A woman holds a poster of Israeli hostage Omer Neutra during a memorial vigil for the Israeli people killed by Hamas during the October 7 attacks, in New York City on November 1, 2023. | Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images
Following the IDF’s announcement that the bodies of six hostages, including Israeli-American Hersh Goldberg-Polin, were recovered from Rafah, attention has now shifted to the remaining hostages still alive in Gaza.
Many U.S. citizens may not realize that four American hostages are currently held by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. This issue has received limited attention from U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration, which has made only a few statements about hostages with dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship being held by captive by Hamas in Gaza.
One of these statements came early Sunday morning when Biden said he was “devastated and outraged” by the Goldberg-Polin’s death.
Goldberg-Polin was one of eight U.S. hostages abducted by Hamas during the Oct. 7 massacres in southern Israel. With Hersh’s death confirmed, four of the eight are now confirmed by the IDF to have been killed by Hamas.
Four American hostages are still in captivity, and their current condition remains unknown.
Keith Siegel
Keith Siegel (64) was last seen with hostage Omri Miran in a video released by Hamas. In that video, Miran mentioned the recent Passover holiday, indicating the video was released soon after recording. Keith was abducted with his wife Aviva from their home in Kfar Aza. The couple was driven into the Gaza Strip in their own vehicle and kept together until Aviva’s release in the November hostage release deal.
Following her release, Aviva said her husband had not told Hamas that he was a U.S. citizen out of fear that Hamas would release him without her.
Sagui Dekel-Chen
Sagui Dekel-Chen was a project manager for the United Kingdom branch of the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemet Le’Israel) which organizes the construction of schools and youth centers.
Dekel-Chen was abducted from his home in Kibbutz Nir Oz on Oct. 7. He was a member of the kibbutz’s security team, and engaged Hamas terrorists in combat before eventually being captured after several hours.
His father Jonathan spoke at a J Street event on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) last month, where he called on Democratic leaders to hold Hamas accountable for its actions.
Omer Neutra
Long Island-born Omer Neutra was serving as a tank commander in the IDF on Oct. 7 when he was abducted by terrorists. Omer’s parents, Orna and Ronen Neutra, have been active ever since, raising awareness about his plight, as well as those of the rest of the captives.
Like the parents of Goldberg-Polin, Omer’s parents took their message to both the Republican National Convention (RNC) and the DNC, calling for both sides to work toward the release of all the captives.
Like Omer, Edan Alexander was captured while serving in the IDF on Oct. 7. Alexander spoke with his parents on the phone that morning, shortly after the rocket attacks from Gaza began. He assured his mother that he was safe. About half an hour later, she was not able to reach him.
Both Omer and Edan were assigned to the same post in southern Israel on Oct. 7. As soldiers, they would be part of the last group released during a hostage deal, with Hamas considering soldiers to be more valuable for negotiations.
Besides these four men, three other U.S. citizens who were killed or fatally wounded on Oct. 7 are also being held by Hamas in Gaza: Itay Chen (19); Judith Weinstein Haggai (70); and Gadi Haggai (73).
In early August, Denver Post columnist Doug Friednash wrote about the remaining American hostages, asking why their plight did not arouse the same media publicity as other hostages or prisoners, such as Brittney Griner, a member of the U.S. women’s national basketball team and a three-time Olympic gold medalist. Griner received international attention in 2022 when she was detained in Russia on a drug offense. She was found guilty and sentenced to nine years but was later released in a prisoner exchange.
Friednash noted that 33 Americans were killed in the Oct. 7 Hamas massacres, while eight were taken captive. Four of those eight are now confirmed dead.
He noted that most Americans could probably not even name any of the U.S. hostages, and the lack of media focus on their situation or the U.S. government’s efforts to free them.
“And, we need to ask the question: why are these five [now four after the death of Hersh Goldberg-Polin] Americans forgotten? Is it because they are Jewish or dual citizens? Is it because our nation’s leaders believe this is predominantly Israel’s problem, not ours? Or, is it for some other political reason?” he wrote.
Almost one month later, those questions appear to be unanswered.
Following the return of the hostages bodies, 97 of the 251 hostages abducted by Hamas on Oct. 7 remain in captivity in Gaza. This latest figure includes the bodies of at least 33 hostages who have already been confirmed deceased by Israel Defense Forces.
Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who once proudly supported Biden’s climate agenda, is now facing a tough reelection and is running away from his previous positions on green energy policies, according to experts interviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Brown, who has been in office for more than two decades, has recently begun to oppose some of the Biden-Harris administration’s positions on climate change, such as advocating for a hydrogen tax credit and higher efficiency standards for power transformers, and calling for coal plants to cut 90% of their carbon emissions by 2032. This change is reflected in his declining ratings from left-wing environmental group the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), which has lowered his environmental score from 100% to 88% and is his lowest score in nearly a decade.
According to GOP polling analyst and vice president at North Star Opinion Research, John McHenry, Brown’s recent shift in stance on climate policy is strategic and calculated, with the senator voting in favor of such policies once every six years, but aligning with the views of Ohio voters in between those election cycles.
Just two years ago, in 2019, Brown boasted a 100% LCV score and expressed his support for the Green New Deal, stating that he believed in aggressively combatting climate change through legislation. However, his actions and votes in recent years tell a different story. For example, he voted in favor of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which allocated billions of dollars towards tackling climate change, and has cast multiple “anti-environment” votes on climate legislation in the Senate.
This pattern of shifting stances is not new for Brown, with Republicans accusing him of flip-flopping in past election cycles. In 2011, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) called out Brown for changing his position on tax cuts, and in 1997, while serving in Congress, Brown voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on congressional service, but later voted against a similar amendment in 2012, his 19th year in office.
From restricting drilling to blocking LNG exports, Joe Biden is the most anti-American energy President of my lifetime & Sherrod Brown has supported his agenda every step of the way. I'll fight to stop their liberal plans, so America can be an ENERGY DOMINANT country once again! pic.twitter.com/MJkr15HzDy
Brown’s shift in position on climate policy comes as he faces a tough reelection race against Republican businessman Bernie Moreno, whom a CNN list recently ranked as the third most likely senator to lose his seat in 2024. Brown is currently ahead of Moreno by only 5 percentage points, leading to speculation that his change in stance may be an attempt to secure votes from Ohio’s energy sector, which is a significant contributor to the state’s economy. Ohio is among the top ten natural gas producers in the country and the fourth-largest producer and seventh-largest consumer of electricity.
Greg R. Lawson, a research fellow at Ohio think tank The Buckeye Institute, believes that the economic consequences of the Green New Deal will be dire not just for Ohioans but for all Americans. He argues that as the state transitions to a more sustainable future, energy costs will play a crucial role in its success, and policies that drive up energy prices will harm Ohio’s economic growth.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has seen a significant increase in demand for electricity due to the growth of the data center industry, with projections indicating continued growth in the coming years. Ohio has also seen an influx of data centers, with major companies like Amazon and Google setting up campuses in the state. This industry, which is energy-intensive, relies heavily on access to affordable energy sources, making it vulnerable to the impacts of policies like the Green New Deal.
The NRSC spokesman Philip Letsou points out that Brown’s past support for the Green New Deal and a ban on some LNG exports will be hard for the senator to escape, particularly in light of his recent attempts to downplay his previous positions. Letsou argues that Brown sold out Ohio’s energy workers and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, who has previously called for a ban on fracking and offshore drilling nationwide.
The Biden administration’s decision to halt LNG export permits in January was met with criticism from Brown, who put forward a competing bill to ban LNG exports only to certain countries designated as geopolitical rivals. However, this attempt to counter the Biden administration’s policy is seen as a “messaging play” by Axios.
McHenry believes that the issue of climate change could play in Moreno’s favor in the upcoming election, but only if he communicates his stance effectively to Ohio voters. He argues that the rising electricity prices under the Biden administration may not sit well with voters, and it will be crucial for Moreno to highlight Brown’s support for policies that have driven up energy costs.
The DCNF reached out to Brown’s office for comment, but they did not respond. Moreno’s office referred the request to the NRSC. As Ohio heads towards election day, it remains to be seen how Brown’s changing stance on climate policy will impact his chances of winning another term in office.
We have previously discussed (here and here and here and here) the push for reparations in California that has been touted by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats for years. After the Democrats campaigned on the issue in past elections, I wrote a column about how this bill had come due after years of delay for study and recommendations. The legislature, however, just stamped the bill “return to sender” and shelved the two reparations bills with the reported support of Newsom. The reaction is not surprising that there has been a bait-and-switch by Democrats on the issue.
Last week, the California legislature did approve proposals allowing for the return of land or compensation to families whose property was unjustly seized by the government and issuing a formal apology for laws and practices that have harmed Black people. However, the two bills to establish a fund for reparation payments – Senate Bills 1403 and 1331 – were tabled. State Sen. Steven Bradford blamed Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom for the result, stating that the governor made clear that he would veto them.
Newsom signed a $297.9 billion budget in June that included up to $12 million for reparations legislation. However, that is a drop in the bucket given the billions demanded and it is not clear how the money will be spent. Adding to the anger is the fact that the legislature approved a bill to allow undocumented persons to receive no-interest loans of up to $150,000 to cover down payments on new homes.
It is now unclear what will happen next, though sponsors are saying that they will continue to push for legislation green lighting reparation payments. Some congressional Democrats have pushed for similar federal reparations and passed a bill out of the House Judiciary Committee in 2021 that failed to receive a floor vote. BET founder Robert Johnson has called for $14 trillion in federal reparations.
As discussed earlier, there are a host of legal and practical questions over the reparation payments that will have to be resolved. Even with passage, the bills would likely face constitutional challenges.
Brazil has not just banned X (formerly Twitter) from the entire country, but citizens will now be fined $9000 a day (more than the average salary in the country) for using VPNs to access the platform. X is the main source of news for Brazilians, who will now be left with government-approved sources or face financial ruin in seeking unfettered information.
The Guardian is reporting that the confiscatory fines are part of a comprehensive crackdown on efforts to get news through X, including ordering all Apple stores to remove X from new phones. The move puts Brazil with China in the effort to create a wall of censorship between citizens and unregulated information. For the anti-free speech movement, Brazil is a key testing ground for where the movement is heading next. European censors are arresting CEOs like Pavel Durov while threatening Elon Musk.
However, it is Brazil that foreshadows the brave new world of censorship where entire nations will block access to sites committed to free speech values or unfettered news. If successful, the Brazilian model is likely to be replicated by other countries.
The reason is that censorship is not working. As discussed in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” we have never seen the current alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media interest against free speech. Yet, citizens are not buying it. Despite unrelenting attacks and demonizing media coverage, citizens are still using X and resisting censorship. That was certainly the case in Brazil where citizens preferred X to regulated news sources. The solution is now to threaten citizens with utter ruin if they seek unfettered news.
The question is whether Brazil’s leftist government can get away with this. The conflict began with demands to censor supporters of the conservative former president Jair Bolsonaro. When X refused the sweeping demands for censorship, including the demand to name a legal representative who could be arrested for refusing to censor users, the courts moved toward this national ban.
The man behind the effort is Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has aggressively used censorship to combat anything that he or the government deems “fake news” or disinformation. With Socialist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, they are the dream team of the anti-free speech movement.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison responded to the ban with a posting declaring “Obrigado Brasil!” or “Thanks, Brazil!” Ironically, he did so on X.
Ellison previously praised the virulently anti-free speech group Antifa and promised that it would “strike fear in the heart” of Donald Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.
Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’” Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
The question is whether Brazil will become a nightmare for free speech around the world as other nations seek to force citizens to read and hear news from approved, state-monitored sites.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The media and the Kamala campaign are trying to present themselves as the party of joy while America is burning with high prices across the board, crime, open borders, and oppressing free speech.
It’s looking more like a third-world country than something to be joyful about.
By Jim Hoft – The Gateway Pundit – August 18, 2024
Kamala Harris and the obedient media are attempting to push a platform of “joy.” Guess who else had a propaganda campaign of joy? Adolf Hitler. After the Nazi rise to power in 1933, the new regime immediately began efforts to bring German society completely under Nazi control in a process known as Gleichschaltung (German for “coordination” or “synchronization”). All political parties and trade unions were outlawed except for the Nazi Party and the Nazi German Labor Front (Deutsches Arbeitsfront). The German Labor Front started the “Strength through Joy” program (“Kraft durch Freude”) in November 1933 to improve “Aryan” workers’ quality of life and build popular support for the Nazi regime. Nazi leaders hoped that the athletic and cultural programs of “Strength through Joy” would improve the health and productivity of the German workforce while easing class tensions within the so-called “national community” (“Volksgemeinschaft”). READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Members of the Proud Boys (left) clash with antifa after a rally on Aug. 22, 2021, in Portland, Oregon. (Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/AFP/Getty Images)
Demographer, historian, and author Neil Howe hasn’t just coined the term “Millennial,” he’s also predicted the future to an eerie degree—and he thinks America’s in for very rough seas ahead. He says a civil war in the U.S. is far more plausible than most people think, and he dismisses the reasons Americans often discount that possibility.
In 1997, he published a book with Bill Strauss, “The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy—What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny.” In that book, he suggested five catalysts for a major crisis—and four of the five have already come to pass.
“One of our events was a crisis over the debt, which would issue forth in a new tea party movement,” Howe tells “The Daily Signal Podcast.” He calls it “just completely random that we happened to use that phrase,” which the tea party movement adopted in 2010.
“The other one was a WMD [weapon of mass destruction] attack on New York City,” Howe says, noting the eerie parallel with Sept. 11, 2001. “The other one was the [COVID-19] pandemic, and the fourth one was Russia invading a former Soviet republic,” such as Ukraine.
The final potential catalyst? “A nullification crisis, where one or more of the states would actually nullify federal regulation, which would lead to a new secession movement,” Howe says.
According to his generational theory, America should expect a major crisis about every 80-100 years, and we’re due for another “rendezvous with destiny” such as the Great Depression and World War II. He calls these periods “fourth turnings,” and they force society to create a new order in the civic “outer world” about 40 or 50 years after “awakenings” drive people inward, seeking order in their spiritual “inner worlds.”
Why a Civil War Is Likely
Howe notes that “our politics have taken on this kind of Manichaean style, where the red zone and blue zone are so mutually exclusive in their sense of themselves, their agenda for the nation’s future, that it hardly even matters who’s leading the party.” (“Manichaean” refers to the tendency to view one side as perfectly good and the other side as perfectly evil, and it traces back to a world religion that arose with the prophet Mani in the 200s A.D., which taught that the physical world is evil, and the spiritual world is good.)
“When most of what you’re talking about is the width of sidewalks and the diameter of sewer pipes, just coordination issues, democracy works really well,” Howe says. “But when you’re talking about issues that virtually define who you are, it doesn’t work. He said no one is going to accede to a vote count that goes 51% against you.”
“You are not going to give up everything you believe in just because you came up three votes short,” he explains.
Howe says U.S. polarization reached similar levels in the 1770s, the 1850s, and the 1930s.
When The Daily Signal noted that American polarization doesn’t neatly fall along lines on a map like in the U.S. Civil War, Howe says the presence of blue cities in red states actually makes conflict more likely.
“One misconception people have is that civil wars require geographically separated places,” he notes. “This is not true and take a look at the Spanish Civil War. That was a brutal, horrible war, and there was very little geographical contiguity about it. … It was like honeycombed. The civil war in China was the same way.”
Even in the U.S. Civil War, there were “civil wars within states,” especially in “border states.”
“And actually, your point about blue zone cities within red zone states or vice versa is a classic reason why civil wars get touched off, and why they are never resolved amicably,” Howe says.
Problems for World in U.S. Civil War
“There are two ways in which we enter this fourth turning very differently from earlier fourth turnings, which are worrying,” Howe says.
First, he notes, “government is so huge going into this fourth turning,” while most fourth turnings require government to ramp up in order to face existential threats.
Second, he notes “the size and global power of our military” make the U.S. a central player in world affairs, so a U.S. Civil War will have massive ramifications across the globe.
“If it requires our forces around the world to stand down for six months, the entire world will remake itself,” he says. “The entire world, for better or for worse, depends upon our presence to be what it is.”
Howe also notes that during a civil war, one side often asks for external help: “This is a rule through all civil wars.”
So, When Would Civil War Start?
The Daily Signal asked Howe why the “mini starter crises” of 9/11, the tea party movement, COVID-19, and the Ukraine war did not “catch fire” and ignite the massive existential crisis that defines a fourth turning.
“The survival of the country has to be at stake,” the author says.
“With regard to World War II, I think FDR made the case—it was very persuasive for the country—we did not want to be the only democracy left on earth,” he explains.
“This is the way incentives work,” Howe says. “You’ve got to feel everything’s on the line to push you to do something.”
Things have to come to a head in order to force people to come together and create a new order in society. How exactly that will happen is yet to be determined.
Former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (middle) speaks while on a religious liberty panel as part of The Christian Post’s “Politics in the Pews” event at Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, on Aug. 27, 2024. He was joined by First Liberty Institute Senior Counsel Jeremy Dys (second from left), former high school football coach Joe Kennedy (second from right) and FRC Senior Fellow Meg Kilgannon (left). Christian Post reporter Ian M. Giatti (right) moderated the panel. | The Christian Post
Editors’ note: This is part 14 of The Christian Post’s year-long articles series “Politics in the Pews: Evangelical Christian engagement in elections from the Moral Majority to today.” In this series, we will look at issues pertaining to election integrity and new ways of getting out the vote, including churches participating in ballot collection. We’ll also look at issues Evangelicals say matter most to them ahead of the presidential election and the political engagement of diverse groups, politically and ethnically. Read part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9, part 10, part 11, part 12 and part 13 at the links provided.
GRAPEVINE, Texas — Former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback and other experts warned earlier this week that Christians must continue to fight for religious freedom in American culture even if they are achieving major political or legal victories. The panelists gathered Tuesday as an extension of The Christian Post’s “Politics in the Pews” podcast and article series to discuss diminishing religious liberty in the United States and the growing threats to religious freedom, including the Equality Act and the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The panel, which was one of three moderated at Fellowship Church by Christian Post reporter and podcaster Ian M. Giatti, included insights from former GOP Kansas Gov. Brownback, First Liberty Senior Counsel Jeremy Dys, Family Research Council Senior Fellow Meg Kilgannon and Joseph Kennedy, the former football coach fired for praying on the field who won his case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022.
‘You’re going to have to fight’
Brownback, who resigned as Kansas governor in 2018 to serve as U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom under former President Donald Trump until 2021, emphasized the importance of standing up for religious freedom and the need for individuals to be proactive in defending their rights. Even if Christians like Kennedy are victorious in court under the current 6-3 conservative makeup, Brownback suggested that American Christians are going to have to fight for their religious freedom if they hope to maintain it.
