citizen.

Through the news, we tragically witness the disloyal individuals who come here and commit heinous acts daily. Migrants assaulting police officers, MS-13 gangs wreaking havoc on the population, migrants stabbing innocent people in Georgia. These tragedies have become routine occurrences. Should these individuals, whose sole intention is to cause harm or act selfishly, be permitted to vote? Undoubtedly not.

Should individuals who immigrate in pursuit of economic prosperity gain the right to vote? Eventually, but only after enduring the same trials and tribulations that each and every American has also endured.

The foundation of the United States is immigration. Each of us is an immigrant in some capacity. Our right to vote has been acquired through either our unwavering allegiance to the United States or our successful completion of the trials and systems established by the country. If an individual claims your vote lacks significance, you should explain the arduous journey you undertook to earn that privilege and the actions you undertook as a citizen. It just might persuade someone to reconsider their position.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM

The New York Times Faces Claims of Hypocrisy Over Coverage of the Deployment of Troops


March 7, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/07/the-new-york-times-faces-claims-of-hypocrisy-over-coverage-of-the-deployment-of-troops/

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has a right to be a tad confused.  The senator noted the matter-of-fact coverage by The New York Times of Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s plan to send troops to New York City to crack down on crime. Cotton posted a “hmmm” note that simply read: “Sending in the troops to help restore law and order…” His point was that, roughly four years ago, the newspaper publicly denounced him after running his opinion piece calling for the use of national guard troops to quell violent riots in Washington.

The Cotton column led to editors being forced out after public confessions and recriminations. Now, after Democratic politicians actually ordered such a deployment, the Times has offered little more than a journalistic shrug.

Hochul announced she will be deploying 750 members of the National Guard to New York City’s subway system to assist the New York Police Department (NYPD) in the crackdown on crime, including bag searches at the entrances of busy train stations.

Mara Gay of the New York Times then ran a story titled “The National Guard May Make Riders Feel Safer.”  This is the same Mara Gay who was part of the campaign against Cotton and posted a tweet saying “Running this puts black people in danger. And other Americans standing up for our humanity and democracy.”

I have previously written on the hypocrisy of the Times in how it has handled the Cotton affair. The column itself was historically accurate. Indeed, critics never explained what was historically false (or outside the range of permissible interpretation) in the column. Moreover, writers Taylor Lorenz, Caity Weaver, Sheera Frankel, Jacey Fortin, and others said that such columns put black reporters in danger and condemned publishing Cotton’s viewpoint.

In a breathtaking surrender, the newspaper apologized and not only promised an investigation in how such an opposing view could find itself on its pages but promised to reduce the number of editorials in the future:

“We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication. This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reduction the number of op-eds we publish.”

The sacking of Bennet had its intended effect. Writers and columnists with opposing or critical views were soon forced off newspapers around the country, including at the New York Times.

Editor Adam Rubenstein was also forced out at the paper and recently wrote a scathing account of the bizarre environment within the paper. The writers have condemned the “both sideism” of allowing conservative viewpoints in the newspaper and insisted that Cotton and others must be banned as favoring potential violent actions against protesters. Yet, the newspaper has published people with anti-free speech and violent viewpoints in the last year. While the New York Times stands by its declaration that Cotton should never have been published, it had no problem in publishing “Beijing’s enforcer” in Hong Kong as Regina Ip mocked freedom protesters who were being beaten and arrested by the government.

Indeed, just before the anniversary of the Cotton controversy, the New York Times published a column by University of Rhode Island professor  Erik Loomis, who brushed off the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.  Loomis’ article on “Why The Amazon Workers Never Stood A Chance” did not include his earlier violent rationalization. It was in my view a worthy and interesting column for publication. So was Cotton’s column.

While many today still claim that the protests around the White House were “entirely peaceful” and there was no “attack on the White House,” that claim is demonstrably false. As I discussed in my testimony to Congress, there was in fact an exceptionally high number of officers injured over the course of days of protests around the White House. In addition to a reported 150 officers injured (including at least 49 Park Police officers around the White House), protesters caused extensive property damage including the torching of a historic structure and the attempted arson of St. John’s.  The threat was so great that Trump had to be moved into the bunker because the Secret Service feared a breach of security around the White House.

Notably, later during the January 6th riot, there were no recriminations for the use of the same fencing and national guard troops to protect the Capitol, albeit too late to have prevented the initial riot.

So now it is a Democratic leader who is not just calling for the use of troops but actually deploying them in New York City. It is part of an effort by many Democrats to change course on crime and immigration before the 2024 election after years of criminal law reforms and sanctuary city policies.

What is clear from the Times coverage is that there is still no sense of compulsion at the newsroom to be consistent or even self-aware. Outrage remains entirely selective and political. There is no hashtag campaign by writers or repeating the same line that “running this put Black @nytimes staff in danger.”

The selective outrage directed at Sen. Cotton and the termination of editors at the newspaper were troubling enough. However, what is even more troubling is the unwillingness of the paper to apologize to Sen. Cotton for this hypocritical and unfair treatment.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – State of Delusion

A.F. BRANCO | on March 8, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-state-of-delusion/

State Of the Union 2024
A Political Cartoon by A. F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

Biden’s State of the Union address, filled with lies and gaslighting, was no surprise to people paying attention. How many people will ignore the truth right in front of them and buy into his political rhetoric? In truth, Biden and the Democrats are the real threat to our Constitutional Republic that oversees our democracy.

President Trump RIPS Old Joe at SOTU: He Looks So Angry when He’s Talking, Which Is a Trait of People Who Know They Are “Losing It”

By Jim Hoft March 7, 2024

play-by-playcomment tonight during Joe Biden’s SOTU Address.  TGP’s Jordan Conradson is posting Trump’s comments tonight here.  Trump called out the angry old man speaking tonight.

President Trump: He looks so angry when he’s talking, which is a trait of people who know they are “losing it.” The anger and shouting is not helpful to bringing our Country back together! Read More

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

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

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Cringe Benefits

A.F. BRANCO | on March 7, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-cringe-benefits/

Veterans vs Illegal Immigrants
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

With so many homeless veterans, Biden and the Democrats are focusing millions in tax dollars on the healthcare, feeding, and housing of the illegal immigrants coming across Bidens open borders.

Report: Biden Administration Considering Pulling Health Care from Veterans to Treat Illegal Aliens

By Richard Moorhead

Did you, or a family member, serve your country with the expectation of receiving the health care benefits you were promised? Sorry, illegal aliens apparently come first in President Joe Biden’s America. The Biden administration reportedly is considering diverting doctors from the Department of Veterans Affairs to treat the massive inflow of illegal aliens expected at the southern border this spring and summer.  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.

