Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions


BY: JOSH HAWLEY | SEPTEMBER 15, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/15/the-lefts-war-on-history-is-really-a-war-on-the-god-of-the-bible/

Author Josh Hawley profile

JOSH HAWLEY

MORE ARTICLES

The following remarks were given at the National Conservative Conference on Sept. 12, 2022.

It is a pleasure to be with you once again.

At the first National Conservatism conference, I spoke about the left’s goal of unmaking American culture and community. Last year, I spoke about their goal of unmaking manhood.

This year, I want to talk about their efforts to unmake history. Specifically, the history of our country and our founding — and the revolution on which both were based.

I take as my point of departure the words of John F. Kennedy at his inaugural address in 1961, when he famously reminded his generation: “We dare not forget that we are the heirs of that first revolution.” He meant, of course, the Revolution of 1776, which he described as grounded in the “the belief – that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”

Now, that is an interesting contention. And Kennedy was not alone in making it. But where did it come from? Where did the idea that the rights of man come from God, not the generosity of the state, originate?

The answer is clear, if often and deliberately overlooked in our day: that idea came from the Bible. And that brings me to my contention to you today. We are a revolutionary nation precisely because we are the heirs of the revolution of the Bible.

This was a revolution that began with the founding of the nation of Israel at Sinai; that gathered pace with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth in the days of ancient Rome. This was a revolution of ideas and culture, of society and government and faith – it was truly, to quote the Bible itself, a revolution that turned the world upside down.

Let me be more specific. To a world composed of clans and tribes, the Bible introduced the very idea of the individual. To a world that valued the wealthy and well-born before all others, the Bible taught the dignity of the common man. To a world that prized order and control, the Bible spoke of liberty.

Without the Bible, there is no modernity. Without the Bible, there is no America. And now our biblical inheritance is again at the center of our politics. It is the question of the age. 

The woke left that controls today’s Democrat Party is on a campaign to remake this nation. They want us to believe this country is irredeemably racist and oppressive. They tell us our true founding came with the advent of the slave trade on this continent.

They reject our history and our traditions. They say sex is merely a social construct. That men can get pregnant. That women can be men. That the nuclear family is a repressive institution.

And their real target in all this is the inheritance of the Bible. What they particularly dislike about America is our dependence on biblical teaching and tradition. What they particularly dislike about our culture is the Bible’s influence on it. And now they want to break that influence for good. 

My argument is simple: They’re wrong.

Whatever your own beliefs, whatever your background, the revolution of the Bible is worth defending. It is worth preserving. It is the true source of the rights of man and the liberties we cherish. It has taught us what we know of dignity and equality.

The Bible has made us who we are. And it is critical to our future.

Individual Agents of God’s Purpose

Let me start with what is perhaps our most cherished ideal as Americans, the ideal of the individual.

There is a myth long loved by certain leftists that the ancient world was a free, secular place where people believed as they wanted and lived lives of their own making. We know from historians that nothing could be further from the truth. In the ancient world, the individual as such hardly existed. There was no such thing as individualism.

The ancient world was a place of hierarchy. Every thing, every person, had a place, fixed and unchanging, bound to where it was by the order of the cosmos. Some were born to rule, most were born to follow, many were born to be slaves — that was the belief.

Every family had its ancestral gods, and the family head alone had the right to rule the household in the gods’ name. Every city had its patron deity, which every citizen was bound to worship. In fact, to be a citizen was to be a member of a particular city and a worshiper of a particular god or gods.

There was no such thing as freedom of conscience in this world, no such thing as individual decision. As the nineteenth-century historian Fustel de Coulanges put it, “The human person counted for very little against that holy and almost divine authority which was called country or state.”

As for history — well, history was made by those few the “order of nature” designated to rule. Always men of social standing. Usually wealthy. The natural elite.

The Bible challenged all of this, and right from the very beginning. In Genesis 12, God calls Abraham, a nobody from nowhere — no social standing, no claim to power or rule — God calls this man to leave his father’s house and his father’s gods, to leave the markers of meaning and identity in the ancient world, and to serve him — the one true God, Scripture claims.

God calls Abraham to stand before him as an individual. God’s gaze rests on him personally.

Or as Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik writes, Abraham “could not find solace in the silent companionship of God whose image was reflected in the boundless stretches of the cosmos. Only when he met God … as Father, Brother, and Friend … did he feel redeemed.”

God tells Abraham that as an individual he — he personally — will be God’s agent of blessing and renewal for all the world. We see the same pattern repeated in the New Testament. Jesus says salvation is available to all who will come to him, and that those who follow him will be called “sons of God.”

Meaning: shapers of history. World changers. People through whom God himself will act.

And with this, the idea of the individual is born. One need not be a member of this family or that to be significant. One need not have wealth or social standing. One need only heed the call of God.