“The Supreme Court doesn’t set the culture of the country; we do, it’s the people,” Brownback said. “But if you’re not willing to go out and exercise and find it and push for it — really, the bigger issue is you’re just not willing to stand up and fight a little bit, because you’re going to have to fight a little bit to do this — it won’t matter.”
He spoke of a time when he asked Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito if religious freedom will persist in the U.S., to which the Roman Catholic reportedly said, “You’ll have it in the law, but I’m not sure you’ll have it in the culture.”
Brownback said some Christians are beginning to face financial persecution as major U.S. banks have allegedly started “de-banking” religious organizations such as his National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF). NCRF, a multi-faith 501(c)4 political action nonprofit, made headlines in 2022 when it alleged that JPMorgan Chase shuttered its bank account without explanation after demanding a list of its donors, the candidates they support and potential political donations.
NCRF’s situation is not unique, and Bank of America prompted a letter from 15 Republican state attorneys general earlier this year alleging the company “is responsible for some of the worst-known instances of debanking” while at the same time cooperating with the federal government to provide “innocuous” private information to paint some conservative customers as “potential domestic terrorists.”
Brownback said he is personally aware of a woman who heads a crisis pregnancy center and was recently denied Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance because the insurance company told her they did not approve of what she was doing.
“It’s de-insurance and de-platforming, de-banking, and it’s this effort to suffocate,” he said. “And we’ve got every right on our side. We’ve got the Free Exercise Clause, and now we’ve got a Supreme Court, that’s defined it and said, ‘You have this right to do this.'”
“I don’t care what other people think about it, you have a free constitutional right to exercise your faith, but we’ve got to fight for it,” he added.
Resetting the standards
Kennedy, an 18-year Marine veteran and former assistant coach for the varsity football team at Bremerton High School in Washington state, faced suspension and eventual firing in 2015 for kneeling in prayer at the 50-yard line after games. His case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2022 that his prayers were protected by the First Amendment.
The court ruled 6-3 in favor of Kennedy and upheld the constitutional right of public-school employees to engage in brief, personal private prayer, which effectively overturned the 1971 Supreme Court decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which had established the three-prong “Lemon test.” The Lemon test permitted the government to be involved in religion only if it served a secular purpose, did not inhibit or advance religion and did not result in excessive entanglement of church and state.
Jeremy Dys, who serves as senior counsel at First Liberty Institute and represented Kennedy, explained the landmark nature of the Supreme Court ruling in Kennedy’s case.
First Liberty Institute Senior Counsel Jeremy Dys (second from left) speaks during The Christian Post’s “Politics in the Pews” event at Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, on Aug. 27. 2024. He was joined by former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (middle), Coach Joe Kennedy (second from right) and FRC senior fellow Meg Kilgannon (left). Christian Post reporter Ian M. Giatti (right) moderated the panel. | The Christian Post
“It says that our religious speech is doubly protected, because what Lemon had done was to set up this, this fake battle between the two clauses in the Constitution governing religious expression — the Establishment Clause, which prevents the government from telling you what you should believe and how you should believe it — and the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees your right to be able to express your religious beliefs.”
Dys said Kennedy’s case allowed the Supreme Court to decide that the Lemon test was a misreading of the U.S. Constitution and that the two clauses were intended to complement each other “to maximize your religious freedoms, to restrain the government from telling you what to believe and how to believe it, and to also give you the space to engage your freedom size of religion.”
Dys said that Kennedy’s case reset the standards back to the Constitution and “reminded everybody of the freedoms we once had in this country, that for four generations we have allowed to wither and die in the vine because the Supreme Court and other courts have said so.”
“We won the case; we won you the freedom back,” said Dys. “Go do something with it. I need you to go be a free people again.”
Dys also warned that if the Left succeeds in its purported goal of politicizing the Supreme Court by expanding the number of judges or imposing term limits, victories like the one Kennedy achieved will become less likely.
“If we don’t have fair umpires behind the plate, there’s nothing I can do to get the game fair,” he said.
Equality Act
Kilgannon, who serves as a senior fellow for education studies at the Christian conservative advocacy group Family Research Council, warned about the potential dangers posed to people of faith by the Equality Act championed by Democrats in Congress, which she noted is at odds with biblical values and has received the full-throated support of Vice President Kamala Harris. The act would codify discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity into federal law.
“We see so often it’s these questions surrounding human life and human sexuality, where our values as Christians come in direct contrast to what those kinds of proposals would entail and require us to say things that aren’t true, to agree with things we don’t believe in, and to promote those things and to endorse those things,” she said.
“And we simply cannot do that as Christians. We can’t do it for ourselves, but we also can’t do it because it’s not good for anybody, even the people who believe those things are true. And so, we really must stand fast against those kinds of pressures.”
During a recent “Politics in the Pews” podcast, Kilgannon said supporters of the Equality Act, such as Harris, are trying to use civil rights as a “skin suit” to enshrine sexuality and gender identity protections into law, which she warned would pose a threat to religious liberty.
‘Strap on the brass knuckles’
The panelists emphasized the importance of using truth and legal action to combat the threats to religious liberty. Dys noted that “there is a time and a place” for Christians “to be kind and gentle and good,” but added that for some Christians, there is “a time to strap on the brass knuckles and punch back and take back what is rightfully yours.”
“That is not in any way designed to foment violence,” he added. “Do not read into that at all, but that is metaphorically the position we find ourselves in today.”
Dys urged the audience to maintain the confidence of those who possess the truth, the Word of God and the protections of the U.S. Constitution.
“Take that confidence forward and move into the territory that you possess today,” he said.
When Giatti asked the panel their advice for the average Christian to make their voices heard, Kennedy jumped in and noted that while he might not be able to provide an in-depth answer like his fellow panelists, he believes the answer is simple and starts with men spiritually leading their own families.
“It starts on your knees in prayer,” he said, adding that “men need to feed their families and stand up and be men.” He also urged them to get involved in their local school districts and make small decisions about which companies they will subsidize.
“Not everybody is called to fight up in everybody’s face but support the people who are on the front lines,” he added. “Everybody can do that.”
Below is my column in the Hill on the victory of Elon Musk last week against the liberal media outlet, Media Matters. This follows similar recent victories by others against CNN and the New York Times to clear paths to trials. For those who have embraced advocacy journalism as the new model for media, a bill is coming due in the form of defamation and disparagement lawsuits.
Here is the column:
This week, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit by Elon Musk against Media Matters can move forward in what could prove a significant case not just for the liberal outlet but the entire media industry. The decision comes at the same time as other court wins for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) against the New York Times and a Navy veteran against CNN.
For years, media organizations and journalism schools have expressly abandoned objectivity in favor of advocacy journalism. This abandonment of neutrality has coincided, unsurprisingly, with a drop in public faith in media to record lows.
Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones has been lionized for declaring that “all journalism is activism.”Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, similarly announced that “Objectivity has got to go.”
“J-Schools” have been teaching students for years to discard old-fashioned ideas of simply reporting facts and as stated at the University of Texas at Austin, to “leave neutrality behind.”
In a series of interviews with more than 75 media leaders, Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this new vision of journalism. Downie explained that objectivity is viewed as a trap and reporters “feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
As the public abandons mainstream media for alternative news sources, news organizations are now facing the added costs of bias in the form of defamation and disparagement lawsuits. Media lawyers are citing protections secured by the “old media” while their clients are publicly espousing their intention to frame the news to advance political and social agendas.
CNN, for example, is now facing a trial in a lawsuit by Navy veteran Zachary Young, the subject of an alleged hit piece over his work to extract endangered people from Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover. In a Nov. 11, 2021, segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” the host tells his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.” Marquardt named Young and his company in claiming that “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country.
Discovery revealed how Marquardt said that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young mfucker.” After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!” That sentiment was echoed by other CNN staff. In allowing the case to go to trial, a judge found not just evidence of actual malice by CNN but grounds for potential punitive damages.
Likewise, Palin recently won a major appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which found that Palin was denied a fair trial in a case against the New York Times.
In 2017, liberal activist and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) supporter James T. Hodgkinson attempted to massacre Republican members of Congress on a baseball diamond, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). The New York Times, eager to shift the narrative, ran an editorial suggesting that Palin had inspired or incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
The Times’ editors stated that SarahPAC, Palin’s political action committee, had posted a graphic that put a crosshair on a U.S. map representing Giffords’ district before she was shot, suggesting that this was direct incitement to violence. In reality, Palin’s graphic “targeting” about 20 vulnerable House Democrats all across the country is typical of graphics used in political campaigns by both parties for many decades. No evidence has ever been offered that Giffords’ deranged shooter even saw it.
But Musk’s lawsuit may be the most defining for our age of advocacy journalism. He is suing Media Matters, the left-wing outlet founded by David Brock, whom Time described as“one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party.” Although Brock is no longer with the site, Media Matters has long been accused of being a weaponized media outlet for the left. After Musk dismantled the censorship system at Twitter, he became something of an obsession for Media Matters, which targeted his revenue sources. The outlet ran a report suggesting that advertisements of major corporations were being posted next to pro-Nazi posts or otherwise hateful content on the platform. As I discuss in my new book, this effort mirrored similar moves by the anti-free speech movement against Musk to force him to restore censorship systems.
Companies including Apple, IBM, Comcast and Lionsgate Entertainment quickly joined the effective boycott to squeeze Musk. The problem is that it is hard to squeeze the world’s richest man financially. Musk told the companies to pound sand and told his lawyers to file suit.
The allegations in the lawsuit read like a textbook on advocacy journalism. Media Matters is accused of knowingly misrepresenting the real user experience by manipulating the algorithms to produce the pairing alleged in its story.
The complaint accuses Media Matters of running its manipulation to produce extremely unlikely pairings, such that one toxic match appeared for “only one viewer (out of more than 500 million) on all of X: Media Matters.” In other words, the organization wanted to write a hit piece connecting X to pro-Nazi material and proceeded to artificially create pairings between that material and corporate advertisements. It then ran the story as news.
Indeed, two defendant employees of Media Matters did not deny that they were aware of the alleged manipulation and that they were seeking to poison the well for advertisers in order to drain advertising revenues for X.
Although the media covered another judge blocking an effort by state officials to sue Media Matters over the anti-Musk effort, there has been comparably less coverage of the green light for the lawsuit in Texas.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas rejected an effort to dismiss the case on jurisdictional and other grounds. Musk will be able to continue his claims of tortious interference with existing contracts, business disparagement and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.
Not surprisingly, although the media has heralded lawsuits like the one by Dominion Voting System against Fox News (which led to a large settlement), they are overwhelmingly hostile toward the Musk lawsuits. It is not hard to see why. The Media Matters lawsuit directly challenges the ability of media outlets to create false narratives to advance a political agenda. As with the CNN and New York Times cases, it can expose how the media first decides on a conclusion and then frames or even invents the facts to support it.
While rejecting the longstanding principles of journalism such as objectivity, these media outlets are citing the cases and defenses secured by those now-outdated media organizations. They want to be advocates, but they also want to be protected as journalists.
These cases still face tough challenges, including challenging jury pools in places like New York. However, they are exposing the bias that now characterizes much of American journalism.
In the age of advocacy journalism, a bill has come due. That is why Musk’s lawsuit against Media Matters . . . well . . . matters.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
In my new book and prior columns, I have described a “radical chic” in academia, faculty who thrill audiences with extremist rhetoric and calls for radical reforms, even revolution. The latest example comes from Arizona State University where professors laid out their dystopian vision of America, a vision that apparently can be avoided by “dismantl[ing] capitalism” and “elect[ing] a female president.”
At the outset, it is important to note two things. First, the program covered by the conservative site College Fix was a small event. Second, these faculty members have every right to espouse these views, and it is good for students to have a wide variety of viewpoints on campus. My objection in the past has not been the presence of far-left faculty on campuses but the purging of conservative, moderate, and libertarian faculty.
It is also important to address what are becoming common and extreme arguments on our campuses, including a growing Anti capitalist movement.
The event titled “Jenny Irish’s HATCH: A Speculative Future for Reproductive Rights” was held both in person and via Zoom. Jenny Irish, an ASU English professor, was joined by Angela Lober, director of the Academy of Lactation Programs at ASU’s Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation. Lober, who runs major programs at the school, offered some of the most extreme viewpoints, including the assertion that “the United States hates women and everything the female body does.”
It was a remarkable claim for a nation that has been a leader in the world in women’s rights for over a century and has long had major female leaders from the Vice President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives to various cabinet members.
Not to be outdone, Irish expressed her fear that the United States could see “forced breeding camps” and “cannibalism.” She told the students and faculty that “so much of our reality points toward those futures.” She was less clear on what specifically is pointing to that future other than the Supreme Court’s decision to leave abortion to the states.
Lober was, however, clear about the solution in calling for the audience to help “dismantle capitalism” and “elect a female president.”
The event was co-hosted by ASU Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics, which hosts events that aim to design “a future keyed to human flourishing.” Putting the hyperbolic rhetoric to the side, the anti-capitalist calls have become ubiquitous on campuses. Socialism has become a rallying cry with polls showing that young people have a more positive view of socialism than capitalism. There is an interesting dynamic to the push for socialism in the United States. Advocates may have a harder time convincing new migrants and citizens who fled socialist countries like Venezuela.
The draw of a “land of opportunity” has been due to not just our laws but also our economic system. The ability to sustain that growth (or support the existing social welfare systems) depends on a competitive economic system.
The irony is found in comments like those of Fidel Castro who declared that “my idea, as the whole world knows, is that the capitalist system now doesn’t work either for the United States or the world, driving it from crisis to crisis, which are each time more serious.” Cuba was (and continues to be decades later) an utter economic basket case without either liberty or prosperity.
Hugo Chavez made the same claim before driving his country into an economic tailspin.
As a student at the University of Chicago, I was fortunate enough to attend lectures by Milton Friedman and, despite being a liberal, I was convinced that there was a connection between capitalism and individual liberty. There are liberty-enhancing economic systems and those that are liberty-reducing. The freedom of economic choice in a capitalist system has historically reinforced individual liberty in my view.
The ASU event captures a rising call for dismantling an economic system that helped drive industrial innovation and massive wealth creation. It has also left great wealth disparities. We have sought to address poverty with social programs that offer greater opportunity for those who have not been able to escape cycles of poverty. We have much work to be done. However, the anti-capitalist movement often offers few specifics on the alternatives, as at the ASU event.
This is a debate that should be welcomed but not in this type of one-sided, jingoistic presentation. Imagine how much more substantive this panel would have been with an alternative viewpoint. Let’s have a discussion on the merits of capitalism and the record of alternative systems. That would offer educational and not merely emotive benefits to our academic community.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
We have previously discussed the anti-free speech views of Clinton’s former Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, who has tried to sell citizens on the perfectly Orwellian view that more freedom means tyranny when it comes to the freedom of expression. He also demanded that former president Donald Trump be banned from ballots as a “traitor” — all in the name of protecting democracy from itself. Last week, Reich wrote a column declaring Elon Musk “out of control” in his refusal to censor citizens and appeared to call for his arrest.
Reich has long been a prominent voice in the anti-free speech movement discussed in my recent book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. Indeed, he has given a voice to the rage in calling for others to be silenced or arrested.
Elon Musk has long been the primary target of Reich and his allies after dismantling the censorship system at Twitter, now X. Reich called Musk’s purchase of Twitter with a pledge to reduce censorship to be “dangerous nonsense.”
Notably, Reich’s friend, Hillary Clinton, was one of the first to call for a crackdown on Musk after his purchase of Twitter. Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans.
Reich has always shown a chilling fluidity in how free speech is protected and argued that public interest should be able to trump the right of any citizens in espousing views that he believes are dangerous.
In denouncing Musk, Reich encouraged a campaign to counter his efforts to resist censorship. He wrote that Musk “may be the richest man in the world. He may own one of the world’s most influential social media platforms. But that doesn’t mean we’re powerless to stop him.”
Like Hillary Clinton, Reich is calling on foreign governments and censors to silence American citizens including Musk: “Regulators around the world should threaten Musk with arrest if he doesn’t stop disseminating lies and hate on X.”
He even appears willing to undermine national security programs to stop unfettered free speech. He called for the U.S. government to cut off contracts with his companies despite their critical role in various national security efforts, including the possible rescue of the stranded two astronauts currently in space. None of that matters to Reich who appears to view free speech as a greater threat to our nation: “Why is the US government allowing Musk’s satellites and rocket launchers to become crucial to the nation’s security when he’s shown utter disregard for the public interest? Why give Musk more economic power when he repeatedly abuses it and demonstrates contempt for the public good?”
Reich’s call to regulate speech in the public interest is the Siren’s Call of every authoritarian regime in history. He will presumably tell us what speech is no longer tolerable for public policy reasons. Our “Indispensable Right” will, according to Reich, be safely in the hands of the European censors who can protect us from errant and dangerous thoughts.
As he explained earlier, “the kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.” In this way, speech regulations can keep us “moving towards how we recommend content and … how we direct people’s attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.”
The “healthy public conversation” with Robert Reich increasingly appears to be his talking and the rest of us listening.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
A.F. Branco Cartoon – After weeks, Kamala Harris finally does an interview that falls flat, though she had her emotional support pet next to her and several softball questions from Dana Bash.
INGRASSIA: The Art Of The Choke: How Kamala Harris’ Dumpster Fire Of A CNN Interview Indicates That She’s Not Presidential Material
By Paul Ingrassia – August 31, 2024
The takeaway of any honest viewer of Kamala Harris’ much-lambasted interview with CNN’s Dana Bash this past week is that of someone overwhelmed – burdened, one might say – by the stresses of campaigning, and for that reason, wholly unsuited to the office that she seeks. Even though the Left would beg to differ, one can still level a criticism against a so-called “person of color” that is not based on race or gender, but rather, stands alone as an objective assessment of the candidate’s performance.
In terms of conviction, Harris cut the opposite of the image of a confident leader. The fact that she needed Tim Walz with her in tow, who has been needled by the press as “Kamala’s comfort dog” – someone who is supposed to provide assurance for a candidate palpably in over her head, is hardly the look of a strong, independent woman. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Trump Will Vote No on Florida Amendment 4, Says Abortions Up to Birth is Extreme • Democrats Call Woman a “Heroine” for Killing Her Baby in an Abortion • Kamala Harris Had Social Media Censor Conservative Americans. We Can’t Her Kill Free Speech • Trump Says He Would Make IVF Free for All Americans to Have Children
More Pro-Life News • Texas Democrat Legislator Becomes Republican, Says Democrats are “Radicalized” • Mom Changed Her Mind During Abortion and Saved Baby Jesse • Professor Claims Abortion Bans Will Lead to “Cannibalism” and “Forced Breeding Camps” • New York AG Letitia James Wants to Fine Pro-Life Advocates for Saving Babies From Abortion • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
News coverage following Thursday night’s CNN interview with Vice President Kamala Harris predictably recast the episode in ways that were unfamiliar to anyone who watched live and who has even just loosely followed her career in national politics.