Science Keeps Obliterating The Left’s Favorite Transgender Narratives


BY: NATHANAEL BLAKE | MARCH 06, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/06/science-keeps-obliterating-the-lefts-favorite-transgender-narratives/

Transgender people

Author Nathanael Blake profile

NATHANAEL BLAKE

MORE ARTICLES

The truth about transgenderism is coming out. On Monday, Michael Shellenberger released a multitude of internal files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) that prove that the practice of transgender medicine is neither scientific nor medical.” WPATH has been accepted by the political, cultural, and medical establishments as the authority on transgenderism, but what its members say in private is not the narrative they sell to the public.

Instead of the rigorous, careful, evidence-based medicine that champions of “gender-affirming care” claim to practice, the WPATH files show doctors who are making it up as they go along, smashing through guardrails even though they know that the children they are chemically and surgically altering cannot really give informed consent. And people are noticing.

No wonder the transgender ideologues are worried. The public has proven more resistant than they expected, especially regarding radical policies such as putting men in women’s prisons and girls’ locker rooms, let alone sexually mutilating and sterilizing children. And transgender activists and their allies have no response except to repeat their same failed arguments, just louder.

Consider a recent opinion piece in the New England Journal of Medicine by Michael R. Ulrich, a Boston University professor of law and public health who is also affiliated with Ibram X. Kendi’s scandal-plagued Center for Antiracist Research. Ulrich argues that restrictions on transitioning children are part of a broader right-wing culture war restricting and regulating medicine. There is a lot wrong with this assertion, but the fundamental problem is that so-called gender-affirming care is not medicine.

From puberty blockers to hormones to surgeries, transition is never medically necessary. Transitioning does not cure any disease or correct any physical ailment or injury. Rather, the point of medicalized transition is to disrupt and destroy the normal functioning of healthy bodies.

Ulrich tries to assuage concerns over these procedures by comparing them to “Pediatric chemotherapy and radiation,” which also “have lasting effects on growth development and reproductive capabilities.” Well, yes, but cancer kills people, which is why we are willing to accept serious side effects to treat it — and even then, doctors and patients have to balance the risks of the disease against the risks of treatment. In contrast, there is no physical risk from not receiving “gender-affirming care,” whereas, as the WPATH files show, there is significant, potentially lethal, risks from puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and transition surgeries.

This is why the argument for transition always comes down to encouraging people, especially children, to take themselves hostage by threatening suicide. The only harm that can come from not transitioning is self-harm. And so, Ulrich deploys the suicide threats early and often, writing that “it is not hyperbole to say that lives are at risk in states pursuing these bans on needed care.” Ulrich offers no real evidence to back this claim up. He simply presumes that the “high rates of suicide, suicide attempts, and suicidal ideation among transgender young people” would be reduced with affirmation and medical transition.

Ulrich cites just one study as “evidence showing the effectiveness of gender-affirming care in reducing depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts.” But, despite hype to the contrary, that study showed no such thing. Rather, as Jesse Singal explained after it was published in 2022, “the kids who took puberty blockers or hormones experienced no statistically significant mental health improvement during the study. The claim that they did improve, which was presented to the public in the study itself, in publicity materials, and on social media (repeatedly) by one of the authors, is false” (emphasis in original).

No Evidence Regarding Suicide

There is no good evidence that transition prevents suicide, especially for children. Those who identify as trans do have an elevated risk of suicide (though this tends to be exaggerated by activists), but this is best explained by trans-identified individuals also having a much higher rate of mental health problems and trauma — and it doesn’t help to add to these underlying issues the lie that they were somehow born in the wrong body.

This extraordinary claim — that some children are born into the wrong bodies, and therefore must be chemically and surgically reshaped into a facsimile of the opposite sex — is medically unsupported. It is ideological and sexual fantasy masquerading as medicine. There is no good evidence to support transitioning children because gender ideology is just that, an ideology masquerading as medicine. The reality of human nature does not change, even though much of the medical establishment, such as the NEJM, was shamefully eager to capitulate to a small number of aggressive activists.

Rein in the Industry

Therefore, it is not only reasonable, but imperative, for legislators to rein in the transgender industry, and especially to stop the “transitioning” of children. Ulrich and other activists can fulminate about right-wing conspiracies, but it is right and just to ban the surgical and chemical mutilation of children. Many states have done so, thereby proving that gender ideology will not inevitably triumph and claim our children for its own.

This does not mean the fight is over. Indeed, we should expect gender ideologues to become more aggressive as their losses pile up. They thought time would be on their side, and that new research would vindicate them. But their time is running out, and the continued lack of evidence for “gender-affirming care” is pushing them to increasingly brazen lies and distortions as they attempt to justify their collapsing position. And they are also becoming more authoritarian in the places and institutions they do control, as they attempt to impose transgender dogma on the rest of us.

Thus, those opposed to gender ideology must not get cocky. Trans activists and their allies will keep fighting to the bitter end, especially those who have staked their reputations, livelihoods, and self-respect on radical gender ideology. Nonetheless, the end can now be envisioned, even if much work remains to achieve it.


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

Nearly 1 In 5 Minnesota Democrats Voted ‘Uncommitted’ To Protest Biden


BY: LOGAN WASHBURN | MARCH 06, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/06/nearly-1-in-5-minnesota-democrats-voted-uncommitted-to-protest-biden/

voting sign at Minnesota polling place

President Joe Biden won most of the delegates up for grabs in the Democrat presidential primaries on Super Tuesday, but the sizable number of votes cast against him in favor of an “uncommitted” option confirm how much sway the loudest, most radical wings of the party have. 

Anti-Israel Democrats launched a campaign to vote “uncommitted” or “no preference” (casting a vote for no candidate) out of frustration that Biden’s position toward Israel is insufficiently supportive of Hamas-run Gaza. After gaining traction in Michigan last week, the protest vote — which seeks to use “uncommitted” Democrat votes to call for Biden to oppose Israel’s military response following the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks — won close to 19 percent of Democrat primary voters in Minnesota and 12.7 percent in North Carolina, according to the Associated Press. The campaign pulled single-digit percentages of voters in states including Alabama, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Tennessee.  

“Democrats are really frustrated,” said Jaylani Hussein, co-chair of Uncommitted Vote Minnesota, on ABC News. “Now it’s starting to cost him immensely.” 

“The policy of this war is untenable and it will have consequences, not only for down-ballots but hopefully also in the upcoming election,” he added. “We understand the consequences of leaving the party that we voted for, or the president that we voted for.” 