In the words of historian Larry Siedentop, “Christ reveals a God who is potentially present in every believer…. Through an act of faith in Christ, human agency can become the medium for God’s love.” Or to say it another way, every person can become an agent of God’s purpose—as an individual.

Where does this leave the old idea of fate and controlling destiny? Done away with. Where does leave the notion that one’s place in the world is fixed and cannot be changed? Abolished.

Now the individual person becomes an agent of change. Now he or she becomes a maker of history.

The Bible invents this kind of individual. And the Bible reveals the dignity of the common man.

Read the Bible through and you will find across its pages a decided preference for the common, the ordinary, the overlooked—as opposed to the elite, the wealthy, and the socially powerful. God chooses Abraham from nowhere. He famously prioritizes Jacob, who was the second son. King David, before he was king, was the least of his brothers and the least likely to rule.

This same theme finds equally pointed expression in the New Testament. The Apostle Peter preaches in his first sermon that God’s spirit — his very presence — is now available for all people, as the ancient prophets had foretold — men and women, old and young.

Then there is the Apostle Paul, who said, “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.”

To a society that privileged wealth and status, a society that disdained workers and mothers and children and common folk, the Bible says: each has dignity. The common things of life have dignity. Motherhood. Home. Labor.

It has hard to overstate the disdain the world of Greece and Rome held for common laborers, people who worked with their hands. Not in the Bible. The patriarchs raised livestock. Jesus was a carpenter and his disciples fishermen. Paul made tents.

And the Bible emphasizes over and again the power of labor that is offered to God. Work unto God, Scripture says, and God will use that work to further his good purposes in the world. He will make the work matter. He will make it last, however common or mundane.

The ancient world honored the high and mighty. The Bible, to paraphrase the Canadian theorist Charles Taylor, affirmed the significance of ordinary life.

I have two small boys at home and I love to read to them. Among their favorites is Tolkien, who captures this theme beautifully in “The Lord of the Rings.” “Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.”

There is no ideal more central to American life than the dignity of the common man. And it is an ideal given to us by the Bible. The biblical tradition also gave us a new concept of liberty.

It’s interesting: in the ancient near east, Mesopotamia, the creation stories often involved the gods founding primordial cities, and then when humans came along designating human kings to rule the cities on the gods’ behalf.

Not in the Bible. Oh God does indeed designate someone to exercise his authority and carry forward his purposes. Genesis makes much of that. But it’s not a king. It’s Adam and Eve, on behalf of all humanity. From the first, the Bible pictures individuals as capable of self-rule.

For the early Christian philosopher Tertullian, Jesus’s maxim to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” had clear political implications: offer to Caesar your money, Tertullian said, but offer “to God your self.”

The point was, individuals, as God’s image-bearers, belonged to God and to him alone, not to the emperor or some far-away king. God and God alone had the right to claim the individual’s obedience: no one else. No government. No king.

The individual deserved liberty to respond to God’s call on his or her life. It’s right there in the Exodus, the story of God calling a people to follow him by liberating them from oppression. It’s there in the Apostle Paul, who wrote that it is for liberty that we have been set free.

This is a concept of liberty virtually unknown to the ancient world. The Greeks spoke of liberty from time to time, but for them and their philosophers, liberty meant mainly life in accordance with the order of nature. Which meant hierarchy.

Plato and Aristotle, for example, both assumed “freedom” for most individuals meant obeying their moral and social betters. The Romans famously valued self-government, at least for part of their history. But they too saw the right to self-rule as confined to the small class of individuals fit by nature to be citizens. Everybody else was a dependent.

And neither Romans nor Greek recognized significant limits on government power.

But if God’s spirit can be poured out on all people, if God has called each person to be his delegate and exercise his authority, surely that has political implications. Surely that means citizenship cannot be confined to the elite. Surely it means even the common man has the right to self-rule. Surely it says even the common man has the right to liberty.

And as I once heard the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks say, surely God’s call to the individual sets a limit on the state. It draws a boundary on the exercise of government power and says, “No further.” And there we have it: Individualism, the dignity of the common person, liberty. This is our biblical inheritance.

I could go on. The Bible gave us also the idea of a state ruled by men, not by gods. It gave us the distinction between church and state. It gave us equality between men and women. And more, much more. But you get the idea.

These were revolutionary notions that upended the ancient world. And they found their purest political expression in the United States of America.

The biblical revolution is right there in the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims that “all men are created equal,” that we are endowed by our Creator with “unalienable” rights. These confessions would take centuries to realize in this country, but we recognized them as true from the first.

The biblical revolution is there in our Constitution, which separates powers among offices and stations to ensure the common person can rule, and no clique or elite.

It is there in the Bill of Rights that guarantees freedom to worship, to speak, to assemble, and to exercise one’s faith free from government interference.