New York Times reporter Reid Epstein said Kamala “parried questions from Dana Bash on Thursday without causing herself political harm or providing herself a significant boost.” Aaron Blake at The Washington Post said she “didn’t really stumble or seem to do anything that might hamper her momentum.” Politico’s popular morning “Playbook” newsletter gleaned that the interview “suggested to us how tough Donald Trump’s job is now …”
These are supposed to be the big “takeaways” from the event, but any fair-minded person who watched knows that the reality wasn’t so forgiving. What the taped interview with Nancy Pelosi’s favorite journalist did was reinforce the Kamala we all knew before we were told one day two months ago that she’s a beloved sex symbol — the Kamala who’s in over her head, has no vision for the country, and has no interest in governance.
There’s a reason that Democrats and the media have forced an amorphous, ever-shifting concept of “joy” to be the animating force of Kamala’s campaign. This interview, containing not a single unexpected question, illustrates perfectly why they’ve done so. (Here’s a link to the full CNN transcript for reference.)
Kamala can’t withstand scrutiny.
She implied that she’s never been in favor of banning fracking but when confronted with her position when she ran for president in 2020, she skated past the question to only say she has “made very clear” she’s not in favor of it. In that exchange alone, she used the word “clear” five times. Much like the constant hammering with messages about how average and dad-like Tim Walz is unpersuasive, if you have to repeatedly state how “clear” you’ve been, nobody is convinced.
Kamala can’t articulate an argument for herself.
Confronted with her on-record position to decriminalize unauthorized crossings at the southern border, she started talking about climate policy. “My values have not changed,” she said. “You mentioned the Green New Deal. I have always believed, and I have worked on it, that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time. We did that with the Inflation Reduction Act.” (Yes, Kamala admitted the “inflation reduction” bill was actually about funding the electric cars scam.)
Kamala can’t even fake a fundamental grasp of critical foreign policy issues.
The war in Israel is just one of two violent global conflicts to break out under the Kamala-Biden administration, and in the almost year since it started, the closest she could come to explaining her depth of understanding about it or how to bring it to an end was to repeat in frustration, “We have to get a deal done.”
— “We have got to get a deal done.”
— “We — we were in Doha. We have to get a deal done.”
— “This war must end.”
— “And we must get a deal that is about getting the hostages out.”
— “Let’s get the ceasefire done.”
— “We have to get a deal done.”
— “Dana, we have to get a deal done.”
— “A deal is not only the right thing to do to end this war but will unlock so much of what must happen next.”
Look at all that joy! Damn, that’s a lot of joy!
Kamala looked tired. Admittedly, she’s vice president and simultaneously running for president on a platform that ignores she’s currently in the White House. Oh, and joy. I’d be exhausted, too.
We’re finally getting to see again the Kamala we knew all along.
A body language expert who analyzed Vice President Kamala Harris’ first interview with the media since becoming the Democratic presidential nominee tells Fox News Digital that she believes Harris was “not confident in what she’s saying” and lacked a presidential demeanor.
The vice president sat down alongside running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Thursday night for a CNN interview after largely avoiding the press since ascending to the top of the Democratic ticket, yet she appeared to frequently look down while responding to questions.
“When I look at her overall demeanor, she does not carry the confidence or the presidential appearance in her demeanor to command in her position,” body language expert Susan Constantine told Fox News Digital. “So for everything that I saw last night, she definitely needs to make some tweaks into her body language to appear more confident.”
“The fact that she’s looking down a lot removes a lot of the fluidity and the authenticity,” she added.
Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz during a CNN interview.
Near the beginning of the interview, Harris was asked twice about her “day one” agenda but gave overarching answers instead of responding with a specific executive order or directive.
“When she struggles, you start to see a lot of the head bobbling. You know, the head bobbling is ‘what part of the file in my subconscious am I going to pull out? Which ones are my answers?’” Constantine said about Harris. “She couldn’t come up with a crystal clear answer, and that’s why she tends to bobble.”
“When you bobble and waffle like that,” she continued, “that’s another signal that she’s not really… prepared. She doesn’t really have confidence in her own answers.”
“When you’re breaking gaze, that is a form of deflection,” Constantine also said. “So when you’re removing an eye gaze, not making good eye contact, it’s just showing me that she’s not confident in what she’s saying.”
Harris sat next to Walz during the interview in Savannah, Georgia, and Constantine said Harris was “consistently looking for acknowledgment” during the event.
“She is looking for that signal from Walz to see if he’s on board. Many times when we see him, he’s got the pressed lips — that tends to be a more serious, more collected, expression in his mouth,” she said.
The Harris campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital about Harris’ performance in the interview.
Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at a campaign rally in Savannah, Georgia, on Thursday. (AP/Stephen B. Morton)
“Overall, you know, as one woman to another, I would say if you’re going to be a woman in power, you have to look like a woman in power,” Constantine said. “And she doesn’t at this time.”
Fox News’ Emmett Jones, Emma Colton and Matteo Cina contributed to this report.
The second word may not be an actual word, but it’s appropriate.
The edited and packaged interview, which was taped earlier in the day on Thursday, was also an example of missed opportunities for CNN anchor Dana Bash. To her credit, Bash did (gently) challenge Harris on her Etch-a-Sketch positions on the border and domestic energy, for example, but the answers from the Democratic nominee were on a Baghdad Bob level of lying.
“I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020 that I would not ban fracking. As vice president,” she said, “I did not ban fracking. As president, I will not ban fracking.”
There is zero evidence this claim is true. Zero. But Bash let it slide anyway.
On the border, the conversation also became laughable:
“My value is around what we need to do to secure our border. That value has not changed,” Harris said. “I spent two terms as the attorney general of California prosecuting transnational criminal organizations, violations of American laws regarding the passage, the illegal passage of guns, drugs, and warnings across our border, about my values.”
So here we have the vice president reaching back to a time before she was vice president and before she was a U.S. senator to talk about how tough she was on the border. What an absolute joke and an insult to the intelligence of American voters.
Question 3: You support free health care for those who enter the country illegally. How does that get paid for and why should those here illegally receive the same benefits as those in the country legally?
What an absolute joke and an insult to the intelligence of American voters.
Question 4: You support cash-free bail laws at the time crime is driving citizens out of blue cities from New York to Chicago to Minneapolis to San Francisco. Why do you think cash-free bail laws are best for the community?
Question 5: You support biological men competing against biological women in sports. Why do you think that’s fair given the clear advantage that poses a danger to female athletes?
Bonus question: Can men get pregnant?
This is clear: there were dozens of questions that could have been asked but you get the point. Dana Bash and CNN dropped the ball here. And know this: It’s a safe bet that Vice President Kamala Harris will not do another interview before the debate on September 10.
We are heading into a holiday weekend now. Kamala Harris took nearly SIX WEEKS to do one interview. And based on her unsteady performance, it is all but certain we won’t see much of her in any capacity before the debate, just as we didn’t see President Joe Biden for days on end as he prepped for the June 27 debate in Atlanta.
Obviously, it didn’t matter as Biden and Harris have the same problem: Both turn into a human Chernobyl when a Teleprompter and scripted remarks are taken away from them. Millions will see clips from Thursday’s interview from now through the weekend. How it plays remains unclear, but it’s a good bet it will be a net-negative more than a net-positive. Nate Silver’s 538 Forecast, as of Thursday afternoon, gave former President Donald Trump a better chance of winning in November than Harris.
The honeymoon has come to an end, just as it did for Harris four years ago once America got to know her through interviews and debates that went poorly. In 2024, we may be seeing a sequel to that movie, which didn’t end well for her when the 2020 presidential candidate dropped out before she even got to 2020.
Jason Miller, senior adviser to former President Donald Trump’s campaign, told Newsmax on Friday that Vice President Kamala Harris’s recent interview on CNN “was weird” and “did not look presidential.”
Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, sat down for an interview with CNN on Thursday evening, their first with a major news network since launching their campaign for the White House. Miller, in an appearance on “Wake Up America” Friday morning, criticized the “optics” of the interview, saying that “it did not look presidential.”
He said, “There’s a certain threshold that you have to meet when you’re looking presidential. Can you lead this country? Other candidates in the past have had it. I don’t see that with Kamala Harris.”
Miller also said that the interview “was weird” and said that the vice president “looked as though she’d been called in by her teacher in the principal to say, Kamala, you have not been to class one day in three and a half years, it’s time to talk about your record.’ And on that record, she had no good answers.”
He went on to say that Harris was “vague” in her answers and criticized her defense of her recent policy shifts by saying, “My values haven’t changed.”
Miller said, “The ‘my values haven’t changed’ got three mentions, and crime, for example, got zero mentions.”
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
We have been discussing Democratic leaders and activists who have been calling for revolutionary change and a rejection of the foundation of the American constitutional system. The latest is Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson, who spoke at the National Democratic Convention. In an earlier speech, Robinson rejected what she referred to as the Founders’ “little piece of paper” and called for the reimagining of our constitutional system.
The voices calling for radical change have been growing for years, including among law professors and legal commentators. Viewers now get a steady diet of figures like MSNBC commentator Elie Mystal who called the U.S. Constitution “trash” and argued that we should simply just dump it.
I was recently called for a response to Robinson’s call. Yet, it is not clear if Robinson is speaking about the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution as that “little piece of paper.” However, she insists that “[i]n this moment, we’ve got to reimagine it with people that look and love like us at the center.”
Robinson added:
“And I think for us right now is about reimagining freedom and this American story in a way that is more revolutionary than what our Founders actually put down on that little piece of paper, but instead is the type of democracy that is by and for all of the people in this country. That’s the opportunity that we have.”
Her comments did include positive views of the progress made under the current system:
“The story of America is the story of progress towards freedom. In just a few generations, my family went from being enslaved in Mississippi to the first free Black family in Muscatine, Iowa, to preparing to elect President Kamala Harris. Progress is happening my friends!”
As someone who has supported LGBT rights for over four decades, I have nothing but admiration for those who fight for equal rights for everyone to be able to live their lives according to their own values and associations. However, a radical “reimagining” of our constitutional system is a popular and growing call on the left. It is often left vague in terms of what such a reimagination would entail, but suggests structural, not just policy, changes.
It is that “little piece of paper” that has secured the equal rights for members of this community.
Assuming that the “little piece of paper” is a reference to the Madisonian constitution, it is a “type of democracy” that has proven the oldest and most successful constitutional system in the history of the world. It has survived precisely because it was designed for the most pluralistic nation in the world. It allows for tremendous social and political changes but does so within a framework that protects individual rights.
Before we start “reimagining” our way out of the most stable constitutional system in history, we may want to consider how the alternatives have been faring around the world.
It is that “little piece of paper” that introduced a revolutionary concept of governance that permits a nation of rivaling factions and values to govern as one. That does not mean that we do not have deep and at times bitter divisions. However, we are joined in a common article of faith in the Constitution.
While he spoke more about democracy in general, Churchill’s famous comment could as easily refer to the Madisonian system: it may be “the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Communist Goals from “The Naked Communist” was read on the floor of the House of Representatives on January 10th, 1963 by U.S. Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida.
The Naked Communist was written by ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen in 1953. He describes the Marxist strategy during the Cold War.
Maybe we need someone to read these communist goals again. Send this article to your Senators and Congressmen and ask them to read this on the floor of both houses.
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war. 2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. 3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. 4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. 5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites. 6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination. 7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N. 8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N. 9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress. 10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N. 11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.) 12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. 13. Do away with all loyalty oaths. 14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office. 15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. 16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks. 18. Gain control of all student newspapers. 19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. 20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions. 21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. 22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.” 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.” 24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.” 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. 30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.” 31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. 32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. 33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus. 34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI. 36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. 37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business. 38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat]. 39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals. 40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. 42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems. 43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government. 44. Internationalize the Panama Canal. 45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
The Naked Communist was written by ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen in 1953. He describes the Marxist strategy during the Cold War.
President Ronald Reagan said of the book: “No one is better qualified to discuss the threat to this nation from communism. You will be alarmed, you will be informed and you’ll be glad you heard him.”
Marxist Strategy & Communist Goals
Completed to Date
01
U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
DONE
02
U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
DONE
03
Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
Working under Obama
04
Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
DONE
05
Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
06
Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
DONE
07
Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
DONE
08
Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
DONE
09
Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10
Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11
Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12
Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
DONE
13
Do away with all loyalty oaths.
DONE
14
Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15
Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
DONE
16
Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
DONE
17
Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
DONE
18
Gain control of all student newspapers.
WORKING
19
Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
DONE
20
Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
DONE
21
Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
DONE
22
Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
DONE
23
Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
DONE
24
Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
WORKING
25
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
DONE and getting worse
26
Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
DONE
27
Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
WORKING
28
Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
DONE
29
Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
DONE and GROWING
30
Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
DONE and GROWING
31
Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
DONE and GROWING
32
Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
WORKING
33
Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
WORKING
34
Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
????
35
Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
WORKING
36
Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
DONE and GROWING
37
Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
WORKING
38
Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
WORKING
39
Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
WORKING
40
Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
DONE and GROWING
41
Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.
WORKING
42
Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
DONE and GROWING
43
Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
WORKING
44
Internationalize the Panama Canal. (Thank you President Jimmy Carter)
DONE
45
Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
Top Stories • Kamala Harris Wants to Overturn Every Single Pro-Life Law Nationwide • Here are Some Pro-Life Actions Donald Trump Will Probably Take as President • Harris Barely Leads Trump After Spending Tens of Millions • Abortion is Not a Winning Issue for Democrats, Americans Don’t Want Abortions Up to Birth
More Pro-Life News • Poll Shows 71% in a Battleground State Oppose Abortion With Key Exceptions • National Day of Remembrance on September 14 Will Remember 65 Million Babies Killed in Abortions • I Worked At Planned Parenthood For 17 Years. Here’s Why I Oppose Kamala Harris • New York AG Letitia James Wants to Fine Pro-Life Advocates for Saving Babies From Abortion • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
The Mexican border state of Chihuahua is on alert for members of a violent Venezuelan gang called Tren de Aragua, or TdA, after receiving reports that members of the gang were moving through the state to cross into the U.S. near El Paso, Texas.
Chihuahua Secretary of Public Safety Gilberto Loya warned Monday that Mexican authorities have seen a large number of individuals they believe are members of TdA operating in the state and passing through to cross the U.S. border with Mexico near El Paso, according to a report from the Latin Times.
The report comes after the Treasury Department in July sanctioned TdA as a transnational criminal organization, noting that the gang has committed human trafficking, extortion, money laundering and drug trafficking that pose a “deadly criminal threat” across the Western Hemisphere.
A Texas National Guard soldier stands on patrol near the banks of the Rio Grande in El Paso, Texas, on April 2. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
“Tren de Aragua leverages its transnational networks to traffic people, especially migrant women and girls, across borders for sex trafficking and debt bondage,” the Treasury Department said in a statement at the time. “Tren de Aragua members often kill them and publicize their deaths as a threat to others.”
U.S. officials warned earlier this month that the gang, which originated in Aragua, Venezuela, is infiltrating the U.S., while Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas., has described TdA as “MS-13 on steroids.”
“They’re extremely aggressive. It’s not as if they’re a passive group, or they want to quietly go about things,” Gonzales said in a phone interview with Fox News Digital earlier this month. “They’re coming from Venezuela, one of the most war-torn countries over the last decade. So, they’re battle-hardened in many ways. And they’ve made this trek from there to here. But they are also becoming… more organized and more brazen.”
Migrants try to cross the border between Piedras Negras, Mexico, and Eagle Pass, Texas, on Aug. 4, 2023. (David Peinado Romero/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Members of the gang are suspected of being behind a recent video that captured a group of men armed with handguns and rifles bursting through the doors of an apartment complex in Aurora, Colorado, that residents say has been overrun by gang activity.
“This is organized. They patrol the property with guns visibly, like they’re not trying to hide them. There’s no repercussion. These are ghosts,” said one resident who spoke with Fox News Digital on the condition of anonymity.
The gang has been seen dealing drugs from the apartment building, another resident told Fox News Digital, while Aurora City Councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky told Fox News Digital that “without a doubt that there is sex trafficking now going on” when it comes to TdA’s activities in the city.
Alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang have overtaken an apartment building in Aurora, Colorado, charging rent in exchange for protection. (Edward Romero)
In Mexico, Loya said that the group has been responsible for multiple homicides in Central Mexico and that it is his hope the border state can get out in front of the problem.
“We have detected — thanks to collaboration with the United States — that a large number of people who belong to Tren de Aragua have passed through Chihuahua,” Loya said, according to a translation by Border Report. “Seeing what is going on in [Central Mexico], we want to be ahead of the curve here in Chihuahua.”
Neither the White House nor U.S. Customs and Border Patrol immediately responded to Fox News Digital requests for comment.
Michael Lee is a writer for Fox News. Prior to joining Fox News, Michael worked for the Washington Examiner, Bongino.com, and Unbiased America. He has covered politics for more than eight years.
Loved ones of students killed in school shootings slammed Vice President Kamala Harris after unearthed comments from 2019 surfaced this week, detailing that Harris supports removing police officers from schools.
“My brother was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting because of liberal policies like the one Kamala is pushing here… I wish there had been a police officer there to protect him. Students need more protection, not less!,” school safety advocate JT Lewis posted to X. Lewis’ younger brother, six-year-old Jesse Lewis, was killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting in Connecticut that left 26 children and staffers dead.
Lewis was reacting to unearthed footage of Harris in 2019, when she was a California senator, declaring her support of removing police officers from schools in an effort to “demilitarize” campuses.
“What we need to do about … demilitarizing our schools and taking police officers out of schools. We need to deal with the reality and speak the truth about the inequities around school discipline. Where in particular, Black and Brown boys are being expelled and or suspended as young as, I’ve seen, as young as in elementary school,”Harris said in 2019 in South Carolina, when she served as a California senator running for president during the 2020 cycle.
Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the American Federation of Teachers’ 88th National Convention on July 25, 2024, in Houston, Texas. (Montinique Monroe/Getty Images)
Harris joined the 2019 Presidential Justice Forum at Benedict College in Columbia, South Carolina, in October of that year before she dropped out of the 2020 race and was announced as President Biden’s running mate. A college student asked Harris how she would go about expunging the records of juveniles to allow them to attend college, including expunging “a criminal offense,” not “just a marijuana expungement.”
The Connecticut House of Representatives passed the state’s largest gun control initiative since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in a 96-51 vote. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File)
“That’s a great question and a great point, because when we talk about reform of the criminal justice system, we’ve got to understand that the juvenile justice system is in dire need of reform, and I know that. And I’ve seen it,” Harris responded, touting her 2020 campaign’s “plan of action” on criminal justice reform.