Groups like Abandon Biden, formed by Muslim Americans calling Israel’s response against Hamas a “genocide,” and Our Revolution, which sprung up from Bernie Sanders’ failed 2016 presidential campaign, are supporting the effort. Last Tuesday, “uncommitted” won more than 13 percent of Michigan Democrats. 

“The ‘Vote Uncommitted’ movement is growing, and voters continue to make themselves heard,” Our Revolution Director Joseph Geevarghese wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, Tuesday. “There is no unconditional support for President Biden, not without an unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.” 

The Democratic Socialists of America endorsed the “uncommitted” effort March 3. The group is planning phone banks in support and posted Tuesday night that they have “big pushes coming up in WA, WI and beyond.” 

Vice President Kamala Harris called for a ceasefire Sunday, but this was apparently not enough to win over the anti-Israel groups. Meanwhile Democrat and known antisemite Rep. Ilhan Omar, who represents Minnesota where the movement gained the most, has been attacking Biden’s policy on the conflict. 

Biden’s unpopularity Super Tuesday went even beyond the mainland. He lost the primary in American Samoa to self-described entrepreneur Jason Palmer, who won with 56 percent, according to CNN

“We are not supporting Donald Trump,” Hussein said. “As far as the consequences of having President Trump, that’s a reality that we’re willing to accept.” 


Logan Washburn is studying politics and journalism at Hillsdale College. He serves as associate editor for the school paper, The Collegian, served as editorial assistant for Christopher Rufo, and has bylines in publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. 

Author Logan Washburn profile

LOGAN WASHBURN

MORE ARTICLES

Media Smear NC Republican As Conspiracy Theorist While Celebrating Russia Hoaxer Adam Schiff


BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE | MARCH 06, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/06/media-smear-nc-republican-as-conspiracy-theorist-while-celebrating-russia-hoaxer-adam-schiff/

Adam Schiff

Author Tristan Justice profile

TRISTAN JUSTICE

VISIT ON TWITTER@JUSTICETRISTAN

MORE ARTICLES

Rep. Adam Schiff, whom colleagues censured for fomenting the Russia hoax, practically won Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat Tuesday night. Schiff captured the Democrat nomination in the deep-blue state and will face Republican baseball star Steve Garvey in the fall general.

Corporate media coverage of Schiff’s part in the years-long effort to impeach former President Donald Trump over deep-state conspiracies ignored his repeat abuses of power. They also ignored Schiff’s use of his intelligence committee chairmanship to peddle lies about Democrats’ political opponents.

To the New York Times, Schiff is “the chief tormentor of former President Donald J. Trump.” To Politico, Schiff is “a scourge of Donald Trump and his MAGA movement.” To Axios, Schiff is simply a “Top Trump foe.”

Republican North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, on the other hand, may have grounds to sue MSNBC and Slate for defamation over calling him a “Holocaust denier.”

The network’s Joy Reid tossed out the moniker following Robinson’s Tuesday night win in his state’s GOP gubernatorial primary when she introduced North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper for an interview. Slate went with the headline — now apparently altered — “Mark Robinson: North Carolina Republican primary for governor goes to a Holocaust denier.”

Below is all the evidence the Slate article presents to frame the gubernatorial nominee as a denier of the Holocaust:

The Holocaust
“There is a REASON the liberal media fills the airwaves with programs about the NAZI and the ‘6 million Jews’ they murdered. There is also a REASON those same liberals DO NOT FILL the airwaves with programs about the Communist and the 100+ million PEOPLE they murdered throughout the 20th century.”

(He also, in a 2014 post, quoted Hitler without context.)

The quote from Adolf Hitler comes from The New Republic, which linked two Facebook posts to claim Robinson “has minimized the horrors of the Holocaust.” Neither, however, comes anywhere close to Holocaust denial.

“We often speak of the ‘appeasement’ of Hitler,” Robinson wrote in one. “But the biggest ‘appeasement’ of ALL TIME is how we turned a blind eye to the clear and present danger of MARXISM.”

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fmark.k.robinson.3%2Fposts%2Fpfbid034yK55wg7VUT4KHKtKZvjKcw5siA3DzE6QiXQyPTjxFLyqekk7WuLmNhZMmzwCFZwl&show_text=true&width=500

“It is EXTREMELY distressing that many well meaning and intelligent people are so focused on long dead Hitler while the living political dissidents of Stalin are currently fighting to destroy our REPUBLIC,” Robinson wrote in the other.

500https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fmark.k.robinson.3%2Fposts%2Fpfbid0kQwR4uYekgQqHnF2mqukifJf4w4fZNEkx73nBCaE6KGCffnsTyuyvM97cDas6swal&show_text=true&width=500

The press can have their opinions about Robinson’s eccentricity, but to call him a Holocaust denier is exceedingly dishonest.

In high contrast, Rachel Maddow positively described conspiracy theorist Schiff as a “major, major player in Trump impeachments and investigations” when MSNBC called the Senate primary for the California congressman.


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.

Progressives Renew Calls to Expand Supreme Court


By Theodore Bunker    |   Wednesday, 06 March 2024 11:46 AM EST

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/supreme-court-progressives-expand/2024/03/06/id/1156172/

Progressive groups are renewing calls to expand the number of seats on the U.S. Supreme Court after the court’s ruling to prevent Colorado from removing former President Donald Trump from the ballot. The justices unanimously ruled to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that barred Trump from the Republican primary ballot and cited the Constitution’s anti-insurrectionist clause.

The progressive judicial groups Demand Justice and Women’s March posted calls on X to “expand the court” after the ruling. Carrie Severino, president of the conservative group JCN, criticized the calls in a statement to the Washington Examiner

“Right on cue, left-wing dark money groups are calling for court-packing when they get a decision they don’t like (including one that was unanimous on the judgment),” Severino said.

“It’s telling that, to change this decision, they would have to add ten Justices, and it suggests they do not think that even Justices [Sonia] Sotomayor, [Elana] Kagan, and [Ketanji Brown] Jackson are liberal enough for them. It shows how radical and out of touch these groups are and how reflexively partisan a judge would have to be to meet their standards.”

Theodore Bunker 

Theodore Bunker, a Newsmax writer, has more than a decade covering news, media, and politics.

Critics of ‘Banning’ Books Are Wrong: They’re Not All Suitable for Kids


By: Adam Kissel @kissel_adam / March 06, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/06/critics-book-bans-are-wrong-theyre-not-all-suitable-kids/

Critics of “book bans” tend to speak as though no book chosen by a school librarian is ever inappropriate for kids. That’s preposterous on its face. (Photo: Jose Luis Pelaez Inc./Digital Vision/Getty Images)

Our English teachers taught us to use extreme caution before writing a word such as “always” or “never.”