The biblical tradition echoes in the great tent revivals of the frontier, where hardscrabble folks with little to their name heard from the itinerant preachers that they too were called by God. They too could be God’s servants. You didn’t need a fancy education or a landed estate to be God’s child. And those revivals helped spawn a populist political movement that reverberates to this day.

America as we know it, America as we love it, is the product of the revolution of the Bible. But now that biblical inheritance is under siege.

A Cultural Revolution

Today’s woke left is frantically engaged in a campaign of political nihilism. This is the sum and substance of their program. They want to level the institutions of American society—the family, schools, church and synagogue, our judicial system. They say the country is structurally warped and must be remade top to bottom. But what they reject, at bottom, is our biblical inheritance.

I mentioned in my remarks last year the mid-century thinker Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse was a great advocate of the `60s-era student radicalism and of the nihilist attitude toward American society that dominates the left today. In a word, he was woke.

He was also honest. Marcuse was an atheist and a Marxist and he spent a good deal of time wondering why Marx’s long-looked-for end of history had never arrived. He decided one major reason was Christianity.

Like Marx, Marcuse believed biblical faith was an opiate, a form of false consciousness. And he worried that it saturated American society. So in a break with Marx’s economic determinism, Marcuse decided culture was king. And America’s Christian culture was preventing the Marxist revolution the world needed.

Even worse, the working class, the proletariat, embraced that culture more than anyone. 

For that reason, Marcuse concluded revolution wouldn’t come from working people. The Christian hold was too strong. Instead, he placed his faith elsewhere—and this is key. He placed his faith in the educated elite.

America needed a cultural revolution to rid itself of the Bible’s taint. And the elite were just the people to deliver it. Sound familiar? That’s today’s politics in a nutshell.

Today’s woke left is carrying out a Marcuse-style kulturkampf. They increasingly insist that individuals don’t matter. They say society isn’t composed of equal individuals standing before a sovereign God, but of warring racial and economic groups vying for power.

The woke theorists at the Smithsonian tell us that “individualism” itself is racist, nothing more than an artifact of “white culture.” In the last few years, two separate woke theorists have argued—in The Nation and The Washington Post—that Americans’ votes should be weighted on the basis of race. In the name of democracy, “one person, one vote” is out.

The woke left dislikes the notion of the common man. They reject the biblical idea that all men and women are equally valuable and equally worthy of participating in political life. They call working people “deplorables,” and they regard working culture as uncouth and backward—characterized by the sort of people who cling to “guns and religion,” as someone once said.

No, the woke think the educated elite know best. By which they mean, naturally, themselves. And they are not afraid to use power.

If the Big Tech oligarchs decide that reporting on Hunter Biden is too dangerous to their interests, they simply erase the story from the public square. If they decide questioning Anthony Fauci is too threatening to their priorities, they prevent it by their own fiat.

That’s only the beginning.

If the reigning political class decides a former president poses too much trouble to their plans, they order a raid on his house and threaten to jail him. If they conclude too many Americans are complaining online, they create a Disinformation Board to shut them down. Any disagreement is called “violence” and any dissent “insurrection.”

Marcuse pioneered the concept of “repressive tolerance”—that is, free speech for me but not for thee. He would be proud of today’s liberals.

Finally, the left rejects the biblical idea of conscience and the liberty that comes with it. Attacks on religious freedom and intellectual inquiry are commonplace now. The woke insist on targeting citizens engaged in works of mercy, like the Little Sisters of the Poor, because they have the audacity to disregard elite preferences and serve a God beyond the state.

The woke insist that nobody, and especially not parents, may ask questions about what children are being taught in schools. To do otherwise is to be a “domestic terrorist.”

To them, liberty means falling in line with the norms they prescribe. It means following the social rules they had down.

They will decide what speech is acceptable.

They will decide which religious beliefs may be acted upon, and how.

They will determine what is true and what is not, what is fact and what is “disinformation.”

They will run the country.

The left say they want to lead us to a new era. But where they would take us is no age of enlightenment. It is not someplace new at all. It is backwards, to an old age of darkness and hierarchy and repression.

And that brings us to the task before us.

The Truth Is Their Stumbling Block

The woke left now controls the commanding heights of American culture: the media, the entertainment industry, the corporations, academia, and government. They seek to marshal their combined cultural power against those who disagree.

They seek to shame us, to isolate us—to silence us, if they can. They seek to protect their power. And they can succeed—but only if we allow them.

In truth, their vision is bleak and their ideology is brittle. They do not understand the deep strength of the American people, because they do not understand the deep goodness of their character. They see only deplorables who must be re-educated.

They do not understand our history and our ideals because they do not appreciate the truths on which this nation is based. They do not realize these truths have made us good and made us strong. And truth is their problem. The woke ideology, this warmed-over cultural Marxism, is not true.