“I will end solitary confinement of juveniles, which includes what we need to do to talk about and have a commitment for less incarceration of juveniles. And have guidelines in terms of exactly what those, those numbers should be, because right now, in so many states, children are being incarcerated for … a child being incarcerated for a couple of days is traumatic, much less the weeks, months and years that we’re seeing that happen,” she explained.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris presidential campaign earlier this week inquiring whether she still supports removing police officers from schools, but did not receive a reply.
Crews use heavy equipment to tear down the 1200 building of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Friday, June 14, 2024, in Parkland, Fla. On February 14, 2018, a gunman entered the school and killed 17 people. (Miami Herald)
Other family members of school-shooting victims joined Lewis in their condemnation of Harris’ 2019 comments, including Ryan Petty and Andrew Pollack, two dads who lost their respective teenage daughters in the tragic Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in 2018.
“Wreckless. Radical. Kamala wants to make schools less safe. Your kids aren’t safe with Kamala Harris in office,” Petty, who lost his 14-year-old daughter Alaina Petty in the 2018 shooting, tweeted in response to the Trump War Room posting footage of Harris’ comments.
People visit the memorial for the victims of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, which killed 17 people, on the fifth anniversary of the massacre on February 14, 2023. Seventeen people were killed, and another seventeen were injured after a 19-year-old former student opened fire at the school on February 14, 2018. (Photo by Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images) (Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images)
“This is sickening. My daughter was killed because Parkland didn’t have enough security. We need more school resource officers — not fewer!” Pollack, whose 18-year-old daughter Meadow Pollack was killed in the same shooting, posted on X.
Harris’ comments declaring support for the removal of officers from schools were made ahead of 2020’s summer of protests and riots in response to the killing of George Floyd during a police interaction on Memorial Day of that year. Floyd’s death reignited calls from activists to defund the police, which had a cascading effect across the country as liberal cities moved to slash police budgets, and school boards also voted to sever ties with police departments.
Researchers with the outlet Education Week found in 2022 that at least 50 school districts between May 2020 through June 2022 had removed officers from school campuses or slashed budgets for school officers. The plans to remove officers from schools, however, were short-lived in many jurisdictions, as violence broke out on campuses when students returned to the classrooms following the pandemic and its lockdowns.
In the face of violence, such as a shooting at a Denver high school, or repeated fights within the Alexandria, Virginia, school district, education officials from coast to coast backtracked on removing officers, welcoming them back to campuses in an effort to curb crime.
Vice President Harris has not sat down for an interview or held a press conference since emerging as the Democratic presidential nominee. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Harris officially accepted the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in Chicago last week. She rose to the top of the ticket after President Biden dropped out of the race last month amid mounting concerns over his mental acuity.
It has been 39 days since President Joe Biden abdicated and Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democrat nominee for president. From that day until Thursday, Harris has refused to be interviewed—a comprehensive media blackout for the entire 39 days—but Thursday she sits down for her first interview with anyone, having chosen CNN’s Dana Bash as her interlocutor. Harris will be accompanied by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.
No doubt Walz is there as a blankie of sorts, a hand-holding helpmate to steady the notoriously nervous-on-camera Vice President who is prone to word salad answers, every one of which, if uttered, will greatly damage her campaign. It will thus be important for Bash to establish early on that she has a set of questions for Harris, one for Walz, and one for both of them and that they respect the audience’s right to hear answers from the person the questions is directed to.
Harris has a right to be nervous. Bash is a professional and will not ask questions about the importance of abortion rights or an assault weapons ban as we know what Harris thinks on these issues. The electorate needs to learn things about Harris that we do not currently know.
Harris has never struck many people as being up to the job of vice president much less president. As former President Trump is fond of reminding people, Harris was a risible figure as recently as the day before Biden’s incapacity became obvious at his debate with former President Trump and the subsequent crashing poll numbers obliged him to leave the race. Since that moment, Democrats and their colleagues in legacy media have been going 24/7 to turn Harris from a subject of derision into a brand new and highly polished candidate, one with no connection to Biden or the past three-and-a-half years.
Bash’s job is to explore in fair fashion whether Harris is ready to be president. Bash is a fine broadcast journalist, the equal of any I have worked with, and I have worked with almost all of the major networks’ major names. Bash and I helped moderate four GOP presidential primary debates in 2015-2016, and I recommended her to the Republican National Committee this past spring as a trustworthy professional for the debates it was then awarding.
But CNN is, as a whole, very left wing and very much part of legacy media which has been complicit in helping Harris hide thus far. This one interview will define Bash’s career much like Candy Crowley’s career was defined by her intervention into, and helping hand wrongfully extended to, then President Obama in his second debate with Mitt Romney. Bash does not want to enter the Hall of Shame for Journalists. She doesn’t have to be a bulldog or an ambush artist. She just needs to ask the simple and very direct questions the electorate needs answered.
Here are questions which Bash should pose to Harris:
1. President Biden named you as the lead in the effort to stem the flow of migrants across our southern border in March of 2021. That did not happen. Why? 2. How many people entered the country without invitation since you and Joe Biden took over? 3. What was your role in the withdrawal from Afghanistan? 4. In your acceptance speech you noted the horrors that occurred in Israel on 10/7 as well as the loss of innocent life in Gaza. Was it your intent to in any way equate the massacre on 10/7 with Israel’s actions in Gaza since then? 5. Did Israel have the right this past weekend to strike Hezbollah in a preemptive attack on the terrorists’ missile force? 6. Does Israel have the right to strike Iran to preempt another attack from Iran? 7. If Israel is attacked by Iran, would it be legitimate for Israel to destroy the oil export facilities on Kharg Island? 8. If China attempts to invade Taiwan, will American military force be used to defend the island nation? 9. Should the Supreme Court be expanded in its size? 10. How much of GDP should be spent on the Pentagon? 11. How do you fix the recruitment crisis our military is experiencing? 12. America’s ability to lead and indeed dominate in AI and supercomputing requires at least a doubling of our total domestic energy output. That is easiest to accomplish with new nuclear power plants. Do you support building them? 13. You were absolutely against fracking in your 2019 presidential campaign. What is your policy on fracking now? 14. What is the highest marginal tax rate you want to see enacted into law and at what level of adjusted gross income should that rate apply? 15. What is the most significant issue on which you have disagreed with President Biden?
Note that these are all direct, simple questions. A rule of serious journalists is not to pose multiple questions at the same time and only the last question above includes a request for two answers as those answers are inextricably connected. One question at a time obliges the guest to focus and respond to that question. Bash is very good at her business. If she stays true to the mission of informing the public, an already excellent reputation will grow even stronger.
Hugh Hewitt is host of “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” heard weekday mornings 6am to 9am ET on the Salem Radio Network, and simulcast on Salem News Channel. Hugh wakes up America on over 400 affiliates nationwide, and on all the streaming platforms where SNC can be seen. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel’s news roundtable hosted by Bret Baier weekdays at 6pm ET. A son of Ohio and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, Hewitt has been a Professor of Law at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law since 1996 where he teaches Constitutional Law. Hewitt launched his eponymous radio show from Los Angeles in 1990. Hewitt has frequently appeared on every major national news television network, hosted television shows for PBS and MSNBC, written for every major American paper, has authored a dozen books and moderated a score of Republican candidate debates, most recently the November 2023 Republican presidential debate in Miami and four Republican presidential debates in the 2015-16 cycle. Hewitt focuses his radio show and his column on the Constitution, national security, American politics and the Cleveland Browns and Guardians. Hewitt has interviewed tens of thousands of guests from Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump over his 40 years in broadcast, and this column previews the lead story that will drive his radio/ TV show today.
Mark Zuckerberg meets with President Trump in the Oval Office
Below is my column in Fox.com on the admission of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg that Facebook yielded to pressure of the Biden Administration to censor citizens. The admission, however, appears more contrived than contrite.
Here is the column:
“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.” Those words from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg came this week with an admission in a letter that his company, Facebook, did yield to pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to censor American citizens on a wide array of subjects.
For those of us who have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the massive censorship system, Zuckerberg’s belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all of the genuine regret of a stalker found hiding under the bed of a victim. Zuckerberg’s sudden regret only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the government to censor opposing views. Zuckerberg was finally compelled to release the documents by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and the House Judiciary Committee. Now forced to admit what many of us have long alleged, Zuckerberg is really, really sorry.
In prior testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and other congressional committees, I noted that Zuckerberg continued to refuse to release this information after Elon Musk exposed this system in his release of the “Twitter Files.” Zuckerberg stayed silent as Musk was viciously attacked by anti-free speech figures in Congress and the media. He was fully aware of his own company’s similar conduct but stayed silent. When the White House and President Joe Biden repeatedly claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, Facebook continued to withhold evidence that they too were pressured to suppress the story before the election.
When the censorship system was recently put before the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri, the justices asked about evidence of coordination and pressure from the government. In Murthy, states successfully showed lower courts that there was coercion from the government in securing an injunction. The Biden administration denied such pressure and the Court rejected the standing of plaintiffs, blocked an order to stop the censorship, and sent the case back down to the lower court.
Zuckerberg still remained silent.
But Facebook was not silent when it came to censorship, or “content moderation” as the company prefers to call it. While Zuckerberg now expresses “regret” at not speaking out sooner, his company previously sought to sell Americans on censorship.
In 2021, I wrote about the Facebook commercial campaign in which the company attempted to rally young people to embrace censorship. The commercials show people like “Joshan” who says that he “grew up with the internet.” Joshan mocks how much computers have changed and then objects how privacy and censorship has not evolved as much as our technology. As Joshan calls for “the blending of the real world and the internet world,” content moderation is presented as part of this not-so-brave new world. Joshan and his equally eager colleagues Chava and Adam were presented by Facebook as the shiny happy faces of young people longing to be content modified. They were all born in 1996 — the sweet spot for censors who saw young people as allies to reduce free speech.
For years, young people have been taught that free speech is harmful and triggering. We are raising a generation of speech-phobics and Zuckerberg and Facebook wanted to tap into that generation to get people to stop fearing the censor and love “content modification.” It was time, as Joshan and his friends told us, to “change” with our computers.
Now, Zuckerberg and Meta want people to know that they were “pressured” to censor and really regret their role in silencing opposing voices.
It is the feigned regret that comes with forced exposure.
The Facebook files now put the lie to past claims of the Biden administration and many Democrats in Congress. For years, members attacked some of us who testified that we had no evidence of coordination or pressure from the government. At the same time, they opposed any effort to investigate and release such evidence. The evidence is now undeniable.
The Biden administration has long demanded the removal of opposing views on a wide array of subjects. Democrats in Congress pushed Zuckerberg to expand the scope of censorship to include areas like climate change denial. Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is an example of the chilling scope of this effort. Her agency was created to work on our critical infrastructure, but Easterly declared that the mandate would now include policing “our cognitive infrastructure.” That includes combating “malinformation,” or information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
Consider that for a second: true facts are censorable if the government views them as misleading.
As I write in my book, President Joe Biden is arguably the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. His administration helped create a censorship system that was described by one federal judge as “Orwellian.” Vice President Kamala Harris has been entirely supportive of that effort.
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the only election where free speech was one of the principal campaign issues. It should be so again. Harris should have to take ownership of the censorship system maintained by the administration.
In my book, I propose a federal law that would bar the government from using any federal funds to support efforts to censor, blacklist, or suppress individuals or groups. It would take the government out of the censorship business. Harris should be asked if she would oppose such a law and dismantle the current censorship apparatus in the federal government.
Democracy is not on the ballot in 2024, as many have claimed, but free speech is.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Kamala, with her disastrous record, is stealing Trump’s agenda and trying to make it her own. She’s now flip-flopped on Fracking and defunding police and is claiming that she’s for building the wall. She also stole Trump’s “no tax on tips” pledge and is claiming responsibility for many of Trump’s accomplishments. We know she’ll reverse these once she’s elected.
FLIP-FLOP: Kamala Harris Now Supports Spending Hundreds of Millions of Dollars on Building Trump Border Wall
By Cristina Laila – August 27, 2024
Kamala Harris hasn’t done a press interview since she forced Joe Biden off the ballot 37 days ago and she has no policies on her campaign website with just two months to go until Election Day. Harris has stolen a few of Trump’s ideas so far because she knows the public won’t support her far-left radical plans. After stealing Trump’s ‘no tax on tips’ and ‘child tax credit’ ideas, Kamala Harris now supports spending hundreds of millions of dollars on building Trump’s border wall. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco Cartoon—The Biden regime pressured Facebook to Take Down What Ended Up Being Truthful Information on COVID and the Vaccines. But this type of censorship seems to be systemic across corporate media. Hunter Laptop, Russia Russia hoax, etc., are all practicing the omission of information a truly free society needs.
Latest Government Report Reveals 10 Times Biden Regime Pressured Facebook to Take Down What Ended Up Being Truthful Information on COVID and the Vaccines – And the Gateway Pundit Was One of Its Primary Targets
By Jim Hoft – May 6, 2024
On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee released an 800 page report on the Biden White House censorship regime. The report included numerous times the Biden regime threatened social media companies to censor, silence and take down information on the COVID origins and the COVID vaccines. Here is the full 800 page report released by the House Judiciary Committee on the Biden Administration’s Censorship Industrial Complex. On Thursday, investigative reporter Mike Benz revealed “10 flaming examples” Facebook, YouTube and Amazon explicitly said they only passed censorship policies because they were threatened by the Biden government. READ MORE..
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Yes. Pro-Life Laws are Actually Saving Babies From Abortions • Donald Trump is the Obvious Better Choice For Pro-Life Americans Over Kamala Harris • Final Democrat Platform Promoted Abortions Up to Birth Nationwide, At Taxpayer Expense • At Minimum, Trump Should Support Bill Banning Late-Term Abortions
More Pro-Life News • Pro-Life Laws are Not Driving Away Doctors or Closing Hospitals • Catholic Church Can’t Compromise: Denying Food and Water to Patients is Evil • Abortion Center Staffer Assaults Pro-Life Advocate, Police Arrest the Pro-Life Person Instead • Zuckerberg Says Biden-Harris Admin Pressured Facebook to Censor Content • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
Effective July 2025, teacher licensing rules passed last year in Minnesota under Democrat Gov. Tim Walz will ban practicing Christians, Jews, and Muslims from teaching in public schools. Walz is now the presidential running mate of current U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris. His resume includes a stint as a high school social studies teacher who sponsored a student queer sex club in 1999.
Starting next July, Minnesota agencies controlled by Walz appointees will require teacher license applicants to affirm transgenderism and race Marxism. Without a teaching license, individuals cannot work in Minnesota public schools, nor in the private schools that require such licenses. The latest version of the regulations requires teachers to “affirm” students’ “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” to receive a Minnesota teaching license:
The teacher fosters an environment that ensures student identities such as race/ethnicity, national origin, language, sex and gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical/developmental/emotional ability, socioeconomic class, and religious beliefs are historically and socially contextualized, affirmed, and incorporated into a learning environment where students are empowered to learn and contribute as their whole selves (emphasis added).
Last spring, administrative law judges finally approved these pending changes The Federalist reported one month before they were finalized. Universities are also affected: starting in 2025, they must either train their teaching students to fulfill these anti-Christian requirements or be banned from offering state licensing — and thus the ticket to the vast majority of teaching jobs — to their students.
Since 2020 in Minnesota, teachers renewing their licenses, which is usually required every five to seven years, must demonstrate “cultural competency” similar to the requirements imposed in 2025 on new teaching licensees. Teachers renewing their licensing must “Show[] evidence of self-reflection and discussion of” topics that include “Gender Identity, Including Transgender Students” and “Sexual Orientation.” They must also show they understand “bias” in themselves, and their students related to race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other cultural Marxist categories.
Queer Totalitarianism Forces Religion into the Closet
Some Christian universities in the state will obey these regulations, said Doug Seaton, founder and president of the nonprofit Upper Midwest Law Center, located in Minneapolis. Some Christian universities will not, but so far, those UMLC has reached out to that plan to disobey these state commands to violate their faith will do so quietly and only sue when the state finds and punishes them, Seaton said.
“Some are not willing to do it [file a lawsuit] until they actually have their college programs tagged for noncompliance, or their graduates actually not licensed as a consequence of not adhering to these standards,” he said in a phone interview. This comes even though UMLC, as a public interest law firm, would undertake the litigation and pay the vast majority of its expenses thanks to their donors. Three Minnesota Christian Universities The Federalist reached out to did not return inquiries on whether they would enforce the new licensing rules.
Faithful members of the world’s largest and oldest religions cannot in good conscience “affirm” non-heterosexual sexual orientations and gender identities. Christians who do so publicly deny their faith, something Jesus Christ said endangers a person’s soul and eternal bliss after death: “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32, 33).
Minnesota’s teacher requirements therefore force Christians, Muslims, Jews, and adherents to other religions to violate their faith and endanger their hopes of eternal life in order to work in government-run schools.
Forcing people to testify to beliefs they don’t hold, often called compelled speech, is clearly unconstitutional, he said: “They’re essentially requiring people to affirm these ideas that they don’t really believe, in many cases, as a condition of being a public-school teacher or being part of a program to be a licensed public-school teacher. You can’t force that kind of speech; you can’t require adherence to ideas that aren’t believed.”
The 13-member board that made these changes is appointed by the governor, whom for the last six years has been Walz. So, Walz is poised to make similar bigoted, totalitarian, and unconstitutional policies across the United States should he be elected vice president.
Marinating Kids in Anti-American Propaganda
As I reported last year, Minnesota’s new teacher requirements also “require teachers to agree that the taxpayers supplying their salaries and the people who created the school system that will employ them are racists and affirm other cultural Marxist beliefs.”
“For example, Standard 6C requires that ‘The teacher understands the historical foundations of education in Minnesota … that have and continue to create inequitable opportunities, experiences, and outcomes for learners … especially for … students historically denied access, underserved, or underrepresented on the basis of race … gender, sexual orientation.’” That “standard” remains in the latest version of the regulations, under the same number.
Recently in The Wall Street Journal, Katherine Kersten examined curricular changes Minnesota is making under Walz’s administration in “ethnic studies” that mirror these changes to teacher licensing requirements.
Mr. Walz signed the law establishing this initiative in 2023. The department’s standards and benchmarks, approved in January, require first-graders to‘identify examples of ethnicity, equality, liberation and systems of power’ and ‘use those examples to construct meanings for those terms.’
Fourth graders must ‘identify the processes and impacts of colonization and examine how discrimination and the oppression of various racial and ethnic groups have produced resistance movements.’ High-school students are told to ‘develop an analysis of racial capitalism’ and ‘anti-Blackness’ and are taught to view themselves as members of ‘racialized hierarchies’ based on ‘dominant European beauty standards.”
The new teacher requirements are also rife with demands to agree with race Marxism, as Child Protection League analyses detail. Below are just a few examples.