Such totalizing words are rarely accurate, since most principles have exceptions. But you won’t see this advice applied by critics of “book bans,” who tend to speak as though no book chosen by a school librarian is ever inappropriate for kids.

My colleagues at The Heritage Foundation found that about three-fourths of books on lists of “banned books” are actually still in the libraries where the books were challenged. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

Many of the rest are indeed inappropriate for children. They contain “images of people engaged in sex acts or graphic descriptions of those acts.” The material is so graphic, in fact, that it’s censored on broadcasts to avoid Federal Communications Commission fines. Moreover, movies and TV shows have ratings. Anyway, none of the books is “banned.” Kids generally can bring their own copies to school or buy them at a bookstore.

Since 1982, the Supreme Court has made it clear that while books may not be removed from school libraries to suppress ideas, there are legitimate reasons to remove books. Those reasons include when a book is obscene in general or is obscene as to minors, and when a book is inappropriate for the age, grade, or developmental level of students. When a book is inappropriate for the curriculum, it also can be removed from classrooms.

That point should be obvious. After all, the Supreme Court also has permitted censorship of school newspapers. The high court also has permitted punishment of students who held a banner reading “bong hits for Jesus.” In that case, the school argued successfully that it could in fact suppress an idea if that idea were about promoting the use of illegal drugs.

And the court has permitted punishment of a student who used pervasively vulgar language at a school assembly.

Adults really do, it turns out, have a role in determining what expression is acceptable for kids at school. And some of the same schools that resist book challenges have speech codes. They unconstitutionally ban “hate speech” and “misgendering,” but if the same language is in a book, they think nobody ought to challenge it.

Next week, I will be making these points at a private school, where “book banning” is the conference topic. I will note that the school’s libraries use the term “age-appropriate” to describe their book curation. Do librarians never make mistakes?

I also will tell the students that a complete opposition to book challenges is unlikely to express their true position.

  • Do the kids really think they were ready for the sexual, violent, gory, or scary content of any book when they were in the first grade? Do they think their younger siblings should be able to access all of that at school?
  • Do the kids really think it would be appropriate for the school librarian to advertise to first graders a book making the case against the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy?

More likely, kids still believe that preserving innocence is one of their values. That argument should hold for most adults, too.

Probably no one is arguing that every challenged book is inappropriate for kids. Just as librarians can err in adding a book to the library, schools can err in removing them. The key is to develop a review process that puts the most knowledgeable people in charge—parents and, secondarily, teachers know the kids best—and makes the fewest mistakes.

For those critics of “book bans” who are unwilling to admit that even one book could ever be bad enough to remove from a school library, it’s time to mature and acknowledge that unlike the printed page, life is not black and white. Then we can have the important discussion of how to properly protect kids.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Fixing Stupid

A.F. BRANCO | on March 6, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-fixing-stupid/

It’s The Economy Stupid Cartoon
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

Who says we can’t fix stupid? Now that Trump has pretty much clinched the GOP primary, many feel it’s time to move on against Biden in the General Election and then on to the White House so Trump can fix the problems caused by Biden and the Democrat’s stupid policies. Maybe we can “fix stupid”.

Trump Super Tuesday Victory Speech: Joe Biden Is the Worst President in the History of Our Country (VIDEO)

By Jim Hoft – March 5 2024

President Trump delivered a victory speech tonight at his Mar-a-Lago home after winning 15 of the Super Tuesday states. Nikki Haley squeaked off a victory in Vermont where they held an open primary in a far left socialist state. President Trump focused on the complete devastation of the Biden regime in his Mar-a-Lago speech. 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.

Why CISA’s Censorship and Election Interference Work Is The ‘Most Insidious Attack on American Democracy’


BY: M.D. KITTLE | MARCH 05, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/05/why-cisas-censorship-and-election-interference-work-is-the-most-insidious-attack-on-american-democracy/

Cyber security illustration of lock on grid as shadowy characters pass.

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. KITTLE

MORE ARTICLES

West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner last month eviscerated the Big Brother censorship operation known as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

“When we have our own federal agencies lying to the American people, that’s the most insidious thing that we can do in elections,” the election integrity champion told officials from the FBI and CISA on a panel at the winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) in Washington, D.C., according to Wired’s Eric Geller. While Geller did his best to defend the federal agency — under the suggestive headline, “How a Right-Wing Controversy Could Sabotage US Election Security” — its history of censorship and election interference validate Warner’s concern.

The agency’s work, particularly the extracurricular business CISA has conducted in recent years, has been rightly criticized for its massive overreach. A report released last fall by the House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government details just how CISA “Colluded With Big Tech And ‘Disinformation’ Partners To Censor Americans.”

“Although the investigation is ongoing, information obtained to date has revealed that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)—an upstart agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—has facilitated the censorship of Americans directly and through third-party intermediaries,” the congressional report states. 

The report goes on to assert that the shadowy agency has “metastasized into the nerve center of the federal government’s domestic surveillance and censorship operations on social media.” 

‘Platforms Have Got to Get More Comfortable With Gov’t’

Launched in 2018, CISA was supposed to be “an ancillary agency designed to protect ‘critical infrastructure’ and guard against cybersecurity threats,” the report notes. By 2020, the agency was “routinely” targeting what CISA officials claimed to be “disinformation” on social media. A year later, the agency had established a formal team devoted to what it decided was “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation,” the latter of which CISA defines as “information based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” In other words, factual information that is problematic to the Biden regime. 

CISA’s parent agency DHS launched the much-ridiculed and ultimately disbanded “Disinformation Governance Board” in 2022, to streamline the work of colluding with social media providers to shut down speech the government didn’t like or found inconvenient. 

A federal lawsuit filed by then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, uncovered troubling conversations between the Biden administration and private companies about the pathways for removing information the government deemed false or misleading. A federal judge in a ruling last year barred the Biden administration from its censorship work, although the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the injunction when it took up the case.

Leaked documents obtained by The Intercept show that Microsoft executive and former DHS official Matt Masterson texted CISA director Jen Easterly in February 2022, saying “Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain.”

But it seems Big Tech was getting pretty comfortable with the Biden administration’s puppet enforcer. The Intercept report showed, among other alarming revelations, that Facebook operated a portal where Homeland Security could report allegations of “disinformation.”  CISA also has worked in concert with the Election Integrity Partnership and Virality Project, which is accused of conspiring with state, local, and federal government officials to trample the First Amendment rights of social media users, according to a class-action lawsuit

“But the EIP did not act alone. In fact, the EIP was created ‘in consultation’ with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, with the idea for the EIP allegedly originating from CISA interns who were Stanford students,”  The Federalist’s Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland wrote in May. 