Race and class do not define all that we are. Society is not an unending struggle for power and domination. And America is not structurally defective. America is the best and freest nation in the history of the world. And it is so largely because of the biblical revolution that made us what we are.

And now we need that inheritance again. In this time of fear and despair, we need to hear again that our lives matter—that we are loved by God—that we are called by God to great purpose—and that eternity beckons. What we do now can last. What we do here can matter.

We need to hear again of the dignity of ordinary life, of work and hearth and home, of the joys of marriage and family, and the power of these things to shape the future.

I slightly misspoke earlier, in this connection, when I said God called Abraham as an individual. That much is true, but God said it was Abraham’s family he would use to change the world. Abraham became a blessing to mankind when he became a husband and father. The same is true for us and true for today. 

In the final analysis, the woke ideology has more in common with the ancient world than it does with America. And it will not prevail in the end.

Whether it prevails in our time is up to us. That will depend on our courage.

To Strike a Blow for Truth

I close with this.

In A.D. 390, a crowd of Christians gathered at a pagan temple known as the Serapeum, in the city of Alexandria. It was a shrine to the god Serapis.

A few years before, the virulently anti-Christian emperor Julian had attempted to throttle Christianity and purge Rome of Christian influence. Among other measures, he seized control of the education system and barred Christians from teaching. He demanded all students study in ways he approved. He commanded worship of the Roman gods. 

One of those gods was Serapis. And now on this day in 390, in the shadow of the state’s recent persecution, a group of Christians gathered at the temple to take a stand.

In the center of the temple was a statue of the god, clutching in his hands a three-headed serpent. The legend went that “if any impious hand should dare to violate the majesty of the god, the heavens and earth would instantly return to their original chaos.”

One soldier stepped forward, carrying an axe. His name is lost to history. All we know of him is what the historian Rufinus tells us, that he was “better protected by faith than by his weapon.”

And there, in that moment, this one man made a choice. He made a choice to live free from the powers and principalities of his age. A choice to reject the dictates of emperors. A choice to strike a blow for truth. 

The lone soldier climbed a ladder to the top of the statue and raised his battle-axe. Then, with all his might, he drove it home.

Onlookers reported that as the blow fell, the god’s jaw broke away. And as it did, thousands of rats came surging out of its rotten inside.

The woke left may seem powerful. And indeed they are.

Opposing them may cost us much. But the truth is worth any cost. And that’s what courage is, in the end. It is paying the cost, no matter how high, for the truth.

And remember the teaching of scripture, the one that runs from first to end: that though the God of the universe could have accomplished his purposes entirely on his own, he chose instead to call us. He invites us to do his work and to follow him.

And so let us count the cost, and take our stand. For when we do, we shall turn the tide.


Josh Hawley is a U.S. senator from Missouri and former Missouri attorney general.


    BY: ELLE PURNELL | SEPTEMBER 15, 2022

    Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/15/yes-outlawing-the-barbarism-of-abortion-was-always-the-goal/

    Lindsey Graham speaking

    Author Elle Purnell profile

    ELLE PURNELL

    VISIT ON TWITTER@_ETREYNOLDS

    MORE ARTICLES

    With Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham’s introduction on Tuesday of a ban on killing children in the womb after 15 weeks of pregnancy (with strictly enumerated exceptions), pro-abortion leftists are feigning shock and horror at Republicans’ supposed reversal from the pro-federalism arguments that accompanied the Supreme Court’s return of abortion law to state legislatures in its Dobbs v. Jackson decision this past summer.

    “It was never about states’ rights,” Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell huffed.

    “Democrats have repeatedly warned voters that Republicans will pursue a national abortion ban. Lindsey Graham is proving them right,” MSNBC boasted, as if pro-life hopes to eliminate the moral stain of abortion were some big secret.

    “For the hard right, this has never been about states’ rights,” said Democrat Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “No, for MAGA Republicans, this has always been about making abortion illegal everywhere.”

    “These Republicans cheered abortion policy going to states. They are also sponsoring a federal ban,” headlined a Glenn Kessler article in The Washington Post. “This would seem to be a direct contradiction to the idea that states could chart their own course,” he added.

    “Republicans aren’t even trying to hide it,” hand-wrung failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

    It’s either disingenuous, constitutionally illiterate, or both for Democrats to claim that a Republican push to ban some or all abortions at the federal level is out of line with the pro-life movement’s goal of the past 50 years. Of course we aren’t hiding it, Hillary. We’ve been calling for a stop to the barbaric practice of abortion for decades, and the partial victory that Dobbs delivered isn’t going to make us slow down.

    Overturning Roe Was Never the End

    It was a brainless misreading of the conservative celebration over Dobbs to think the pro-life consensus was a satisfied, hands-off-the-wheel declaration that “abortion decisions are back in the hands of the states like they should be,” as one operations director for an abortion facility put it.