Walz’s first executive order as governor was to install a “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” or DEI, council. Former Minnesota state legislator Allen Quist notes that “The radical Walz administration Department of Human Rights has also forced school districts to report student discipline by race and require equal outcomes (equity) in discipline. The results have been horrific chaos and violence.”
During Walz’s governorship, student achievement in Minnesota has gone from among the best in the nation to declining more sharply than anywhere else in the nation, according to the Minneapolis-based Center for the American Experiment. The most recent scores show Minnesota fourth graders dipping below the national average in reading for the first time ever recorded on the well-respected Nation’s Report Card.
Research has found for decades that there is no link between teacher certification and student achievement. People who enter teaching with a degree other than in education tend to have significantly higher personal and student academic performance.
Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist. Her new book with Regnery is “False Flag: Why Queer Politics Mean the End of America.” A happy wife and the mother of six children, her ebooks include “Classic Books For Young Children,” and “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” An 18-year education and politics reporter, Joy has testified before nearly two dozen legislatures on education policy and appeared on major media including Tucker Carlson, CNN, Fox News, OANN, NewsMax, Ben Shapiro, and Dennis Prager. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs who identifies as native American and gender natural. Joy is also the cofounder of a high-performing Christian classical school and the author and coauthor of classical curricula. Her traditionally published books also include “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.
Texas has purged 1.1 million names from voting rolls since the 2020 presidential election after the state found them to be ineligible, Gov. Greg Abbott announced Monday. Abbott signed election integrity bill SB 1 into law in 2021 requiring the secretary of state to work with the Department of Public Safety to compare information on citizenship status in that agency’s database to the voter rolls. The checks are required to be “monthly.”
“Election integrity is essential to our democracy,”said Abbott. “I have signed the strongest election laws in the nation to protect the right to vote and to crack down on illegal voting.”
“These reforms have led to the removal of over one million ineligible people from our voter rolls in the last three years, including noncitizens, deceased voters, and people who moved to another state.”
Voting booths at Glass Elementary School’s polling station in Eagle Pass, Texas. (Mark Felix/AFP via Getty Images)
The Texas government has referred cases of ineligible voters participating in an election to Attorney General Ken Praxton for prosecution.
“The Secretary of State and county voter registrars have an ongoing legal requirement to review the voter rolls, remove ineligible voters, and refer any potential illegal voting to the Attorney General’s Office and local authorities for investigation and prosecution,” Abbott said.
He added, “Illegal voting in Texas will never be tolerated. We will continue to actively safeguard Texans’ sacred right to vote while also aggressively protecting our elections from illegal voting.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks during a news conference at the state Capitol in Austin. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
The governor’s office offered a chart breaking down reasons for removal from the voting rolls and categorized estimates for individuals in each category. The largest group of Texas residents disqualified in the audit was “voters on the suspense list” – people who have failed to properly confirm their residential address in the state. Over 463,000 individuals were included in this category.
The second most prominent category was “deceased people”still included on the voting rolls, which numbered over 457,000.
The governor’s office said that approximately 6,500 noncitizens were purged from the rolls – almost 2,000 of those noncitizens are alleged to have cast votes in past elections.
Timothy Nerozzi is a writer for Fox News Digital. You can follow him on Twitter @timothynerozzi and can email him at timothy.nerozzi@fox.com
Israeli forces rescued a hostage found alone underground in Gaza on Tuesday, freeing a living captive from Hamas’ vast tunnel network for the first time since the Oct. 7 attack that ignited the war. The 52-year-old Israeli man was taken to a hospital in Israel, where members of his large Bedouin Arab family gathered around his bedside in a joyful reunion.
The rescue brought a rare moment of relief to Israelis after 10 months of war but also served as a painful reminder that dozens of hostages are still in captivity as international mediators try to broker a cease-fire in which they would be released.
Qaid Farhan Alkadi was found in a southern Gaza tunnel where hostages were suspected to be alongside terrorists and explosives, according to the military.
“Suddenly, I heard someone speaking Hebrew outside the door, I couldn’t believe it, I couldn’t believe it,” Alkadi told Israeli President Isaac Herzog in a phone call from his hospital bed, according to the president’s office.
The military said it applied “lessons” learned during previous operations while rescuing Alkadi. Earlier in the war, Israeli troops who encountered three hostages inside Gaza accidentally shot and killed them, believing them to be militants. Alkadi was one of eight members of Israel’s Bedouin Arab minority who were abducted on Oct. 7. He was working as a guard at a packing factory in Kibbutz Magen, one of several farming communities that came under attack. He has two wives and is the father of 11 children.
Israel believes there are still 108 hostages in Gaza and that more than 40 of them are dead. Most of the rest were freed during a weeklong cease-fire in November in exchange for the release of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. Alkadi is one of eight hostages to be rescued alive and the first of these rescued from underground, the Israeli military said. Alkadi was held in a number of locations during his 326 days in captivity, according to Israel’s military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari.
Footage released by the Israeli military showed Alkadi moments after the rescue. Unshaven and wearing a white tank top, he is seen sitting and smiling with soldiers before boarding a helicopter to a hospital. He appeared emaciated but officials described his condition as stable.
His large family gathered at the hospital in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba to welcome him home. One of his brothers held Alkadi’s infant son, who was born while he was in captivity and had not yet met his father, the brother said.
“We’re so excited to hug him and see him and tell him that we’re all here with him,” a family member who gave his name as Faez told Channel 12. “I hope that every hostage will come home so the families can experience this happiness.”
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said the rescue was part of the army’s “daring and courageous activities conducted deep inside the Gaza Strip.”
President Herzog, in his phone call with Alkadi, told him: “Dear Farhan, how moving it is to hear your voice! Our brother has come home. Our brother has returned!”
Herzog’s office said Farhan expressed his gratitude and urged Israeli authorities to work to free the others. “People are suffering there. Do everything you can to bring people home. Work 24 hours, don’t sleep until they return. People are really suffering, you can’t imagine,” he said, according to a transcript of the call provide by Herzog’s office.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also spoke with Alkadi by phone soon after he arrived at the hospital. He said that Israel would rely on rescue operations and negotiations to bring the remaining hostages home.
“Both ways together require our military presence in the field, and unceasing military pressure on Hamas,” Netanyahu said.
Referring to Netanyahu by a traditional Arabic nickname, Alkadi thanked the prime minister for enabling him to see his family again, according to a video of the call provided by Netanyahu’s office. Alkadi reminded Netanyahu that “there are others waiting.” To which Netanyahu replied, “we haven’t forgotten anyone, just as we haven’t forgotten you.”
The Israeli military released footage of Alkadi being transported by helicopter after his rescue. Smiling, he gave a salute as the helicopter was in flight.
Hamas-led militants abducted some 250 people in the Oct. 7 attack, in which some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, were killed. Israel’s retaliatory offensive has killed over 40,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials, who do not say how many were militants. It has displaced 90% of Gaza’s 2.3 million people from their homes and caused heavy destruction across the besieged territory.
Israeli airstrikes continued on Tuesday across the Gaza Strip, and Palestinian officials said at least 18 people, including eight children, were killed in the attacks. Two previous Israeli operations to free hostages killed scores of Palestinians. Hamas says several hostages have been killed in Israeli airstrikes and failed rescue attempts. Israeli troops mistakenly killed three Israelis who escaped captivity in December.
Mazen Abu Siam, a close family friend waiting at the hospital, said the family was overjoyed to hear the news, but they were still praying for a cease-fire.
“We are waiting for a deal for one year,” Siam told The Associated Press.
The United States, Egypt and Qatar have spent months trying to negotiate an agreement in which the remaining hostages would be freed in exchange for a lasting cease-fire. Those talks are ongoing, but there has been no sign of any breakthrough. Netanyahu has faced intense criticism from families of the hostages and much of the Israeli public for not yet reaching a deal with Hamas to bring them home. Hamas hopes to trade the hostages for a lasting cease-fire, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and the release of a large number of Palestinian prisoners, including high-profile militants.
Last week, after the Israeli military recovered the bodies of six hostages in southern Gaza, Israel’s military spokesperson, Hagari, said the army was working to gather more intelligence for rescue operations. But he added that “we cannot bring everyone back through rescue operations alone.”
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump issued a full statement on special counsel Jack Smith’s reissuing his Washington, D.C., indictment Tuesday:
“In an effort to resurrect a ‘dead’ Witch Hunt in Washington, D.C., in an act of desperation, and in order to save face, the illegally appointed ‘Special Counsel’ Deranged Jack Smith, has brought a ridiculous new Indictment against me, which has all the problems of the old Indictment, and should be dismissed IMMEDIATELY. His Florida Document Hoax Case has been completely dismissed. This is merely an attempt to INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTION and distract the American People from the catastrophes Kamala Harris has inflicted on our Nation, like the Border Invasion, Migrant Crime, Rampant Inflation, the threat of World War III, and more….’
“….For them to do this immediately after our Supreme Court Victory on Immunity and more, is shocking. I’ve also been informed by my attorneys, that you’re not even allowed to bring cases literally right before an Election – A direct assault on Democracy! This is an unprecedented abuse of the Criminal Justice System. The case has to do with ‘Conspiracy to Obstruct the 2020 Presidential Election,’ when they are the ones that did the obstructing of the Election, not me. They cheated on the Election, and they go after me for ‘cheating on the Election.’ Interestingly, this comes at the exact same time as Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook has admitted to concealing massive amounts of information, such as Hunter Biden’s Laptop from Hell, which is a direct acknowledgment that the 2020 Presidential Election was MANIPULATED and RIGGED by the DOJ. What they are doing now is the single greatest sabotage of our Democracy in History….’
“….This travesty is now on Comrade Kamala Harris, who is actively pushing it, rather than immediately calling for its dismissal, as should be done. This is for Third World Countries and Banana Republics, not for the U.S.A.! As Jack Smith knows, the whole case should be thrown out and dismissed on Presidential Immunity grounds, as already ruled unequivocally by the U.S. Supreme Court. Smith rewrote the exact same case in an effort to circumvent the Supreme Court Decision. The people of our Country will see what is happening with all of these corrupt lawsuits against me and will REJECT them by giving me an overwhelming Victory on November 5th for President of the United States….’
“….No Presidential Candidate, or Candidate for any Office, has ever had to put up with all of this Lawfare and Weaponization directly out of the Office of a Political Opponent. They’ve Weaponized local D.A.s and Attorney Generals, and anybody else that will listen, to Interfere with the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election – Never been done before. This is now Kamala’s Weaponized System against her Political Opponent. All of these Scams will fail, just as Deranged Jack’s Hoax in Florida has been fully dismissed, and we will win the Most Important Election in the History of our Country on November 5th. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”‘
For months, we have been discussing the concerted effort of Democrats to bar challengers to President Joe Biden from primary ballots and block third-party candidates like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Cornel West from appearing on the November ballots. As both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris insisted that “Democracy is on the ballot,” their allies sought to deny the ability of voters to cast their ballots for other candidates. Now, a state judge has issued a stinging denial of the effort of Democratic officials to block West from the Michigan ballots.
Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson helped lead the effort to prevent citizens from being able to vote for West in Michigan. Judge James Robert Redford issued the ruling days after West was kicked off the ballot due to technical issues.
West issued a statement: “Victory in Michigan! We brought thousands of voices to the table, and the court listened, rejecting the Democrats’ technical challenges. This is a win for democracy and for every person fighting for truth, justice, and love. Onward!” He is running with Black Lives Matter co-founder Melina Abdullah.
Democrats are still pushing to strip them from the ballots in other states to prevent voters from having a choice in the election. Another such effort failed in Maine recently.
The press and pundits have been largely silent about this effort despite the glaring contradiction with the campaign rhetoric of the DNC on saving democracy from imminent destruction. The media does not appear at all alarmed or critical of the effort to limit democratic choice. The Washington Post stated clinically “Democrats are taking third-party threats seriously this time.” Taking it seriously appears to mean using legal means to keep them from the ballots.
It is true that the main political parties have challenged qualification signatures and paperwork in the past. However, the reports indicate a systemic effort geared toward reducing the choices for voters. What is striking is that this is coming from democratic groups and the DNC, which are raising money on the “save democracy” narrative. The contradiction is spellbinding. On the same sites promising to oppose the third-party candidates, the DNC and other groups push the narrative that only the Democrats are working to protect the right to vote.
The Post reports that Democrats have studied the Hillary Clinton campaign and vowed not to allow third party candidates to drain away millions of voters as they did in 2016. This well-funded campaign to block other candidates is continuing. It was cited by Kennedy as one of the reasons that he pulled out of the race and endorsed former president Donald Trump.
West is now a threat with independents looking for an alternative to Trump and Harris. West has long been a charismatic figure in academia. Decades ago, I was his editor on what may have been his first law review publication as a young, rising divinity professor at Princeton.
One does not have to support Trump, West, or the other third-party opponents to find this effort repulsive. While some of us have challenged that hyperbolic claim that this “may be our last election,” the one thing that may not be on the ballot is choice, if the self-appointed defenders of Democracy have anything to say about it.
Top Stories • Pro-Life Pregnancy Center Vandalized After Democrat Convention • Kamala Harris Continues to Persecute Pro-Life Americans, as President it Would Get Worse • Frank Pavone: Why Pro-Life Americans Should Support Donald Trump • Robert F Kennedy Fully Supports Donald Trump for President
More Pro-Life News • The Pro-Abortion Democrat Party is a “Ghoulish Display” of Baby Killing • Lifetime Supply of Free Diapers Offered to Moms Who Rejected Abortions at the Democrat Convention • 9 States Will Vote on Ballot Measure to Allow Abortions Up to Birth. We Must Reject Them • Missouri Lawmakers File Lawsuit Against Ballot Amendment for Abortion Up to Birth • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
As Donald Trump and Kamala Harris race for the presidency, their boosters are insisting the stakes couldn’t be higher for the future of our nation. But Americans have already given up on the future and are demonstrating this despair in the most fundamental way: Americans are not begetting more Americans.
The birthrate in the USA has hit another record low. Though the U.S. is not yet at complete demographic collapse (e.g. South Korea or Japan), American fertility is still way below replacement rate. Regardless of whom voters choose in November, they are already issuing a vote of no confidence in the future by literally refusing to beget people to live in it.
Collapsing fertility will cause a plethora of problems — good luck sustaining economic growth and paying for entitlement programs with an aging, shrinking population. Importing high levels of immigrants to maintain workforce levels is beset with its own difficulties. But highlighting the challenges of a future with few children will not encourage people to have more kids; people will not decide to breed just because it might boost GDP in a few decades. Indeed, dwelling on the problems of a below-replacement world might even be counterproductive from a pro-natal standpoint, as it just reinforces anxiety about the future.
Neither candidate can fix this. Harris may be trying to float on a media froth of “Joy!” but the DNC’s celebration of sterility and abortion, including Planned Parenthood providing not just free vasectomies but even free abortions right outside the convention, is perhaps the most grotesque example of baby-hating anti-natalism ever in American politics. And though the GOP might look better by comparison, Trump has been stampeding the GOP away from social conservatism (to say nothing of his personal example).
Politicians are not going to save America from despairing self-extinction. And tempting as it is, we cannot just blame them for the failures of American men and women to form stable relationships and have children together. Yes, there have been unfavorable cultural, economic, and political forces, but though these may be mitigating factors, they do not negate personal responsibility. Americans have chosen the decline of America.
However, there is an upside to this, which is that we can improve matters without relying on politicians. Yes, political action is important; policies from taxes to education to housing and more matter enormously to family formation and flourishing and thank God for the people doing good work on these issues.
But we should not sit around waiting for government to fix everything. It is not just that even well-intentioned and generous pro-family policies have often proven disappointing but that individual choices still matter. People can choose to prioritize family life even when culture, policy, and the economy make it difficult.
However, we need more than just exhortations to individual virtue: We need the help of others. Fortunately, government is not the only domain of collective action. As the process of family formation — from dating to raising children and sustaining a marriage — is breaking down to the point of incomprehensibility in much of our culture, America’s churches in particular have an opportunity to step into the gaps left by the fraying bonds of family and community.
Men and women need guidance in coming together to form and sustain marriages. Likewise, it is not good for parents to have to handle child-rearing all by themselves. It does take a village — but the government, and especially the federal bureaucracy, is a behemoth, not a village.
As important as help, from meals to rides to babysitting and beyond, can be, churches can provide that which is even more valuable: instruction, examples, belonging, and love. This community is what will actually make people want to marry, have children, and stay married while raising their kids well. Pundits worrying about the long-term political and economic implications of declining marriage and low birthrates won’t actually do it. What will work is if people believe in family life as important to what it means to live well and if they believe it is not only desirable but also attainable. For this, they need examples and assistance.
To be meaningful, pro-natalism has to mean more than just pumping out babies for the future of the nation. Rather, it must explain why babies are good in themselves and why marriage and parenthood are the vocations to which most of us are called and which we should joyfully embrace. Indeed, this will likely be one of the church’s most effective means of evangelization. Amid our cultural and relational wasteland, it will increasingly fall to the church to teach people how to live well despite the troubles of this life. And valuing babies’ overindulgence, ambition, and avarice is a good place to start.
Even the best efforts may not be enough to save our nation. But it is clear that there is only hope for our nation’s future if citizens place their hope in something greater than America.
Nathanael Blake is a senior contributor to The Federalist and a postdoctoral fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Former Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard reacts to Kamala Harris’ DNC speech, reports that RFK. Jr. is slated to drop out of the 2024 race and endorse former President Trump and how Trump’s debate prep is going.
This morning, I had the privilege of visiting Arlington Cemetery with President Trump and the Gold Star families of SSG Hoover and SGT Gee, two of the thirteen servicemembers who were killed in the attack at Abbey Gate in Kabul three years ago today.
Being there with President Trump, honoring the lives of those who sacrificed all, I saw firsthand the sorrow he shared with the families left behind, expressing his sincere appreciation the sacrifices made by their loved ones, our brothers and sisters, who paid the ultimate price.
This is personal for me. My first deployment to Iraq was with the Hawaii Army National Guard in 2005 where I served in a medical unit, every day confronted with the high cost of war. We lost so many of our brothers and sisters who never made that long trip home, and others who did come home, only to lose them to suicide.
President Trump understands the grave responsibility that our President and Commander in Chief has for us and our families and values the lives of every one of us — Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines and Coasties. He knows the cost of war. It’s not just lip service. During his first term as President, he not only didn’t start any new wars, but he also took action to de-escalate tensions and prevent conflict. He understands the cost of war and has shown he will exhaust all measures of diplomacy, having the courage to meet with adversaries, dictators and allies alike in the pursuit of peace, seeing war as a last resort.
The same cannot be said about Kamala Harris. In fact, the opposite is true. The Harris-Biden administration has us embroiled in multiple wars around the world and closer to nuclear war now than ever before. This is one of the main reasons I left the Democrat party, and will do all I can to elect Donald Trump to the presidency where I am confident, he will walk us back from the brink of war and put us on a path toward peace, freedom and prosperity.