‘Only a Matter of Time’ 

Facing more public outrage over its unconstitutional actions, the CISA audaciously insisted it merely plays an “informational” role. 

As the congressional report notes: 

  • CISA is “working with federal partners to mature a whole-of-government approach” to curbing alleged misinformation and disinformation.
  • CISA considered the creation of an anti-misinformation “rapid response team” capable of physically deploying across the United States. 
  • CISA moved its censorship operation to a CISA-funded non-profit after CISA and the Biden Administration were sued in federal court, implicitly admitting that its censorship activities are unconstitutional.
  • CISA wanted to use the same CISA-funded non-profit as its mouthpiece to “avoid the appearance of government propaganda.”  

The agency’s advisory committee, according to the report, worried that it would be “only a matter of time before someone realizes we exist and starts asking about our work.” Incidentally, the advisory committee created a “Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Misinformation & Disinformation” subcommittee whose members included Vijaya Gadde — Twitter’s former chief legal officer who was “involved in censoring [the New York] Post’s Hunter Biden laptop” story. Gadde was also “behind the decision to permanently ban former President Trump from Twitter.”

‘Most Insidious Attack on American Democracy’

Geller’s Wired piece took aim at Warner, West Virginia’s outspoken secretary of state who is making a run for governor. At last month’s secretaries of state meeting, Warner “lambasted” CISA and FBI officials for “what he said was their agencies’ scheme to suppress the truth about US president Joe Biden’s son Hunter during the 2020 election and then cover their tracks,” Geller wrote, as if he is not privy to the same public documents and testimony confirming Warner’s assertions. In Geller’s account, the FBI was merely advising Twitter and Facebook to be on the lookout for Russian disinformation.

But how do you square the intelligence community’s “advisory” role after learning Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign prompted a former acting CIA director to “help Biden” by leading 50 colleagues to sign a letter spreading the false claim that damning emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop — published by the New York Post — were Russian disinformation? And all of that just weeks before the election.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the FBI and CISA officials did not respond to Warner’s charges and the meeting quickly went on, Geller reported before he quickly attempted to establish Warner as a dreaded “election denier,” noting that the secretary of state “attended an election-denier rally after Biden’s 2020 victory.” 

But Warner is no conspiracy theorist. The West Point graduate served nearly a quarter century in the U.S. Army and then worked with the State Department in Afghanistan, according to his bio. Warner knows about security threats. 

CISA’s activities are “the most insidious attack on American democracy that I know of in U.S. history,” Warner told The Federalist in an interview last week. He called the targeting and censoring of state-defined “disinformation” a “psychological operation against the American people” that is “as bad as it gets.” 

Warner said he has spoken to CISA officials multiple times but that they have yet to heed his calls for an after-action report on the 2020 election — to truly find out what went right and what went wrong. 

A Warning

It appears most state elections officials don’t want to deal with the actual threat of the Biden administration’s disinformation and political silencing campaign. 

“They know they will be lambasted by mainstream press,” Warner said. No one wants to be hit with the “election denier” label so effectively applied by the accomplice media. “It’s not easy, not politically expedient for them.”

Warner is one of the few speaking out against CISA and pulling away from involvement with the agency. But Geller worries Warner’s conservative colleagues will join him in breaking ties with CISA, as conservatives in Congress work to cut the budget of the abusive agency.  

“It remains unclear how many of Warner’s colleagues agree with him. But when WIRED surveyed the other 23 Republican secretaries who oversee elections in their states, several of them said they would continue working with CISA,” Geller wrote. 

“But others who praised CISA’s support also sounded notes of caution,” he added. 

They need only look at CISA’s record and its rhetoric in the agency’s brief existence to know that Warner’s warnings aren’t merely the stuff of a “right-wing controversy.” 

“One could argue we’re in the business of critical infrastructure, and the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure, so building that resilience to misinformation and disinformation, I think, is incredibly important,” CISA director Jen Easterly said at 2021’s RE:WIRED conference.

Apparently running roughshod over the First Amendment isn’t warning enough. 


Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Democrats, Not Trump or His Supporters, Are the Real Extremists


BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | MARCH 05, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/05/democrats-not-trump-or-his-supporters-are-the-real-extremists/

Biden speaks on J6 anniversary

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOHNDDAVIDSON

MORE ARTICLES

Hot on the heels of a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling on Monday that states have “no power” to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot, Democrats and their lackeys in the corporate press denounced the court for supposedly meddling or interfering in the election.

“Not since Bush v. Gore have we seen a court that’s had this many opportunities to interfere in the election,” said former Rep. Donna Edwards on MSNBC. NBC News’ Ken Dilanian mused that the 9-0 ruling would “be seen by many people as the court essentially interfering in some sense in the election.”

Got that? When Democrats interfere in a presidential election and launch what amounts to an insurrection against the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court steps in and unanimously puts a stop to it, it’s the court, not Democrat activists, who are interfering in the election.

The hypocrisy here is breathtaking but not unexpected. Democrats engage in this kind of projection constantly, taking an extreme position and then decrying any dissent or resistance to it as extremist.

In the Colorado case, two well-funded leftist groups with anodyne names — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Free Speech for People — waged a lawfare campaign with a far-fetched reading of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause,” managing to get Colorado’s Democrat-dominated Supreme Court to rule in December that Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot. The plan was to do this in numerous states, foreclosing the possibility of Trump’s reelection.

From the outset, it should have been obvious that the legal argument was bogus, a cynical and clumsy ploy to prop up President Biden’s reelection bid by robbing voters of the chance to cast ballots for Trump. It’s hard to imagine anything getting a unanimous ruling on our deeply divided Supreme Court, but these bozos managed to do it — and in the process embarrassed the many corporate media commentators who twisted themselves into pretzels arguing that the Colorado case was strong.

But if we step back a bit and consider all this in the context of nearly every other scheme Democrats have hatched in recent years, it’s possible to see why they thought it was worth a shot. Time and again, Democrats take unprecedented steps and trample every conceivable norm to advance their agenda, and when anyone objects, they label them an extremist or insurrectionist or Christian nationalist (whatever that means). They project onto their opponents, and especially onto Trump, the very things they are actively engaged in doing.

An obvious example of this is when Democrats warn that if Trump is reelected, he’ll use the Department of Justice and the FBI to go after his political rivals. Oh really? This is exactly what the Biden administration has been doing for the past three years to Trump, his lawyers, and his supporters. The criminal cases against Trump are nothing if not the weaponization of the DOJ to crush an unpopular sitting president’s chief political rival.  This weaponization began even before Trump won the White House in 2016. In the waning days of the Obama administration, Democrats used the FBI and the intelligence community to go after the Trump campaign — and continued going after Trump after he won the presidency, perpetuating the Russia-collusion hoax for years with the assistance of a complicit corporate press. If anyone is using the levers of government power to go after their enemies, it’s Democrats, not Trump.