    Yes, we lauded Dobbs for lifting the federal ban on protecting life at the state level. And we pointed out the obvious inconsistency of pro-abortion leftists claiming this return of federalism and lawmaking authority to elected state leaders was somehow a massive abuse of the Supreme Court’s power. The court had unjustly and unconstitutionally appointed itself the arbiter of abortion law in 1973, and the willful relinquishment of that power is clearly not judicial overreach. To claim it was/is obvious fearmongering.

    To Schumer’s point, the fight against abortion (much less Graham’s middle-of-the-road 15-week ban) is no radical far-right agenda item. Republicans have been advancing similar and more pro-life bills at the state level for years, far before the “MAGA” term Schumer uses so derisively was coined. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a 20-week abortion ban nearly a decade ago.

    One of the only reasons Republicans weren’t passing more abortion bans sooner was the unconstitutional hurdle called RoeAdditionally, nearly every country in the European Union has more restrictive abortion laws than Graham’s proposed 15-week ban, and polls find more support than opposition for bans on abortion after 15 weeks among Americans.

    A Federal Abortion Ban Is Perfectly Constitutional

    It’s equally ignorant to claim that a federal protection of human life in the womb is an abuse of constitutional powers, to the level of the Supreme Court’s abusive Roe decision or otherwise. Unlike a president with no legislative authority using student loan “forgiveness” to buy votes or waging a political war on American energy or siccing the FBI on political enemies, protecting the lives of citizens is one of the responsibilities and powers of government. It’s why we have criminal laws against murder, why we have a military, and one of the rights to which we understand the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection.

    Laws protecting life do sometimes limit the actions of others — murder laws restrict the actions of murderers — but there’s no legitimate movement advocating for killers’ “freedom to choose” to kill. Unlike the Supreme Court’s abuse of power in its Roe decision, a federal abortion ban done right is perfectly constitutional and even arguably called for by the Constitution and its guaranteed liberties.

    Besides the obvious disregard for the protection of human life in the Supreme Court’s Roe decision, there were two constitutional problems with that decision’s mandate that would not be present in a congressionally approved abortion ban.

    First, Congress is a lawmaking entity, while the court is not. The justices in Roe arbitrarily decided to set the viability standard (about 24 weeks) as the law of the land on abortion, and barred elected representatives of the people from protecting life at earlier stages.

    Yet the court is tasked solely with deciding questions of constitutionality (i.e., whether a constitutional right to abortion or right to life exists), not writing statutes (i.e., abortions are or aren’t allowed in these circumstances after this many weeks). Legislatures, on the other hand — state or national — are tasked with precisely the latter.

    Second, there has never been any constitutional barrier to the government further recognizing and defending constitutionally protected freedoms, such as the right to life. (On the other hand, there is something — namely, our constitutional system — prohibiting federal infringement on those rights.)

    Congress’s extension of constitutional freedoms to emancipated slaves via the 14th and 15th Amendments was not an abuse of power, but a correction of its abuse. For Congress to use its lawmaking authority to extend constitutional protections to those who always should have had them is not overreach but governance. A federal law protecting the unborn from being killed for the crime of being unwanted would do just that.


    Elle Purnell is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. Follow her work on Twitter @_etreynolds.


      By Leonardo Blair, Senior Features Reporter | Thursday, September 15, 2022

      Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-could-no-longer-be-the-majority-in-america-by-2045.html/

      Getty Images

      Barring any limiting event such as war or economic depression, if the pace at which Christians abandon their faith before the age of 30 were to accelerate beyond its current pace, America could no longer be a majority Christian nation by as early as 2045. And Christians wouldn’t just lose their majority status in America in this scenario. They would also be outnumbered by the religiously unaffiliated, also known as “nones,” according to the findings of a new analysis by the Pew Research Center. The findings are based on work from the Pew Research Center which projects religious composition in the United States under multiple switching scenarios for the first time, as part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project. The project analyzes religious change and its impact on societies around the world.

      In the study, Pew highlights four hypothetical scenarios out of several possibilities to demonstrate how the U.S. religious landscape might change over the next half century. The impact of younger Christian adults abandoning their faith without limitation was modeled in one of those scenarios. While the other three scenarios reflect varying degrees of religious disaffiliation, “they all show Christians continuing to shrink as a share of the U.S. population, even under the counterfactual assumption that all switching came to a complete stop in 2020.” The ranks of the unaffiliated, however, are projected to grow under all four scenarios.

      “Of course, it is possible that events outside the study’s model — such as war, economic depression, climate crisis, changing immigration patterns or religious innovations — could reverse current religious switching trends, leading to a revival of Christianity in the United States,” the researchers noted. “But there are no current switching patterns in the U.S. that can be factored into the mathematical models to project such a result.”