We cannot be prosperous unless we are at peace. And we cannot live free, so long as we have a government that retaliates against its political opponents, undermines our civil liberties, and weaponizes the powers of the government against those they deem a threat. Kamala Harris has shown over the last three and a half years that she will not hesitate to abuse her power to go after political opponents, foremost among them being President Trump. I am their most recent target — they recently placed me on a secret domestic terror watch list for exposing the truth about Kamala Harris’s disastrous record.
Tulsi Gabbard attends a live taping of Hannity at Fox News Channel Studios on September 13, 2023 in New York City. (Steven Ferdman/Getty Images)
We must reject this anti-freedom culture of political retaliation. It goes against who we are and the principles our country was founded upon. We cannot allow our country to be destroyed by politicians who put their own power ahead of the interests of the American people and our country.
Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, if you love our country, and cherish peace and freedom, I urge all Americans to join me in doing all we can to save our country and return President Trump to the White House.
Former Democrat turned independent Tulsi Gabbard represented Hawaii’s 2nd congressional district from 2013 to 2021 in the United States House of Representatives. She was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. Gabbard currently serves as a Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army Reserve where she commands a Civil Affairs Battalion.
The endorsement by independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., shows that Donald Trump is putting together a very broad coalition of supporters, Trump campaign senior adviser Danielle Alvarez told Newsmax on Monday.
Appearing on “Wake Up America,” Alvarez emphasized that “one of the great things that RFK said during his speech endorsing President Trump was not just why President Trump and MAGA Republicans and this movement is so critical for the future of our country, but it was an indictment of the failures of Kamala Harris. This is not the same Democrat Party of the past.”
Alvarez stressed that Harris is “absolutely, dangerously liberal. She is weak and failed. She keeps on talking about day one.”
But Alvarez pointed out that Harris “has been in power for three and a half years and has not delivered on any of the promises that she is currently trying to make.”
She also reiterated that “we remember what is was like — four years of President Trump in the White House and we certainly know the misery of the last three and a half years under Kamala Harris.”
The Trump senior adviser said that “we focus on [Trump’s] record, and we focus on his policy. I always say that President Trump is our best asset, and we lead with him, because he had an incredible four years where we cut taxes, where we secured the border, where we made sure we had peace through strength at home and abroad.”
Alvarez continued that this is “in contrast to the campaign promises that Kamala Harris is making. But if she was going to deliver on those, she would have over the past 3 1/2 years. We have record inflation; we have an open border … and we know the chaos happening on the world stage … she is an absolute failure.”
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
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.
Below is my column in The Hill on the sudden embrace of bipartisanship in Washington … by some of the most partisan figures in our political system. Press and pundits are suddenly reframing Vice President Kamala Harris as a moderate while heralding Justice Amy Coney Barrett for her independence. It is enough to give you vertigo from the media and political spin.
Here is the column:
The late New York Gov. Mario Cuomo once famously observed that “you campaign in poetry; you govern in prose.“ One of the greatest poetic licenses in this election has been the claim of bipartisanship from some of the most rigid partisans in our politics.
Many in the media are reinventing history to appeal to citizens who want more moderation in government. This theme was picked up by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz in his speech before the Democratic National Convention, when he claimed that Vice President Harris was not just a moderate but “never hesitated to reach across that aisle if it meant improving your lives, and she’s always done it with energy, with passion and with joy.”
Harris was one of the most liberal members of the Senate and was never viewed as someone likely to form a compromise on key votes. She was not one of the Democrats commonly referenced as moderates in that body on close votes. Harris was even rated to the left of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). After her ranking by GovTrack was cited widely in the media as showing her as the most liberal member of the Senate, the site took down the page, which had been up for years. Harris is now to be portrayed as a moderate, whether it is true or not.
What was so striking is that Harris was valued by supporters precisely for being so uncompromising and consistently voting with the left. In her prior unsuccessful presidential run, she moved even further left. Harris was the only candidate other than Sanders to say that she wanted to abolish private insurance plans, a position which, like so many others, she has now recanted.
These same advocates of bipartisanship are lionizing Republicans who support Harris while demonizing Robert Kennedy Jr. for doing the same for Trump. To them, one is a profile of courage, the other a profile of corruption.
The poetry of politics was also evident this week after Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices in voting in dissent in a case involving Arizona’s voter identification law. Barrett was praised for opposing the ruling to set aside a lower court order blocking enforcement of a 2022 law requiring registered voters to provide proof of citizenship. The majority (with the liberal justices) also blocked a provision that would have prevented tens of thousands of prior voters in Arizona from voting.
Conservatives were irate at Barrett, particularly after Virginia claimed to have found hundreds of non-citizens on its voting rolls. Other states such as Georgia found a smaller number of non-citizens registering to vote, but polls show widespread support for voter ID laws. None of that seemed to matter to Barrett, who ruled based on her conscience and understanding of the law. The left’s response to Barrett’s vote was the most telling. Her willingness to cross the ideological divide was celebrated. These are some of the same voices who denounced Barrett in her confirmation hearing as a robotic conservative stooge.
Few Democrats were willing to vote for this obviously qualified nominee. That included the newly minted moderate Harris, who voted “nay.”
While some of us at the time challenged this media narrative, given Barrett’s impressive scholarship and proven independence, she was denounced by senators, and her home was even targeted by protesters. Bloody dolls were thrown on her lawn with her young children inside after the location was revealed by activists. Some of these activists might even take credit for Barrett’s repeated votes with the left of the court. But it is not their coercion, but Barrett’s convictions that led to these votes. She has always been a jurist who shows a willingness to follow her principles wherever they take her.
Barrett continues (with Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh) to moderate many decisions with three colleagues on both ends of rulings. Roberts and Kavanaugh routinely rank as the most likely to vote with the majority of the court. This brings us back to the poetry. In her confirmation hearings, senators such as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) attacked her nomination in the same way that they attacked the nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch. Whitehouse portrayed both nominees as adding guaranteed votes for a conservative agenda, reading off the many decisions where conservatives voted as a block.
As I stated in my own testimony in the Gorsuch confirmation hearing, Whitehouse and his colleagues often seem to ignore that the liberal justices in those cases also voted like a block. Justice Sotomayor shows the same low percentage of voting with the opposite end of the court as do her colleagues Justices Alito and Thomas. Yet in her case, the pattern of voting was not viewed as partisan, but as simply getting cases right.
Both Gorsuch and Barrett have routinely voted with their liberal colleagues in major cases, despite the attacks of critics on their independence and integrity.
Most cases before the Supreme Court do not break along ideological lines, despite the portrayal in the media. Indeed, most are resolved unanimously (roughly half) or nearly unanimously by the court.
Take the 2023 cases. Only half of the 6-3 splits featured the six conservative and three liberal justices on opposite sides. Only eight percent (five of 57 cases) were decided 6-3 with the six Republican appointee/three Democratic split. The rest mixed up alliances. The least likely to join the majority of their colleagues were the three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.
The liberal justices, however, are rarely portrayed as ideologues in the media, which consistently portrays the court as controlled by a six-conservative block of rigid partisans. In reality, they are all conscientious jurists trying to get cases right from their jurisprudential viewpoints. The consistency in voting reflects their adherence to their fundamental principles.
Politicians and pundits, ignoring the facts, continue to claim that the court is dysfunctional and ideologically divided. When elections or nominations come along, Democrats attack those on the other side as refusing to compromise or “cross the aisle.”
Many value the poetry of bipartisanship in politics but demand the prose of strict partisanship in governance. Calling Harris a moderate and Barrett a partisan is just part of the poetic license of American politics.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the withdrawal of Robert Kennedy, Jr. from the presidential race and his endorsement of former President Donald Trump. Kennedy’s speech resonated with many long-time Democrats who have found themselves estranged from the party. While Kennedy remains an independent, it is a cautionary tale that is being missed in the “joy” theme of the Democratic National Convention. The fact is that new Republicans are often not the product of ideology and association but anxiety and exclusion. Democrats make Republicans.
Here is the column:
The withdrawal of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from the presidential race and his endorsement of former President Donald Trump was yet another extraordinary moment in an election that has been anything but predictable. Only a year ago, it would have been unthinkable that a sitting president would be effectively forced off a ticket and replaced by a candidate who did not secure a single vote for president.
Now, the nephew of John F. Kennedy and son of the Robert F. Kennedy has not just withdrawn from the Democratic Party but endorsed the Republican nominee. Amidst all of the claimed “joy” of the Democratic National Convention, there is a sobering reality that is being ignored by the ecstatic press and pundits: this is how Democrats make Republicans.
There is an old expression that “a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.”
Irving Kristol explained the neoconservative movement was built by Democrats “mugged by reality.”
Kennedy has not become a Republican but rather joined the roughly half of Americans now identifying as independents. While this country is solidly under the hold of a duopoly of power in the two main parties, only 25% of the country identify as Democrats, and 25% as Republicans.
Kennedy’s departure from the Democrats has been mocked in the press. However, when he spoke on his withdrawal, many of us who have been lifetime members of the party identified with his remarks.
I come from a politically active liberal Democratic family in Chicago. I spent much of my life working for liberals since I first came to Washington as a Democratic House page in the 1970s. I did stints on the Hill or on campaigns with Democrats ranging from Rep. Sid Yates (Ill.) to Sen. William Proxmire (Wis.) to Mo Udall (Arz.). I even worked on the campaign and ran for delegate for RFK Jr.’s uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Then the party changed. Where once they defended free speech, Democrats have rallied behind censorship and blacklisting of those with opposing views. They have sought to block dozens of Republicans from ballots, including former President Trump. To make matters worse, they have done so in the supposed name of democracy.
Those actions were raised by Kennedy in his powerful and poignant withdrawal speech. He detailed how the Democratic party moved to stop him from running against President Biden in the primary, including efforts to block him from ballots. It was an ironic moment. After harassing candidates like RFK and Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips, the Democratic leadership then simply installed their choice at the convention in an unprecedented bait-and-switch.
There could have been a substantive primary that exposed the diminished mental state of Biden and allowed for a democratic choice on the best nominee. Instead, the Democrats prevented such choices from being made and selected a leader with all of the transparency and deliberation of a party Congress in China. Kennedy said that the Democratic Party has virtually shoved him and other voters into the arms of Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
Kennedy observed that “I began this journey as a Democrat, the party of my father, my uncle, the party which I pledged my own allegiance to long before I was old enough to vote.”
He said that his party was the one that championed free speech, government transparency, and opposed unjust wars. “True to its name, it was the party of democracy.”
He said that the party has turned its back on all of the values that once defined it. For former Democrats like Kennedy, running on “joy” is no substitute for these profound changes in the party.
Indeed, the DNC bordered on the creepy as speaker after speaker sold the idea that, if voters could just swallow the Harris candidacy, they would immediately experience joy like some political prozac commercial.
It is not clear whether the red pill/blue pill pitch will be enough, or whether Kennedy’s endorsement will turn the critical votes in swing states.
However, the DNC showed how Democrats make Republicans. The unrelenting identity politics and claims of defending democracy (while opposing democratic choice) only reaffirmed for many that there is no longer a big tent in the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy. There is a serious question whether John F. Kennedy would recognize or support the current Democratic Party. It now rejects many of his core, mainstream values. His nephew highlighted the irony of how the party not only worked to block the ability of opponents to challenge President Biden but worked to “conceal the cognitive decline of the sitting president.”
Even the Washington Post recently admitted that “the 81-year-old had shown signs of slipping for a long time, but his inner circle worked to conceal his decline.” However, the Post failed to note that Vice President Kamala Harris was part of that inner circle. Indeed, she has been touting her close work with Biden in her campaign.
There is little recognition that, if true, it means that Harris, the White House, and leading Democrats lied to the public about Biden’s mental decline for their own political interests.
For Kennedy, it was all too much “and, most sadly … in the name of saving Democracy, the Democratic Party set itself to dismantling it, lacking confidence in its candidate, that its candidate could win in a fair election at the voting booth.”
Elon Musk put it simply: “#FreePavel.” For many, a hashtag of one billionaire calling for the release of another billionaire is hardly a compelling cause. Telegram CEO Pavel Durov, 39, is neither a familiar nor sympathetic figure for most Americans. However, for free speech advocates, Durov’s arrest is a chilling escalation of global censors in using European laws to control speech on the Internet.
The press and pundits heralded the arrest and played up the allegations that Durov is under investigation for fraud and child abuse. Some might think from the headlines that Durov is himself being investigated for committing such crimes. While we have not seen anything akin to a charging sheet, reports indicate that French authorities took the action because of his refusal to yield to their demands to censor content on his messaging app.
Others have been ecstatic that censors could soon come for Musk. Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified in the Trump impeachment proceedings, declared“There’s a growing intolerance for platforming disinfo & malign influence & a growing appetite for accountability. Musk should be nervous.”
Social media is now the dominant form of communication between people. It surpasses telephones. There is, however, a major difference in how such communications are protected. There would be an outcry if AT&T broke into a telephone call to object to the views of the parties and cut off access to the telephone lines until they moderated their views.
The Europeans have been threatening to hold executives liable for how others use their sites. Imagine if a mobster used a telephone to do business and the FBI arrested the CEO of AT&T.
The implication of this case goes far beyond Durov. Social media sites allow large numbers of people to communicate and to associate. They share values or viewpoints, including some that most of us find offensive or repulsive. However, free speech should protect the right of people to associate so long as they do not commit crimes.
Under free speech principles, those crimes should not include viewpoints or ideology. If individuals are engaging in child pornography or human trafficking, they should be arrested. That is conduct, not just speech.
While the media emphasizes the allegations that there are people engaged in fraud or child porn, officials add that Durov has failed to remove viewpoints that they consider extreme or offensive. French officials have cited the failure to engage in greater “content moderation,” the euphemism of censorship.
We have been discussing how countries like France and the United Kingdom have been ramping up anti-free speech crackdowns. Recently, the European Union threatened Musk that he could be charged if he did not censor political speech in this election, including any information deemed by the EU to be false in his interview with Donald Trump.
European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton issued a threatening message to Musk, “We are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.”
The law behind these threats is the Digital Services Act. The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”
In addition to Musk, Robert Kennedy Jr. has denounced the arrest.
This action is not due to the encryption capacity or child porn rationales. European officials have been making the same threats against other sites over the failure to censor views that they deem unacceptable.
Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski wrote “France has threatened Rumble, and now they have crossed a red line by arresting Telegram’s CEO, Pavel Durov, reportedly for not censoring speech.”
Telegram has over 900 million users and allows large groups of people to communicate across different channels. The New York Times reported that officials have targeted the company for its failure, among other things, in allowing “far-right extremist groups” to use the app.
After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech. In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans.
The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confiscatory penalties against not just his company but himself. He would have to resume massive censorship or else face ruin.
Notably, Durov left Russia in 2014 after refusing to comply with Kremlin demands to shut down opposition groups on his VK social network. He later left VK and co-founded Telegram.
European regulators have objected to what they view as misinformation on Telegram about the Ukraine war. Yet, Telegram is also a popular source for Russians to get unfiltered information on the war. It allows them to evade Russian censors due to its encryption capacity.
Americans should not be deceived or distracted by the Durov case. The underlying claim of authority by these officials will impact all users of social media. They are making the long anticipated move to target CEOs to get them to yield as did the executives at sites like Facebook. The fear is that, once these executives are forced into cringing obedience, Europe can regulate speech on a global level.
A.F. Branco Cartoon: Tim Walz’s entire political career has been fueled by a series of lies, such as his military record, IVF—in vitro fertilization, DUI arrest, High Scholl coaching status, and handling of the BLM riots in his state. More lies are to be revealed.
Another Lie? Tim Walz Says “Thank God for IVF” For Giving Him His Children- His Own Wife is Forced to Clarify They DID NOT Use IVF
Margaret Flavin – August 20, 2024
Democrat VP nominee Tim Walz certainly has a habit of stretching the truth to try to win sympathy and voters. He’s just like us y’all! Durning another series of baseless attacks on Republicans, he pointed to his family’s own challenges with infertility and warned that conservatives want to restrict in vitro fertilization IVF), which is something he ‘takes personally’ and has made a point of sharing in interviews. During one such interview, Walz stated, “Thank God for IVF, my wife and I have two beautiful children.” READ MORE…
A.F. Branco Cartoon – By today’s left-wing standards, it appears it’s okay to abuse women if you are a Democrat or a trans-male participating in female sports such as boxing.
The Paris 2024 “Woke-Lympics” – A Descent into Perversion, Blasphemy and Abuse of Women
By Jim Hoft – August 4, 2024
The Paris 2024 “Woke-Lympics” – A Descent into Perversion, Blasphemy and Abuse of Women Reprinted with permission from The Truth About Cancer.
The Paris 2024 Olympics’ opening ceremony has ignited a firestorm of controversy, lambasted as a grotesque display of woke extremism, degeneracy, and satanic overtones. Far from a celebration of athletic prowess and unity, this event has been widely criticized as a blasphemous, perverse spectacle that mocked Christianity and celebrated the macabre. It smacked of cannibalism, ritualistic Satanism, and all sorts of disgusting themes, epitomizing evil debauchery. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Kamala Harris Promises to Impose Abortion on All 50 States as President • Robert Kennedy Suspending His Campaign, Will Endorse Donald Trump • Kamala Says She’ll be a “President for All Americans,” Except the Unborn • 60% of Americans Oppose Kamala Harris’ Plan to Pack the Supreme Court With Leftists
More Pro-Life News • The Democrats National Abortion Convention • Arizona Must Reject Proposition 139, A Radical Amendment Creating a Right to Kill Babies in Abortions • Florida Must Vote Down Amendment 4, Which Imposes Abortions Up to Birth • Did Planned Parenthood Break the Law Doing Free Abortions? • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
Implementing destructive policies isn’t the only thing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have in common. Following the latter’s acceptance speech during Thursday’s Democratic National Convention, it’s clear America’s vice president has learned a thing or two about lying from her senile boss. From abortion to immigration, Harris parroted numerous falsehoods about her record and that of Donald Trump. In case you missed her lackluster screed, here’s a definitive list of the Democrat presidential nominee’s biggest whoppers.
Vice President Kamala Harris falsely claimed that Donald Trump “sent an armed mob to the U.S. Capitol” on Jan. 6. 2021, and further accused the former president of “fann[ing] the flames” after “politicians in his own party begged him to call off the mob and send help.”
That is false. During his J6 speech, Trump specifically telegraphed to protestors to “peacefully and patriotically make [their] voices heard.” Trump also released a video calling for peace during the riot and had previously sought to deploy thousands of National Guard members to the Capitol ahead of the demonstrations.