Other examples of Democrat projection abound. After months of letting our cities burn in Black Lives Matter riots, excusing them as “mostly peaceful,” Democrats threw the book at anyone who wandered into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, arresting, jailing, and prosecuting more than a thousand Americans to date, often on flimsy charges that otherwise would hardly merit a fine. Just last week, the FBI arrested Blaze Media investigative reporter Steve Baker for his coverage of Jan. 6, marching him out of Blaze’s Dallas office in handcuffs. Democrats feign outrage at the arrest of The Wall Street Journal’s Evan Gershkovich in Russia, but they gloat, as NBC News did, when the Biden administration does the same to right-of-center journalists here in America.

Pick almost any controversial issue, and you’ll find the same pattern at work. Democrats flood the internet with disinformation and propaganda about Covid, and then decry dissenting voices (and accompanying data) as agents of disinformation who must be censored and banned by Big Tech. Same thing for what they call “election disinformation,” which merely refers to opinions and data that run counter to their preferred narrative.

Democrats do this with everything.

  • On abortion, they take the extreme position that it should be allowed up until the moment of birth, then denounce Republican-led states that impose restrictions that are the norm across the Western world.
  • On transgenderism, they insist children can consent to genital mutilation and sterilization, then condemn modest efforts to ban or limit these practices as child abuse.
  • On immigration, they throw open the southern border and let 10 million illegal immigrants flood into the country, then attack anyone who suggests we have a crisis at the border and need to secure it.
  • On crime, they defund the police and decriminalize a host of antisocial, destructive behavior in our cities, precipitating a crime wave of robbery and assault, then denounce as racist any arguments for law and order.
  • On racism itself, they tar everyone on the right with the label but look the other way when the racists on their side call for the genocide of the Jews and defend (even celebrate) Hamas terrorist attacks on civilians.

On nearly every major issue today, Democrats are the extremists. Their denunciations of Trump and his supporters rise in direct proportion to their own extremist agenda. The projection is a tactic, a crude rhetorical ruse. Don’t fall for it.


John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Pagan America: the Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come, to be published in March 2024. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

COLLUSION: Rhode Island School District Sends 8,800 Pages of Emails to SPLC, Docs Show


By: Tyler O’Neil @Tyler2ONeil / March 05, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/05/is-your-kids-school-taking-tips-hate-splc-group-demonizes-response-border-crisis/

Elementary school students drawing in a classroom
Does your children’s school take tips on hate from the Southern Poverty Law Center? The SPLC frames all responses to the border crisis as rooted in hate. (Photo: Getty Images)

When concerned mom Nicole Solas requested all emails from her Rhode Island school district to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the request turned up more than 8,000 pages of communications, and the district told her it would cost $6,629.25 for it to process the SPLC documents.

A brief refresher: The SPLC began as a civil rights nonprofit but has morphed into a far-left fundraising machine and smear factory. As I wrote in my book, “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” it weaponized its history of suing KKK groups into bankruptcy to smear its political and ideological opponents, placing mainstream conservative and Christian groups on a “hate map” alongside Klan chapters.

Solas, a Rhode Island mother, had briefly enrolled her daughter in kindergarten in the South Kingstown School District. She withdrew her daughter after the school district sued her on account of Solas’ multiple public records requests to reveal whether the district taught kids the principles of critical race theory, a lens that teaches kids to view white people as oppressors and black people as oppressed.

Solas told The Daily Signal that she requested “emails sent by [South Kingstown School District] employees” to “weed out spam emails automatically sent by SPLC to schools.”

The SPLC runs an education program long known as “Teaching Tolerance.” In 2021, after the George Floyd riots in Minneapolis, the SPLC apparently decided that “tolerance” wasn’t woke enough, so it rebranded the program to “Learning for Justice.” The program has advocated for lessons that inculcate critical race theory, transgender identity, and pornographic books in schools. Last year, the SPLC added parental rights groups, including Moms for Liberty, to its “hate map,” in part demonizing those groups for opposing sexually explicit books in school libraries.

The SPLC has bragged that it sent “over 400,000 educators” the “Teaching Tolerance” magazine, “reaching nearly every school in the country.” This language disappeared from the website, however, as more Americans look critically at the SPLC.

The SPLC hides its radical agenda behind benign-sounding initiatives such as celebrating diversity and inclusion. Many on the Left have adopted its rhetoric.

The SPLC’s “hate map” has caused real-world harm. In 2012, a terrorist targeted the Family Research Council for a mass shooting using the “hate map.” He told the FBI he aimed to kill everyone in the building, but the building manager prevented the slaughter, in the process sustaining bullet wounds. The shooter pleaded guilty to terrorism charges and is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence.

Early in the 2000s, the SPLC began branding some activist groups that opposed illegal immigration “anti-immigrant hate groups” and putting them on the “hate map.” The SPLC maintains that hatred drives the movement calling for the enforcement of immigration laws, even as the Biden administration sets new records for the number of illegal aliens encountered at the southern border.

In the past two weeks, the SPLC has demonized Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, for attempting to close the border when the Biden administration refuses to do so. Abbott is attempting to enforce federal laws that Biden will not enforce, yet the SPLC claims Abbott is seeking to establish “state supremacy over the border.” The SPLC noted Abbott’s attempts to install razor wire between Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas, and the southern border, the Biden administration’s decision to cut the wire, and the Supreme Court ruling allowing the Biden administration access.

“This is part of Abbott’s broader anti-immigrant agenda, which includes an attempt to stop a supposed ‘invasion’ of Texas by migrants,” SPLC’s Caleb Kieffer and Rachel Goldwasser wrote. “Claims of ‘invasion’ have become a trope among right-wing lawmakers and the hard right despite dangerous similarities to the racist ‘great replacement’ conspiracy theory.”

PLEASE SEE https://wordpress.com/post/whatdidyousay.org/88628

The SPLC did not acknowledge that border agents encountered a record 3.2 million illegal aliens in fiscal year 2023 (a number larger than the combined populations of Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont), nor that Democratic mayors are requesting help to deal with the large numbers of aliens in the country. This isn’t a “great replacement conspiracy theory”; it is a blatantly obvious fact that millions of illegals are taking root in the U.S., and the SPLC’s move to dismiss critics as racist in the face of that fact should set off alarm bells across America. PLEASE SEE https://wordpress.com/post/whatdidyousay.org/88628

The SPLC also demonized the effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for failing to enforce immigration law and prevent mass hordes of aliens from entering the country. In an article focused on a militia group’s efforts to take border enforcement into its own hands, Goldwasser claims the militia’s action represents “a product of the anti-immigrant environment produced by the xenophobic posturing of hate groups and politicians, and the controversial impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas, the first Latinx and immigrant to lead the Department of Homeland Security.”