      Data highlighted in the research show that while Christianity remains the “stickier” religious affiliation for older Americans, among younger adults it is the religiously unaffiliated identity that is enduring. If that trend is sped up with nothing to stop it, according to projections of the third of the four main models, the number of Christian adherents in the U.S. is likely to decline at a much faster rate.

      “If the pace of switching before the age of 30 were to speed up throughout the projection period without any brakes, Christians would no longer be a majority by 2045,” Pew researchers said.

      In this model, the religiously unaffiliated would be America’s most dominant faith expression by 2055, with about 46% of the population claiming that identify. Christians would represent just a 43% share of the population. By 2070, 52% of Americans would be unaffiliated, while only 35% would be Christian.

      In 2020, the Pew Research Center estimated that about 64% of Americans, including children, were Christian. The religiously unaffiliated accounted for 30% of the U.S. population, while all other religions — including Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists — totaled about 6%.

      While rising disaffiliation among younger adults “assumes there is a kind of ever-increasing momentum behind religious switching” among that cohort under 30, researchers suggested that trend isn’t plausible as “highly religious parents tend to raise highly religious children who are less likely than children of less religious parents to disaffiliate in young adulthood.”

      “As a result, there may continue to be a self-perpetuating core of committed Christians who retain their religion and raise new generations of Christians,” researchers said.

      Of the four models presented, researchers selected the second which projects that rising disaffiliation from Christianity with limits could lead to “nones” becoming the largest religious identity in America by 2070 but not the majority identity.

      The projected outcome for that model suggests that if the pace of disaffiliation before the age of 30 were to speed up initially but then hold steady, Christians would lose their majority status by 2050, when they would be 47% of the U.S. population compared to 42% for the unaffiliated. In 2070, “nones” would constitute a plurality of 48%, in this scenario while Christians would account for 39% of Americans.

      Contact: leonardo.blair@christianpost.com Follow Leonardo Blair on Twitter: @leoblair Follow Leonardo Blair on Facebook: LeoBlairChristianPost


      By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter | Thursday, September 15, 2022

      Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/parental-rights-groups-report-card-gives-most-lawmakers-an-f.html/

      Kimberly Fletcher, the president and founder of Moms For America, speaks at a Capitol Hill press conference unveiling the organization’s “Congressional Report Card” grading lawmakers on how effectively they voted to advance “12 key issues that matter most to moms,” Sept. 14, 2022. | The Christian Post/ Nicole Alcindor

      WASHINGTON — A parental rights organization has awarded more than half the members of Congress an “F” on its Congressional Report Card as it seeks to assist mothers in making informed decisions about who to support in the upcoming midterm elections.

      The parental rights advocacy group Moms for America held a press conference on Capitol Hill Wednesday to unveil its Congressional Report Card, which graded members of the 117th Congress based on what the organization classified as “12 key issues that matter most to moms.” Moms for America President and Founder Kimberly Fletcher spoke at the event alongside Aly Legge, the organization’s family lobby manager, and Debbie Kraulidis, vice president of Moms for America. 

      https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=599883568587842

      Two of the lawmakers who received an “A” rating or higher from the organization, Reps. Billy Long, R-Mo., and Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., also spoke at the press conference. In a group that includes both Long and Greene, 43 Republican members received a grade of “A+,” 47 received a grade of “A,” and 79 received a grade of “A-.” A total of nine senators, all Republicans, received a grade of “A+” on the report card, while an additional 12 Senate Republicans received a grade of “A.”

      Senators receiving a grade of “A” or higher constitute less than half the 50-member Senate Republican conference and a sizable majority of the House Republican conference. More than half of lawmakers in both chambers received grades of “F.” All 50 Democrats and six Republicans received a grade of “F” in the Senate, while all Democrats and three Republicans received a grade of “F” in the House.

      The House Republicans awarded a grade of “F” were Reps. Connie Conway, R-Calif., Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Penn. Sens. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

      In a statement issued ahead of the event, Moms for America President Kimberly Fletcher declared, “We are excited to release our first-ever Congressional Report Card, and are more excited to distribute our report card to the hundreds of thousands of mothers who are headed to the polls in a few short months.” 

      “Moms represent a key voting block, and they are typically responsible for providing for their children’s education, their diets, their healthcare and their safety,” she added. “From Medical Mandates to Mask Mandates, from radical Critical Race Theory to Gender Equality, from the right to keep and bear arms to School Choice, our 2022 Report Card finds both political parties lacking the will to take necessary steps to protect the interests of America’s moms.”

      After identifying her organization as a “national movement of moms working to reclaim our culture for truth, family, freedom and the Constitution” and comprising “over 500,000 moms across the country in all 50 states,” Fletcher said, “We’re in the midst of a mom-led revolution. That revolution is about reclaiming our culture, and we’re going to start by doing it in our homes by promoting those principles of liberty that matter to us and made us the freest, most prosperous nation on Earth.” 