2. Supreme Court ‘Presidential Immunity’ Decision
Kamala Harris distorted the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity by claiming the decision means Trump “would be immune from criminal prosecution.”
“His explicit intent to jail journalists, political opponents and anyone he sees as the enemy. His explicit intent to deploy our active duty military against our own citizens,” Harris contended in a hyperbolic fashion. “Just imagine Donald Trump with no guardrails, and how he would use the immense powers of the presidency of the United States.”
The vice president’s claim is misleading at best. While a majority of justices determined that presidents possess “absolute immunity” for “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “at least presumptive immunity” for “official acts,” they separately noted that “[t]here is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
The justices further remanded the Biden-Harris Justice Department’s get-Trump lawfare back to the lower courts to determine whether the actions alleged by Special Counsel Jack Smith constitute “official acts.”
3. Trump’s Record on Entitlements
Kamala Harris claimed Donald Trump “tried to cut Social Security and Medicare.” Even The Washington Post’s so-called “fact-checkers”rated a previous version of this claim from the Harris-Walz campaign as “misleading.”
4. School Funding Statistics
During her DNC speech, Kamala Harris attacked Donald Trump for pledging to get rid of the Department of Education.
“We are not going to let him eliminate the Department of Education that funds our public schools,” Harris said.
As the left-wing “fact-checkers” would say, this statement “needs context.” While the federal government does finance public school systems, those funds typically account for less than 10 percent of taxpayer monies given to schools in a given year. During the 2019-2020 school year, for example, “47.5% of funding came from state governments, 44.9% came from local governments, and the federal government provided about 7.6% of school funding,” according to USA Facts.
5. ‘Middle Class’ Roots
Kamala Harris falsely claimed that she came from the “middle class.” As previously noted by journalist Megyn Kelly, Harris’ father was a professor at Stanford University, while her mother was a biomedical scientist at UC Berkley.
6. Trump’s Tax Cuts
Kamala Harris falsely insinuated that the 2017 tax cuts approved by the Trump administration disproportionately benefited America’s wealthiest citizens.
“[Trump] fights for himself and his billionaire friends,” Harris claimed. “And he will give them another round of tax breaks that will add up to $5 trillion to the national debt.”
That is not true. Data produced by the IRS has shown that “on average all income brackets benefited substantially from the Republicans’ tax reform law, with the biggest beneficiaries being working and middle-income filers, not the top 1 percent,” according to The Hill.
7. Trump’s Tariff Policies
Kamala Harris claimed Donald Trump intends to impose a “national sales tax” on Americans that she contended will “raise prices on middle-class families by almost $4,000 a year.”
This claim is misleading and needs context. It appears Harris is citing figures from the left-wing Center for American Progress Action Fund, which, according to The New York Times, estimated that a potential policy “floated” by Trump to raise tariffs to 10 percent on most imports and at least 60 percent on Chinese imports could cost American families $3,900 a year. Other economic groups cited by the Times predict such policies would cost less than the figures estimated by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
8. Nature of Abortion
The vice president falsely asserted that signing a federal law authorizing abortions nationwide would “restore reproductive freedom.” As The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd accurately noted, however, the law would actually “subject thousands of babies and women, nearly 70 percent of whom felt their abortions were forced, unwanted, or contradicted their views, to harm.”
9. GOP Pro-Life Laws
Kamala Harris falsely claimed that Republican pro-life laws that protect thousands of unborn babies from elective abortions bar doctors from treating women dealing with a pregnancy-related health issue, such as a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy.
“I will tell you, over the past two years, I’ve traveled across our country, and women have told me their stories. Husbands and fathers have shared theirs. Stories of women miscarrying in a parking lot, developing sepsis, losing the ability to ever again have children, all because doctors are afraid they may go to jail for caring for their patients. Couples just trying to grow their family, cut off in the middle of IVF treatments,” Harris claimed.
As The Federalist previously reported, “[t]here is a clear legal distinction between an induced abortion, which deliberately intends to end the life of the baby, and the medically classified ‘spontaneous abortions’ such as an ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, or early delivery with the intent of saving the baby and mother.” Furthermore, every pro-life law currently in effect contains exceptions allowing abortions when necessary to save the pregnant mother’s life.
10. Trump’s Position on Abortion
Kamala Harris untruthfully accused Donald Trump of attempting to “enact a nationwide abortion ban, with or without Congress,” designate “a national anti-abortion coordinator,” “force states to report on women’s miscarriages and abortions,” “limit access to birth control,” and outlaw a popular and dangerous abortion drug regime.
As The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd previously noted, Trump has regularly taken the position that laws limiting the murder of children in the womb should be left “up to the states.” He’s voiced opposition to signing a federal law curbing abortion and his vice-presidential pick J.D. Vance “similarly claimed the pill responsible for a 500 percent increase in abortion-related emergency room visits should remain legal and ‘accessible.’”
11. IVF
Kamala Harris falsely insinuated that Donald Trump is to blame if couples are “cut off in the middle of IVF treatments.”
As The Federalist previously reported, “Trump has openly touted in vitro fertilization, even though it is marred with ethical and moral pitfalls, as a procedure that Republicans and pro-life conservatives should promote.”
“Trump has openly touted in vitro fertilization, even though it is marred with ethical and moral pitfalls, as a procedure that Republicans and pro-life conservatives should promote.”
12. Disastrous Border Bill
Kamala Harris lied when claiming that a congressional immigration bill proposed and defeated earlier this year is the “the strongest border bill in decades.”
That statement is categorically false. The bipartisan measure would have enshrined the existing invasion into federal law.
13. Trump’s NATO Comments
While falsely claiming that Donald Trump “encouraged [Vladimir] Putin to invade our allies,” Kamala Harris distorted the former president’s remarks by claiming he told Russia it could “do whatever the hell [it] want[s].” Harris’ characterization of Trump’s remarks is as inaccurate as when her boss said it during his State of the Union address earlier this year.
Trump’s remarks came during a South Carolina rally, during which he recounted a story from when he was president and speaking with a NATO member. Trump purportedly told this state that he would withhold U.S. support if they didn’t pay their minimum defense spending obligations.
“‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’” Trump recalled telling the unidentified NATO member. “‘No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’”
14. America’s Enemies
Kamala Harris claimed“tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong-un” are “rooting” for Donald Trump to win this November.
While there is no definitive way for Harris to know this, the actions of America’s biggest adversaries in the years since she and Biden assumed the White House suggests the exact opposite. Thus far, Russia has invaded Ukraine, Iran-backed Hamas launched a deadly terrorist attack on Israel, North Korea disavowed potential peace with South Korea, and China has ramped up its threats toward Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
Attorneys General from Texas, Idaho, and 14 other states filed suit against the Biden-Harris administration on Friday over a new policy that would allow 1 million illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship without having to first leave the United States.
America First Legal also joined the lawsuit against the policy titled “Keeping Families Together,” which took effect on Monday. The policy, first announced by the White House in June, would allow 500,000 families and another 50,000 stepchildren under 21, already in the country illegally, to apply for lawful permanent residence while paroling in place.
The AGs and Stephen Miller of AFL said that violates the Administrative Procedures Act, among other issues.
“Under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the federal government is actively working to turn the United States into a nation without borders and a country without laws. I will not let this happen. Biden’s new parole workaround unilaterally grants the opportunity for citizenship to unvetted aliens whose first act on American soil was to break our laws. This violates the Constitution and actively worsens the illegal immigration disaster that is hurting Texas and our country,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement.
AGs from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming also joined onto the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
The suit accuses the Biden-Harris administration — “dissatisfied with the system Congress created, and for blatant political purposes” — of trying to create its own immigration system.
Further, it says “DHS ‘cannot use that power to parole aliens en masse,’ which is precisely what PIP amounts to.” The suit says that the policy “incentivizes illegal immigration.”
Said Miller, “It is brazenly unlawful, a deadly accelerant to the ruinous border invasion, and we will use every lawful tool to stop it.”
Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at a campaign rally at the Fiserv Forum on Aug. 20, 2024, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Anna Moneymaker via Getty Images)
Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
Learning isn’t necessarily cumulative. Human experience over the centuries provides lessons, some clearer than others. But each generation has to learn lessons anew, and some do not. The lessons about economic growth taught over the long run of history are clear. Growth is not inevitable, and while riches may be accumulated, or appropriated, by the few in high positions, the lives of the very large majority throughout the centuries have been nasty, brutish, and short.
The exception, the Great Enrichment, began some three centuries ago around the North Sea in the Dutch Republic and in England, according to economic historian Deirdre McCloskey, in societies when people began respecting and encouraging commerce rather than resenting and scorning it. They discovered that when people exchanged goods and services in free markets, with property rights secured by limited government and the rule of law, economies could grow in ways that improved the lives of not just the few but the many. Suddenly, and not just for a moment, the great masses of people went from living on $3 a day, just barely subsistence—and in times of famine or war, not even that—to $130 a day.
The 20th century proved full of lessons for how to produce extended and widely distributed economic growth—and how to squelch it. Growth occurs when free markets are allowed to operate in societies with high levels of trust and the rule of law. It ceases, and living standards plummet, in societies where governments flood the economy with currency, try to control wages and prices, impose centralized economic planning, and outlaw voluntary market transactions.
Governments sometimes impose such measures temporarily in wartime, with various results depending on the course of the war. In peacetime, the results are destructive—in Weimar Germany, the Soviet Union, Mao Zedong’s China, and, most recently, oil-rich Venezuela. And, perhaps, in Kamala Harris’ America. Since President Joe Biden ended his candidacy for reelection four weeks ago, the vice president has said remarkably little about what policies she would pursue as president. Her website has had no issues section. She has taken almost no questions and has undergone nothing like an intensive interview from the press—most members of which, in their enthusiasm for her candidacy, have shown no discomfort at her neglect.
Only last Friday did she begin talking issues, announcing “the first-ever federal ban on price gouging”—she read the word as “gauging”—on food and groceries. Presumably, this was an attempt to address an obvious vulnerability for any candidate with a Biden-Harris pedigree, the fact that administration policy, by showering money on consumers already flooded with lockdown-accumulated cash, stoked inflation that no voter under 60 had experienced as an adult.
But of course, this made no sense. The grocery business is highly competitive, with low profit margins. If one firm “gouges” consumers too much, they can go elsewhere. “It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is,” wrote The Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell. “At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets, and hoarding.”
Rampell has since taken a different view after Harris’ actual speech backpedaled from her campaign’s fact sheet, but her initial take remains persuasive and in line with historic experience, including with the price controls imposed by former President Richard Nixon 53 years ago this month.
Similarly, economically illiterate is Harris’ proposal to give first-time homebuyers a $25,000 government subsidy. Just as colleges and universities have vacuumed up government-subsidized college loans for their own purposes, so obviously developers and home sellers are going to raise their asking prices by $25,000 and pocket the subsidy.
As Jason Furman, head of former President Barack Obama’s second-term Council of Economic Advisers, said of the price gouging announcement, “This is not sensible policy, and I think the biggest hope is that it ends up being a lot of rhetoric and no reality.”
Is it fair to argue that Harris has learned nothing from the dismal history of price controls on the basis of just one proposal? Yes, if it’s just the only thing she has proposed in a whole month as the de facto and de jure Democratic nominee for president. And yes, as she has never personally renounced the similarly outlandish promises she made in 2019 in her campaign for the 2020 nomination—a ban on fracking, defunding the police, abolishing private health insurance, “snatching” drug company patents. Tweets from anonymous staffers ditching these policies don’t count.
The delicious irony here is that the party favored by college graduates, many of them smugly confident of their knowledge and wisdom, is nominating a candidate who has shown no sign of learning from the dismal history of economic ukases.
The government, for the past year, has overstated joblessness by 818,000 jobs. That revision comes on top of the monthly revisions already made. It is probably not a conspiracy to help Joe Biden and Kamala Harris look good or they would have waited until after the election, not before early voting, to announce the revision. But it is troubling that the government data was off by so much and equally as troubling that politicians and the press together have lectured Americans that the public did not know what they knew.
Last week, former CNN host Don Lemon went to Atlantic City, New Jersey, to interview people on the boardwalk about the election. One man said he made more money under Donald Trump. Lemon proceeded to tell the man he was wrong because “the data” show Americans are doing better now. Lemon behaved like much of the press and so many Democratic politicians.
If you tell the press, you are worse off now than you were four years ago, the press claim you have been spun into believing lies. But the lie was that the economy and job creation were far better than they were. Americans knew. The experts got it wrong, and the press enforced groupthink by the expert class. Where once an American’s lived experience had to be accurately captured by the press, when that experience conflicts with the popular narrative, the narrative must prevail over the truth.
The narrative, these days, favors whatever it will take to keep Donald Trump out of office. The narrative is we have won the fight against inflation as a nation. Never mind that salaries are only starting to grow again, and prices are still increasing, just not as fast. A 3% increase after a 30% increase is not much of a victory for working Americans. It is everything to the Democrat elite and press.
The pattern is consistent. Americans should not believe their eyes or experience. They should believe what they are told. Only when everyone collectively sees the same thing at the same time does it become too inconvenient for the press and politicians to keep lying. Everyone seeing Biden onstage at the CNN debate was just much too much. He had to be discarded. But pay no attention to the same people tossing Biden overboard begging Biden, only a year ago, to replace Harris because of her weaknesses as a candidate.
This week, Americans are being told the “vibe” has shifted to Harris and the Democrats are back. We are, at best, back to polling in February that had a tied race and key swing states leaning to the Republicans. Pay no attention to Donald Trump historically outperforming his polling by a few percentage points. Pay attention only to the shift to Harris. Pay no attention to Tim Walz’s lies about his family’s use of IVF, his military record, the arrest rates in Minneapolis after the 2020 riots, or how long he kept kids out of Minnesota schools. But pay extreme attention to JD Vance going to Yale, just not to how he got there or from whence he came.
The elite and press are beclowning themselves. The Bureau of Labor Statistics performs an annual audit of data in August every year looking back over the prior year’s data to make sure its numbers are accurate. Financial institutions have known for some time the numbers would come back and be revised downward substantially after month-over-month annual revisions downward. Still, the government’s revision was the largest revision in the data since 2009.
Reporters lecturing Americans on how well off they are even if they do not feel like it should probably pause a bit and reflect. They will not, of course. They never do. Meanwhile, Republicans have yet another issue that they can put forward to the public. The economy has not been firing on all cylinders. Fewer jobs were created than claimed. And Harris’ first day on the job was 3 1/2 years ago.
The message matters. The “vibe” may favor the Democrats. The data favors Republicans. But Republicans must press their advantage.
We have previously discussed the cancel campaigns targeting JK Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series. Rowling was not only the greatest selling author of all time but a wildly popular writer until she publicly opposed certain transgender policies as inimical to the advances in feminism. Now, she is the target of a lawsuit by Algerian boxer Imane Khelif, the gold-medal winning athlete who had previously failed a gender test to confirm that she is a female fighter. We previously discussed that global debate, but Khelif is now accusing Rowling out of many thousands of critics of being a cyberbully. X owner Elon Musk has also been named in the lawsuit.
She held her ground after Scotland passed a draconian law, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. The new crime under the law covers “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. That crime covers insulting comments and anything “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive.”
Rowling has been the target of a global campaign due to her rejection of transgender laws and policies. Many on the left have unleashed book bans and burnings. I have been critical of that campaign. Even third parties who have supported Rowling’s right to free speech have been targeted in cancel campaigns.
Rowling previously posted various responses to the controversy on her X account on August 7, including: “For the record, bombarding me with pictures of athletic women to ‘teach’ me that women don’t all look like Barbie is like spamming me with pics of differently shaped potatoes to prove rocks are edible. I can still see the difference and you look frankly bonkers.”
She later also posted: “Commentators pretending critics of the IOC’s reliance on documents rather than sex testing think Khelif is trans are straw-manning. I don’t claim Khelif is trans. My objection, and that of many others, is to male violence against women becoming an Olympic sport.”
She further wrote on X how she was concerned over both boxers challenged over their gender at the Olympics: “What will it take to end this insanity? A female boxer left with life-altering injuries? A female boxer killed?”
France has eviscerated free speech protections over the last few decades with speech criminalization laws. There is some question whether the French laws would apply to tweets made outside of the country. These laws criminalize speech under vague standards referring to “inciting” or “intimidating” others based on race or religion. For example, fashion designer John Galliano has been found guilty in a French court on charges of making anti-Semitic comments against at least three people in a Paris bar. At his sentencing, Judge Anne Marie Sauteraud read out a list of the bad words used by Galliano to Geraldine Bloch and Philippe Virgitti, including using ‘dirty whore” in criticism.
In another case, the father of French conservative presidential candidate Marine Le Pen was fined because he had called people from the Roma minority “smelly.” A French teenager was charged for criticizing Islam as a “religion of hate.”
Rowling has every right to be heard on the Olympic boxing controversy. This debate raises core issues that touch on a wide array of political speech. Khelif has the ability to refute these claims through the exercise of her own free speech. As in the past battles fought by Rowley, her effort to advocate for women’s rights is also a major test over free speech in Europe.
Top Stories • Tim Walz Defends Killing Babies in Abortions Up to Birth: That’s “Reproductive Freedom” • Court Stops New York Attorney General Letitia James From Shutting Down Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers • While Planned Parenthood Kills Babies in Free Abortions, Pro-Life Group Holds Diaper Drive for Moms in Need • Texas Medical Board Protects Disabled Babies From Abortions
More Pro-Life News • Arkansas Supreme Court Tosses Radical Pro-Abortion Ballot Measure • Tim Walz is So Radically Pro-Abortion, He Signed a Bill Allowing Forced Abortions • Harris and Walz Would be the Most Extreme Pro-Abortion Administration in History • Democrats Love Killing Babies, Their Platform Mentions Abortion 13 Times • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is investigating reports of nonprofits illegally registering noncitizens to vote.
“Nonprofit organizations have been located outside Texas Department of Public Safety Driver License offices, operating booths offering to assist in voter registration for persons doing business,” reads an Aug. 21 press release from Paxton’s office.
Investigators with Paxton’s Election Integrity Unit recently performed “undercover operations” in “major metropolitan areas” regarding possible registration of noncitizens to vote, according to the release. Investigators have “already confirmed” nonprofit registration efforts outside Texas DPS offices.
“If eligible citizens can legally register to vote when conducting their business at a DPS office, why would they need a second opportunity to register with a booth outside?” Paxton said in the release. “The Biden-Harris Administration has intentionally flooded our country with illegal aliens, and without proper safeguards, foreign nationals can illegally influence elections at the local, state, and national level.”
The attorney general’s office is continuing an “ongoing investigation,” Paxton said in a statement to The Federalist.
“We cannot provide more information at this time,” Paxton said. “It is encouraging that these booths are now prohibited from operating on DPS property.”