Goldwasser suggested that Mayorkas faces an impeachment effort not because he has failed to enforce immigration law and prevent the border crisis, but because he is the first Latino to head the Department of Homeland Security. She used “Latinx,” a transgender neologism, in order to avoid the clear masculine ending in Spanish for “Latino.”

The SPLC did not reserve all its vitriol for Republicans, however. Kieffer and Goldwasser noted that President Joe Biden has supported a Senate bill that included minor border security measures and changes to the asylum process in exchange for funding to Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s invasion.

“The bill worried immigration advocates, who viewed it as being extremely harsh and out of step for the needs of border communities,” they wrote. “The Senate relief package debacle shows the same anti-immigrant animus undergirding impeachment of Mayorkas and the standoff in Eagle Pass.”

It seems the SPLC’s partisan attacks against pro-enforcement groups have so unmoored the organization from reality that it is unwilling to accept the blatantly obvious truth. Recent polls have showed former President Donald Trump, who currently leads in the Republican presidential nominating proces, ahead of Biden in key swing states. Americans give Biden poor marks on the border, which helps explain the president’s belated support for some immigration restrictions. Biden knows he has to make up ground on this issue, and he’s furiously working to make it seem like the border crisis is Republicans’ fault.

Yet the SPLC hasn’t gotten the memo. It’s so focused on branding as “hateful” anyone who dares to speak the plain truth about the border crisis that it turns against Biden, the very president the SPLC brags about influencing and with whom SPLC leaders have met at least six times personally.

The SPLC’s radical agenda of critical race theory, transgender lessons, and apparent hatred for the very idea of national borders has no place in America’s classrooms. Solas is right to demand answers from her Rhode Island school district, and parents across the country should be on the lookout for the SPLC’s influence in schools.

‘Let the Reckoning Begin’: Detransitioners Vindicated by Expose of WPATH Experimentation on Minors


By: Mary Margaret Olohan @MaryMargOlohan / March 05, 2024

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/05/let-the-reckoning-begin-detransitioners-vindicated-by-expose-of-wpath-experimentation-on-minors/

Chloe Cole speaks as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) looks on during a news conference on Capitol Hill September 20, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Chloe Cole speaks as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., looks on during a news conference on Capitol Hill on Sept. 20, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Detransitioners have been trying to warn the public that so-called gender-affirming care—transgender surgeries, hormones, and puberty blockers—is both experimental and dangerous, especially for minors. Now, thanks to the efforts of journalist Michael Shellenberger, we know that World Professional Association for Transgender Health doctors and medical experts pushing these practices were well aware of the experimental and lasting nature of the procedures they were recommending. Yet these so-called health professionals pushed forward, despite alarming awareness of tumors developing from hormones, reduced sexual function, lack of proper informed consent for minors, and more, according to Shellenberger’s reporting.

“Let the reckoning begin,” says Luka Hein, a young woman who underwent a double mastectomy when she was only 16 years old, believing that she would be happier if she could become a boy. “Because of organizations like WPATH I’m missing body parts and struggle with pain.”

The WPATH medical professionals acknowledge in the messages that some of the minors who are being given puberty blockers have no idea that they will be sterilized. Other messages reveal WPATH doctors saying they went ahead with performing surgery on patients with severe mental health problems, even though they were worried the patients couldn’t give full informed consent.

“I’m relieved the files are out in the world for everyone to read,” Shellenberger told my colleague Tyler O’Neil, sharing that the files reveal WPATH’s “whole paradigm falling apart over the last three years.”

“Nobody can claim to understand the gender issue without reading ‘The WPATH Files,’” he added.

The news prompted a number of detransitioners to speak up, sharing the mental and physical anguish that they have gone through as a result of this ideology.

“I was a scared kid who thought doctors were going to help me…and look at how these butchers talk about what happened to those like me behind closed doors,” Hein added in another X post.

A detransitioner is someone who attempted to transition to another gender, then realized that such an attempt is impossible, and “de-transitioned.” Many of these individuals, like Hein, say they were betrayed into irreversible hormonal and surgical procedures by doctors and therapists who ignored biological realities in favor of ideology.

I document numerous stories of these transitioners in my upcoming book, “Detrans: True Stories of Escaping the Gender Ideology Cult,” an intimate look at the lived experiences of detransitioners, including the manipulative therapy sessions, botched surgeries, and attempts to construct phantom body parts.

“WPATH gave my therapist the green light to destroy my body,” said Abel Garcia, a young man who attempted to transition to become a girl by taking hormone and undergoing breast augmentation surgery. “The people who hurt me sleep with no problem, while I live in emotional, physical & mental pain.”

“These files prove what detransitioners have always said but now it’s coming from their own mouth,” he added. “Let the truth prevail.”

Chloe Cole, a young woman who underwent a double mastectomy as part of her teenaged gender transition, specifically addressed WPATH conversations reported by Shellenberger about developmentally delayed 13 year olds attempting transition.

“There is no ethical approach to taking an already developmentally delayed child and preventing them from going on the only path they have towards growing into an adult,” she said. “We are leaving vulnerable children stunted for life.”

“This is unimaginable levels of cruelty,” added Cole.

Laura Becker, another female detransitioner who has become an outspoken advocate against gender ideology, commented on Shellenberger’s revelation that doctors asked permission of all the “alters,” or alternative identities, of one client who had dissociative identity disorder (DID).

“I can’t believe this,” she wrote. “WPATH doctors got ‘consent’ from all a patient’s ‘alter’ personalities before doing surgery… instead of you know, treating the DID symptoms. Absolutely unethical.”

Some detransitioners called for punishments for the medical professionals who led them down this path.

“Justice for all victims,” wrote Richie, a man who attempted to transition to become a woman. “Jail time for the surgeons that held the scalpel, and the therapists that signed off the surgery. If I took everything from them, we still wouldn’t be even.”

“I didn’t think anyone should be jailed when I first ‘came to’ post-transition,” chimed in Michelle, another detransitioned woman, on X. “Changed my mind now. Probably would’ve still had some mercy in me if we hadn’t been gaslit so badly.”

Prisha Mosley, a young woman who has detransitioned and travels the country testifying in defense of biological sex, emotionally shared on Monday evening that she could not yet bring herself to read “The WPATH Files”: “No one deserves this monstrous form of irreversible medical harm…”

WPATH did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.