      Fletcher described the purpose of the Congressional Report Card as part of her organization’s efforts to “help moms know who it is that’s representing them and what it is that they stand for.” In addition to the Congressional Report Card, Moms for America has created a questionnaire that candidates for office who are not serving in the U.S. Congress can fill out. Based on their responses to those questions, the candidates will receive grades. 

      Fletcher told The Christian Post that Moms for America is distributing the Congressional Report Card to “hundreds of thousands of moms” across the U.S. ahead of the midterm elections. “We’re sending it out over email, text, social media, and we have network partners all across the country.”

      The parental rights activist expressed optimism that her organization’s network of hundreds of thousands of mothers would spread the report card far and wide: “If you have any familiarity with the way moms work, it’s a word of mouth thing and we share what we like.”

      Fletcher added, “The simple answer is the Constitution of the United States” when addressing the wide disparity in grades among members of Congress. “Those who got an ‘A’ grade, they knew that when they raised their hand and took an oath to defend the Constitution that that meant something, and they knew what that Constitution said.” 

      “They say a lot of things but when they go down to vote, they don’t vote the way that they speak,” Fletcher told CP. “That’s the reason why this report card is so important. It isn’t just repeating what they say on a campaign site or a stump speech. It’s actually showing how they voted when that was brought up, when that specific issue or policy was brought up.”

      Fletcher said her group also sent a questionnaire to congressional candidates running for Congress and Moms for America will score and publish the candidates’ responses ahead of the midterm elections. 

      In addition to the Congressional Report Card and the candidate questionnaire, Fletcher explained that Moms for America has a “massive ground game” that is “helping moms get registered to vote.”

      Moms for America has created a project called MomVote, which helps mothers learn about the “voting process, how it works” and gives them information about “who the candidates are, what the issues are” and “the process of registering to vote.” 

      “We’re also mobilizing our moms on the ground and doing the same thing we’ve done in the last two years in elections: doing the ground game, knocking on doors, sharing information via email and text.” 

      Fletcher reported that her organization has no plans to update the Congressional Report Card to reflect additional votes ahead of the 2022 midterm elections but will take such votes into consideration in future Congressional Report Cards and “will make these things available on the website” in the form of a database containing information about lawmakers and candidates.

      Moms for America plans on releasing a new Congressional Report Card every election cycle, meaning every two years, with the future goal of releasing it every year.  

      The votes that determined the lawmakers’ grades included controversial legislation that has passed the U.S. House of Representatives but failed to gain traction in the Senate. Most notably, the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have codified the right to abortion into federal law and the Equality Act, which would have codified nondiscrimination protections for LGBT identifying individuals into federal law. 

      Critics of the Equality Act worry about its implications for women’s sports, specifically expressing concern that it would require schools to allow biological males who identify as females to compete on women’s sports teams despite the physiological differences between men and women that give males an advantage over their biologically female counterparts. 

      Additionally, the lawmakers’ grades took into account their votes on lesser-known legislation, including the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act, which Moms for America has characterized as the “More than 2 Genders Act.” Other bills the grades took into consideration included lawmakers’ votes on gun control bills, measures that would have increased federal oversight over elections, a bill that would have given statehood to Washington, D.C., an aid package designated for Ukraine and stimulus packages including the so-called Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan.

      In the statement released ahead of Wednesday’s press conference, Moms for America explained why it penalized lawmakers for supporting certain legislation not directly related to education. The group specifically highlighted its opposition to the Ukrainian aid bill because it “sent billions of dollars to Ukraine, while America’s moms are struggling to put food on the table and gas in their minivans.”  

      Concerns about inflation, the economy and crime figured prominently at Wednesday’s press conference, where Fletcher decried “what’s going on in our country today.” She spoke of “a serious downgrade in everything that we care about, from freedom, to the protection of our children, to the education that they’re receiving” in the first two years of the Biden administration. 

      The release of Moms for America’s Congressional Report Card comes as education has emerged as a major point of contention in American politics. The teaching of critical race theory, the inclusion of sexually explicit material and LGBT ideology in school curriculum, efforts by school officials to encourage students to transition their gender without parental knowledge and the promotion of comprehensive sex education characterized by critics as inappropriate for children has led to outrage among American parents.

      This outrage has led to the formation of advocacy groups such as Parents Defending Education and the 1776 Project PAC, which supports candidates for school board elections that oppose critical race theory and “want to reform our public education system by promoting patriotism and pride in American history.

      Last month, several school board elections in Florida resulted in candidates endorsed by the 1776 Project PAC and the state’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis performing very well, including in populous metropolitan areas that usually favor Democratic candidates. Fletcher described the school board elections in Florida as a “precursor of things to come” in the upcoming midterm elections. “The moms are making a major difference.” She concluded her interview with CP by proclaiming that “the most important thing about this election is that we get out and we vote, that our values are represented and that our voices are heard.” She lamented that “the vast majority of conservative women of faith aren’t voting. Most of them aren’t even registered to vote.”