The DPS had allegedly been tacitly allowing these efforts near driver’s license offices, according to Texas Scorecard. But due to Paxton’s investigation, the department “temporarily prohibited” voter registration groups from operating on its property.
“It is a crime to vote — or to register to vote — if you are not a United States Citizen,” Paxton said in the release. “Any wrongdoing will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”
It is a “crime in Texas to lie about one’s citizenship” or to help another person do so when registering to vote, according to the release. The crime brings a punishment of up to two years in a state jail and a $10,000 fine. It is also illegal in Texas for noncitizens to vote or help someone else do so. Violations bring a punishment of up to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
“Texans are deeply troubled by the possibility that organizations purporting to assist with voter registration are illegally registering noncitizens to vote in our elections,” the release said.
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott echoed a similar sentiment on X, referring to Paxton’s investigation.
“Illegally registering non-citizens to vote won’t be tolerated in Texas. It’s a crime,” Abbott said. “We won’t let cheaters influence elections in Texas.”
Illegally registering non-citizens to vote won't be tolerated in Texas.
It's a crime.
Attorney General @KenPaxtonTX is thoroughly investigating it.
Logan Washburn is a staff writer covering election integrity. He graduated from Hillsdale College, served as Christopher Rufo’s editorial assistant, and has bylines in The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. Logan is originally from Central Oregon but now lives in rural Michigan.
A manhunt is underway in Arizona for a suspect who threatened to kill former President Trump ahead of a rally in the Copper State on Thursday. The Cochise County Sheriff’s Office has identified the suspect as 66-year-old Ronald Lee Syvrud. The sheriff’s office said Syvrud has outstanding warrants from the state of Wisconsin for DUI, failure to appear for DUI and from Graham County, Arizona, for hit-and-run and felony failure to register as a sex offender. The sheriff’s office said it also has an absconder hold for Syvrud for failing to register as a sex offender.
A manhunt is underway in Arizona for Ronald Lee Syvrud. (Cochise County Sheriff’s Office)
Syvrud is listed on the Wisconsin Department of Corrections sex offender registry for “second-degree sexual assault of a child” with an Arizona address. Court records reviewed by Fox News Digital show Syvrud was most recently charged with assault in June, but that was dropped in July.
The sheriff’s office posted on Facebook that Syvrud is being sought “as an investigative lead for threats to kill a presidential candidate,” but did not elaborate. Fox News Digital later confirmed that the “presidential candidate” is Trump.
The threat against former President Trump’s life comes after the assassination attempt on the Republican presidential nominee during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, last month. The sheriff’s office told Fox News Digital that there are “no known ties to Pennsylvania, and we are working with local, state, and federal agencies.”
The former president held his first outdoor rally on Wednesday since the assassination attempt, speaking behind a wall of bulletproof glass at a podium in Asheboro, North Carolina.
Former President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks behind bulletproof glass during a campaign rally at the North Carolina Aviation Museum & Hall of Fame in Asheboro, North Carolina, August 21, 2024. (PETER ZAY/AFP via Getty Images)
Trump is visiting the southern border in Cochise County, Arizona, Thursday while continuing to campaign for the November election. He’s been spending the week campaigning across battleground states. At a Thursday afternoon press conference, Trump appeared to be unaware of the manhunt when asked for comment. The former president said he was aware it might be “dangerous” for him to be there but nevertheless, “I have a job to do.”
“I haven’t heard about that. They probably want to keep it from me,” Trump said, when asked to respond to the manhunt. “Thank you for telling me. Let’s get out of here, right now!” Trump joked. He again thanked the reporter for telling him.
Trump then pivoted to remarks on the assassination attempt in Butler, saying he has “great respect for the Secret Service” who jumped “on top of me with bullets flying.”
“I have great respect. But no, I haven’t heard that,” Trump said, referring back to the manhunt underway. “But I’m not that surprised. And the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.
The U.S. Secret Service told Fox News Digital it is aware of and tracking the manhunt in Arizona and referred all further inquiries to the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office for further comments, including potential ties to Butler.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the Trump campaign for a response.
Bradford Betz is a Fox News Digital breaking reporter covering crime, political issues, and much more.
Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden appear onstage during the first day of the Democratic National Convention on Monday in Chicago. (Justin Sullivan via Getty Images)
As Democrats nominated Vice President Kamala Harris in Chicago this week, speakers repeated multiple blatant falsehoods. The legacy media seems unlikely to expose these lies, so The Daily Signal will break them down here.
Each lie framed former President Donald Trump—the Republican nominee—and his party as more radical than they really are, or shifted responsibility to them for the Biden-Harris administration’s record on key issues such as inflation.
1. A Nationwide Abortion Ban
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
Multiple speakers, including the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, claimed that Trump or the GOP would pass a nationwide ban on abortion.
“And we know if these guys get back in the White House, they’ll start jacking up the cost on the middle class,” Walz said on Wednesday night. “They’ll repeal the Affordable Care Act. They’ll gut Social Security and Medicare, and they will ban abortion across this country with or without Congress.”
On Monday, President Joe Biden declared, “And you know, Trump will do everything to ban abortion nationwide.”
🚨President Biden says President Trump "will do everything to ban abortion nationwide." Trump opposes a nationwide abortion ban, and even when he supported bans on abortion after 15 weeks gestation, he supported exceptions for rape, incest, and threats to the mother's life. #DNCpic.twitter.com/DBpa3mpGwk
Trump has pledged not to cut Social Security and Medicare, and he has repeatedly stated his opposition to a nationwide abortion ban. He says he supports states making their own laws on abortion, as the Supreme Court allowed when it overturned 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision with 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
As president, Trump supported a national ban on abortion after 20 weeks gestation, and earlier this year, he suggested he might support banning abortion at the 15- or 16-week mark.
Since April, however, he has stated that he would leave abortion legislation “up to the states” and insisted that he wouldn’t sign a national ban even if Congress passed one. Trump has always supported exceptions for rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother.
2. Trump Would Ban In Vitro Fertilization
Multiple Democratic leaders suggested that Trump would ban in vitro fertilization, a fertility treatment in which a man’s sperm and a woman’s eggs are fertilized in a dish and then doctors implant one or multiple embryos inside a woman’s uterus. The IVF process often involves the creation of several human embryos that may never be used, raising ethical questions. Some same-sex couples have used the process to produce children with their combined genes and the help of an opposite-sex donor, and, with male couples, the help of a surrogate mother to carry the baby to term.
Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who shared her struggles with infertility and celebrated the birth of her children through IVF, warned that Trump would ban the practice.
“Trump’s anti-woman crusade has put other Americans’ right to have their own families at risk, because if they win, Republicans will not stop at banning abortion,” she said on Tuesday night. “They will come for IVF next.”
Walz suggested Wednesday that Republicans would threaten IVF. He also bragged about protecting “reproductive freedom” in Minnesota, a euphemism for abortion.
“In Minnesota, we respect our neighbors and the personal choices they make,” he said. “We’ve got a golden rule: Mind your own damn business. And that includes IVF and fertility treatments.”
He spoke about how he and his wife needed “fertility treatments” to have their children, saying, “I’m letting you in on how we started a family because this is a big part [of] what this election is about.”
While Walz has occasionally suggested that his family used IVF, his wife Gwen clarified that they used intrauterine insemination instead. (While intrauterine insemination involves the insertion of sperm into a woman’s uterus, IVF involves further steps, including the conception of a baby outside the womb.)
“Americans want the hope of IVF, not the fear that it might be taken away,”Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said on Tuesday night.
Yet Trump does not oppose IVF, and the threat to IVF—even in Alabama—has been widely exaggerated.
The issue emerged after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the destruction of unused embryos conceived through IVF constituted the wrongful death of a minor and that embryos had inherent human rights because they represent unique individuals with human DNA. This decision led some fertility clinics in the state to shut their doors because they routinely destroy unwanted embryos.
Yet the Alabama legislature quickly passed—and Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, quickly signed—a bill shielding IVF clinics from liability for the destruction of embryos. The clinics resumed services shortly afterward.
“We want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies, not harder,” he said. “That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every state in America.”
“I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious little beautiful baby,” Trump added. “I support it.” He went on to call on the Alabama Legislature to act to support IVF, and it did so with the legislation above.
👖🔥: First Tammy Duckworth warns that Trump's "anti-woman crusade" will target IVF. Then Tim Walz suggests Trump will go after "IVF and fertility treatments." Then a DNC ad claims the GOP wants "to put a stop to" IVF. Finally, watch what Trump himself says about IVF. pic.twitter.com/hC5lGda39G
Many speakers condemned Project 2025, an initiative led by The Heritage Foundation in partnership with over 100 other conservative organizations. The project, a policy blueprint for a future conservative presidential administration, offered to work with any political campaign open to supporting those policies. Heritage and its allies launched the project in April 2023, before Trump had won the Republican nomination. And while many Project 2025 staff had worked in Trump’s administration, the project did not consult with Trump or any other Republican candidate in drafting the document.
Even so, Democrats repeatedly introduced Project 2025 at the convention as “Trump’s plan.”
Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow presented Project 2025 as “the Republican blueprint for a second Trump term.” She went on to claim that Project 2025 aims “to turn Donald Trump into a dictator.”
👖🔥Setting Mallory McMorrow straight: 1⃣Project 2025 is from Heritage, not GOP or Trump campaign 2⃣It doesn't turn Trump into a "dictator," it brings the bureaucracy back under the prez 3⃣DOJ has already been weaponized, Project 2025 tries to reverse it https://t.co/0DEwPruJqLpic.twitter.com/52PBFExtvB
Yet neither Trump nor the Republican Party have adopted Project 2025, and the project merely aims to bring the bureaucracy back under the control of the people’s elected president, not make him a “dictator.”Project 2025 would enable the president to fire certain administrative staff who oppose his or her agenda, bringing the federal bureaucracy back in line with the Founders’ vision for the executive branch.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said, “Donald Trump wants to put our 1787 Constitution through his Project 2025 paper shredder and make everyday January 6.”
🚨Note to Jasmine Crockett: Project 2025 restores the Constitution, it doesn't put the document through a "shredder." These false #DNC talking points are getting more and more divorced from reality. https://t.co/mMP1wBmhr0pic.twitter.com/ySUwrKgeWF
Project 2025 does not undermine the Constitution, but rather aims to bring the executive branch back in line with the Constitution after the growth of independent agencies, federal government unions, and new regulations insulated it from the people’s elected president, making possible a “deep state” (where people who are answerable to the president under Article II of the Constitution nonetheless blatantly oppose his policies from within his administration).
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said, “Let’s talk about Project 2025, Donald Trump’s road map to ban abortion in all 50 states.”
He went on to cite a few passages from the Project 2025 book “Mandate for Leadership,” mischaracterizing what the passages state.
“On page 562, it says that Donald Trump could use an obscure law from the 1800s to single-handedly ban abortion in all 50 states, even putting doctors in jail,” Polis said. Page 562 does not mention banning abortion in all 50 states, but it does mention laws preventing the distribution of abortion pills in the mail.
“Page 451 says the only legitimate family is a married mother and father where only the father works,” the governor added. Yet Page 451 says nothing of the sort. While it does mention the importance of a father in the home, it never suggests or implies that mothers cannot or should not work outside the home.
👖🔥On the left, Jared Polis says "Page 451 [of Project 2025] says the only 'legitimate family' is a married mother and father where only the father works." On the right, you can read Page 451 for yourself. There's nothing about only the father working. pic.twitter.com/IJb2QCyI15
Speakers repeatedly brought up another familiar talking point, accusing Republicans of banning books. Leftists crafted this talking point to oppose leaders in the parental rights movement who objected to sexualized and pornographic books in school libraries. Groups like Moms for Liberty oppose sexually explicit books in school libraries, but they are not demanding that publishers retract the books or that the government ban them.
Yet Democrats repeatedly condemned Trump and Republicans for “banning books.”
“Shutting down the Department of Education, banning our books—none of that will prepare our kids for the future,” former first lady Michelle Obama said Tuesday. “Demonizing our children for being who they are and loving who they love—look, that doesn’t make anybody’s life better.”
🚨Michelle Obama engages in gaslighting about "book banning," claiming that conservatives are "demonizing our children for being who they are" when we're saying that gender ideology is actually a dangerous lie that victimizes kids. #DNChttps://t.co/y4kNTMC1jkpic.twitter.com/psFpHKHuRZ
Obama’s reference to “demonizing our children” appears to be an oblique attack on the parents who oppose LGBTQ lessons in school for young children on the grounds that they don’t want their kids exposed to discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation.
Obama dismissed the very serious concerns that parents have about sexual and gender indoctrination of children at young ages as “demonizing our children” when, in reality, the movement aims to protect kids from age-inappropriate topics that may conflict with their values and beliefs.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., managed to tie Project 2025 to “book bans” in a speech condemning her state’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis.
“For the people of my state, Project 2025 isn’t just a threat. It’s a reality that we battle every day,” she said on Wednesday. “Today in Florida, state policy requires that kids are taught racist lies about so-called benefits of slavery; books are banned; teachers are censored; and our LGBTQ+ community endures endless state-sponsored hate, even a cruel ‘Don’t Say Gay’ school law.”
Wasserman Schultz appeared to mischaracterize Florida’s history curriculum, which details the harsh conditions slaves endured and explains that “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit” both while enslaved and when freed, William Allen, a descendant of slavery who helped write the curriculum, told Fox News.
The “Don’t Say Gay” law, the proper name of which is the Parental Rights in Education Bill, does not mention the word “gay” but does bar classroom instruction—not casual discussion—of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” with children in third grade or younger.
👖🔥So much gaslighting: Debbie Wasserman Schultz twists education policy on history, parental rights, and "book bans." No, Florida doesn't teach "racist lessons," and it doesn't prevent teachers from saying "gay." https://t.co/1BeJkOOThzpic.twitter.com/hEnbh86Qi8
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg urged Americans to “embrace the leaders who are out there building bridges and reject the ones who are out there banning books.”
Pete Buttigieg repeats the accusation that Republicans are "banning books." FACT CHECK: False. Removing books from school libraries is not the same as banning them. https://t.co/1BeJkOOThzpic.twitter.com/XS2MnUyPpR
Harris has repeatedly suggested that the real culprit behind rising prices is corporate greed or “price gouging,” and this theme has repeatedly emerged at the DNC.
Shawn Fain, president of the United Automobile Workers union, echoed this talking point.
“Corporate greed turns blue-collar blood, sweat, and tears into Wall Street stock buybacks and CEO jackpots,” Fain declared. “It causes inflation. It hurts workers, it hurts consumers, and it hurts America.”
👖🔥UAW President Shawn Fain: "Corporate greed… causes inflation." If "greedflation" were to blame for our current economic woes, why is the producer price index higher than the consumer price index?🤔 https://t.co/KG4HehupQtpic.twitter.com/34yZzupOD9
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., who is speaking Thursday, will rail against companies for price gouging and greed, according to prepared remarks obtained by Axios.
Casey will condemn “greedflation,” which he describes as “big corporations jacking up their prices—corporate profits are up 75%, five times the rate of inflation.” Casey, who is up for reelection this year, has pushed this message in a new ad.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., urged Democrats to tackle “price gouging,” echoing Harris in suggesting that greed, not government spending, is driving inflation.
Of course, Harris did not pioneer this talking point. Biden has previously blamed corporate greed for inflation, but as Heritage Foundation Research Fellow EJ Antoni pointed out, there is a far more obvious culprit: government spending.
As Antoni noted, “One of the functions of money is that of a measuring tool. If a yardstick were to shrink from 36 inches down to just 30, it would take 120 of these shortened yardsticks to cover the distance of a football field, instead of 100. As the dollar has lost value, it takes more dollars to measure the value of the things we buy.”
While Americans feel the pain of inflation, so do businesses. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Businesses have gotten the short end of the stick,” Antoni explained. “The producer price index is used to measure inflation on the products and services businesses buy—sometimes called wholesale inflation—and that index has risen 17.5% since Biden took office. Conversely, the consumer price index, the widely cited metric for inflation faced by American families, is up 17.1% over that same time.”
“Businesses have actually been sheltering consumers from some cost increases in an effort to maintain market share and not lose customers,” he wrote. “That also explains why, according to the Biden administration’s Census Bureau, total corporate profits have fallen for the last six quarters after adjusting for inflation.”
“If alleged price gouging were really the cause of inflation, did businessmen magically become greedy when Biden took office?” Antoni asked. “Were corporations never greedy in the 40 years leading up to Biden’s inflationary expansion of government? Businesses haven’t even passed all their higher costs on to consumers; if they’re trying to be greedy, they’re doing it all wrong.”
If inflation is caused by corporate "greed" then why are producer and consumer prices both up by 19% since Jan '21 w/ consumer price increases only just recently catching up to price increases faced by businesses? Asking for a friend… pic.twitter.com/EBLwxyEEwR
The crackdown on free speech continues in the United Kingdom as officials use recent rioting to justify a roundup of citizens who they view as “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” The government is ramping up arrests of those with “extremist ideologies” in the latest wave of arrests. The crackdown includes those accused of misogynist views. In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how difficult it is to get a free people to give up freedoms. They have to be afraid, very afraid. For that reason, governments tend to attack free speech during periods of public anger or fear. That pattern is playing out, yet again, in the United Kingdom. The recent anti-immigration riots have given officials a renewed opportunity to use anti-free speech laws to target those with opposing views. For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests. A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.” Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
After the sentencing Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target of Ireland’s proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law. It covers the possession of material deemed hateful. The law is a free speech nightmare. The law makes it a crime to possess “harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivializing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”
The Brock case proved, as feared, a harbinger of what was to come. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has vowed to crack down on people “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” That includes what she calls extreme misogyny.
Cooper said that the problem revealed by the recent protests was “gaps in the current system” and stressed that “it’s not OK any more to ignore the massive growing threat caused by online hatred towards women and for us to ignore it because we’re worried about the line, rather than making sure the line is in the right place as we would do with any other extremist ideology.”
She added: “For too long governments have failed to address the rise in extremism, both online and on our streets, and we’ve seen the number of young people radicalized online grow. Hateful incitement of all kinds fractures and frays the very fabric of our communities and our democracy.”
For free speech advocates, it is chilling to hear UK officials state that they have been too lax on free speech in the past and must now take censorship and arrests more aggressively. The United Kingdom has a myriad of laws criminalizing speech with vague terms allowing for arbitrary enforcement. For example, Public Order Act 1986 prohibits any expressions of racial hatred, defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group’s color, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
Section 18 of the Act specifically includes any speech that is “threatening, abusive, or insulting.” An arrest does not have to be based on a showing of intent to “stir up racial hatred,” but can merely be based on a charge that “having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”
For those Americans who have remained silent during as this anti-free speech movement grows, you need only to look to the United Kingdom to see what this movement means for our “indispensable right.” That wave has now reached our shores, and it will require each one of us to defend a right that defines us all.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.