Raskin and the Agents of Chaos: Democrats Prepare to Resume Disqualification Efforts in Congress


By: Jonathan Turley | March 5, 2024

Read more at https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/05/raskin-and-the-agents-of-chaos-democrats-prepare-to-resume-disqualification-efforts-in-congress/

Calling it “one on a huge list of priorities,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) announced that he will be reintroducing a prior bill with Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to disqualify not just Trump but a large number of Republicans from taking office. The alternative, it appears, is unthinkable: allowing the public to choose their next president and representatives in Congress. It appears that the last thing Democrats want is for the unanimous decision to actually lead to an outbreak of democracy. Where the Court expressly warned of “chaos” in elections, Raskin and others appear eager to be agents of chaos in Congress.

Soon after the decision, Raskin went on the air at CNN to assure people that he and his colleagues would not stand by and allow the right to vote be restored to citizens in the upcoming election. He pledged to offer a prior bill that would declare Jan. 6 an “insurrection” and that those involved “engaged in insurrection.”

previously wrote about these “ballot cleansing” efforts because it would not just disqualify Trump but potentially dozens of sitting Republican members of Congress. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) sought to bar 126 members of Congress under the same theory. Similar legislation offered by Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) to disqualify members got 63 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

Raskin’s participation in this effort is crushingly ironic. In 2016, he sought to block certification of the 2016 election under the very same law as violent protests were occurring before the inauguration. The prior bills were sweeping and included members who did not engage in any violent acts (no member has been charged with such violence or even incitement) but merely opposed certification.

Raskin recently offered a particularly Orwellian argument for the disqualification of Trump and his colleagues in Congress: “If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.” In other words, preventing voters from voting is “the most democratic” because these people choose to oppose certification . . . as he did in 2016.

After the ruling, Raskin added the curious claim that the justices “didn’t exactly disagree with [the disqualification theory]. They just said that they’re not the ones to figure it out. It’s not going to be a matter for judicial resolution under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but it’s up to Congress to enforce it.”

That was sharply different from the pre-decision Raskin who insisted that there was no real question legally and that the case before the justices was “their opportunity to behave like real Supreme Court justices.”

Well, they did act as “real Supreme Court justices” by unanimously opposing what the Court described as the “chaos” that would unfold with such state disqualification efforts.  Raskin, however, is seeking a new avenue for chaos through Congress.

Raskin’s statement is also bizarre in claiming that somehow the justices agreed with him and the others pushing disqualification. No one, not even the Trump team, questioned that Congress could act to bar people from office. It is expressly stated in the Constitution. It is not an “argument” but a fact.

Of course, the Democrats would need to craft the legislation correctly to satisfy the standard and secure the support of both houses. Neither appears likely at this point.

However, Raskin is succeeding in one respect. He and his colleagues have bulldozed any moral high ground after January 6th. Most of us condemned the riot on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process. Yet, the Democrats have responded with the most anti-democratic efforts to prevent voters from exercising their rights in the upcoming election. For these members, citizens cannot be trusted with this power as Trump tops national polls as the leading choice for the presidency.  It is the political version of the Big Gulp law, voters like consumers have to be protected against their own unhealthy choices.

Raskin has continued to accuse the nine justices of being cowards in not supporting ballot cleansing. He told CNN that the court “doesn’t like the ultimate and inescapable implications of just enforcing the Constitution, as written.” In other words, all nine justices, including the three liberals justices, are disregarding clear constitutional mandates to protect Trump. It is the same delusional view echoed by other liberals who were enraged by the decision. Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann declared that the Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the ‘court’ has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved.”

After all, nothing says democracy like ballot cleansing and dissolving courts before a national election.

With the resumption of efforts to disqualify Republicans from running on ballots, Raskin and his colleagues seem to be channeling the spirit of former Mayor Dick Daley in the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago.

With allegations of abuse by the police in cracking down on protests, Daley declared “the policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.” With Democrats preparing to return to Chicago for their convention this year, Raskin and others appear to be responding to the Court that “the party isn’t there to create chaos, the party is there to preserve chaos.”

This column also ran on Fox.com.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Talk to the Hand

A.F. BRANCO | on March 5, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-talk-to-the-hand/

SCOTUS 9-0 Ruling for Trump
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

SCOTUS Rules in Trump favor. It is unconstitutional for states to kick a presidential candidate off the ballot based on the 14th Amendment.

Supreme Court Puts Trump Back on Colorado Ballot – UNANIMOUS DECISION – Trump Responds

By Cristina Laila

The US Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled Trump can stay on the Colorado primary 2024 ballot. The Supreme Court said the states lack the power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution against Presidential candidates. “For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand,” the high court’s ruling said. READ MORE…

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

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

Appeals court to allow Texas immigration law that criminalizes illegal migrant crossings


By Stephen Sorace Fox News | Published March 4, 2024 1:57pm EST | Updated March 4, 2024 2:31pm EST

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/appeals-court-allow-texas-immigration-law-criminalizes-illegal-migrant-crossings

An appeals court on Saturday reversed a lower court’s decision to block Texas from enforcing a new state law that would make illegal immigration a state crime. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals went against U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra’s order to block Texas’ Senate Bill 4 but also put its own ruling on hold for seven days should the Biden administration want to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The new law allows state authorities to arrest and jail illegal immigrants and would give state judges the power to order deportations. The law was initially set to go into effect on March 5 but will now be put on hold until March 9 unless the Supreme Court intervenes.

MIGRANT ENCOUNTERS AT SOUTHERN BORDER SURPASS 21,000 IN 72 HOURS, CBP SOURCES SAY

Migrants wait to be processed
Under Texas’ Senate Bill 4, state authorities could arrest and jail illegal immigrants and allow state judges to order deportations. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

Ezra, who presides in the Western District of Texas, ruled last week that states “may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government.” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, however, maintained that the state “has the right to defend itself” from the invasion at our southern border.”

Video

TEXAS HAS SPENT NEARLY $150M BUSSING MIGRANTS TO ‘SANCTUARY’ CITIES: REPORT

“Texas will immediately appeal this decision, and we will not back down in our fight to protect our state – and our nation – from President Biden’s border crisis,” Abbott said in a statement at the time.

Eagle Pass
Asylum seekers cross the Rio Grande from Mexico into the United States on Sept. 30, 2023, in Eagle Pass, Texas. (John Moore/Getty Images)

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The law was one of several moves by Texas to curb the flow of migrants into the state. Abbott has repeatedly accused the Biden administration of failing to enforce immigration laws amid record numbers of migrant entries and encounters at the southern border. 

Fox News’ Louis Casiano contributed to this report.

Tag Cloud