      “If you think that this mom-led revolution is just a little thing that’s going to come and go, you ain’t seen nothing yet,” she vowed.

      Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com


      By DAVE URBANSKI | September 15, 2022

      Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/chicago-concealed-carrier-shoots-at-gunmen/

      Gunmen opened fire at partygoers outside a Chicago home Tuesday night and shot a 13-year-old boy in the head — but the victim’s 21-year-old cousin has a concealed carry license, and he pulled out his gun and shot back, after which the gunmen fled, WGN-TV reported.

      The CCL holder, who did not wish to be identified, told WGN he and his family were celebrating a relative’s birthday along the 1800 block of West 21st Place on the city’s Lower West Side, where he said he grew up.

      “It was my grandma’s birthday,” he told the station in an interview that doesn’t show his face.

      Image source: WGN-TV video screenshot

      WGN said some relatives went to the alley behind the house to check out another cousin’s new car — and then the family members heard what they thought were firecrackers.

      “I see my cousin’s face turn weird, then I look to the right and see two gunmen at the end of the alley,” the CCL holder recounted to the station.

      He said bullets were being fired at them, WGN reported.

      Image source: WGN-TV video screenshot

      “We start hearing [whizzing sound] and then we hear the light post making all these weird noises, so we’re like, ‘Oh no, this is serious,’” the man added to the station.

      That’s when the man pulled out his own gun, WGN reported: “I started just shooting. I stood my ground. I didn’t even move. I stood my ground because that [is] how I like to do it, just defend my family.”

      As the attackers fled, the man told the station his 13-year-old cousin was lying in a pool of blood after having been shot in the right temple.

      “No, no, no, no … this can’t be happening,” the man told WGN of his reaction to his cousin being shot.

      Image source: WGN-TV video screenshot

      “When he got shot, he was still breathing,” he added to the station. “He got shot twice in the head … he was still breathing.”

      The boy was immediately rushed to Stroger Hospital in critical condition, WGN said, adding that there’s possible good news on the horizon.

      The CCL holder told the station that the victim’s brother called Wednesday night and said the 13-year-old boy “opened his eyes, and he has a little movement, so he’s doing good, and thank God. I had faith. So I wasn’t thinking negative because I didn’t want to bring no negative energy … I just want him to get better.”

      The man added to WGN that his family “never experienced gun violence like that.”

      The station noted in its video report that a driver of a vehicle connected to the shooting fled the city, but officers in Hinsdale — a suburb west of Chicago — spiked the vehicle’s tires, boxed it in, and took three people into custody.

      WGN added that Chicago police said the three individuals are known gang members, but it was unclear whether any of them took part in the shooting.


      Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 14, 2022

      Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/09/14/fettermans-murderous-campaign-aides-how-it-really-happened—p–n2613113/

      The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

      Fetterman's Murderous Campaign Aides: How It Really Happened

      Source: AP Photo/Rebecca Droke

      Dr. Mehmet Oz, Republican Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, recently attacked his opponent, the ridiculous Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, for a pro-criminal record that would embarrass George Soros. Specifically, he criticized Fetterman for employing as aides on his campaign Dennis and Lee Horton, who spent 27 years in prison for a horrific armed robbery murder.

      Drunk on his own self-righteousness, Fetterman sanctimoniously responded: “Does Dr. Oz believe that the wrongfully convicted should die in prison?” He added that the brothers “spent 27 years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit.”

      Members of the media, who fervently believe our prisons are just bursting at the seams with completely innocent men, didn’t need to hear more. Suddenly, the entire media-big tech-entertainment conglomerate was screaming at Oz: HOW DARE YOU, YOU MORALLY BANKRUPT DOUCHEBAG! THESE TWO MEN WERE PROVED INNOCENT!

      Were they now?

      Here’s how the media tells “the actual story,” as somberly delivered by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, who majored in “Easily Fooled” studies at Brown University:

      “According to brothers Dennis and Lee Horton [and who would know better?], on Memorial Day 1993, they were out for a joyride when they picked up their friend, a guy named Robert Leaf.

      “What they did not know was that Leaf had just murdered Samuel Alemo and was currently being pursued by the police [sketch that scene for me, Chris]. They were pulled over and all three men were arrested.

      “The police involved with the case were accused of using a whole host of problematic tactics during the investigation [yes, they were “accused” — accusations laughed out of court by Democratic judges]; eyewitnesses changed their story [they did not] after prosecutors tried to pin the crime on all three of them — the Hortons as well.

      “And the district attorney’s case file, which was not made available till 2018 [I think we know why, Larry Krasner!], included a note stating Leaf is the shooter and a police note indicating Leaf acknowledged his role — all seeming to clear the Hortons. [total B.S.]

      The Horton brothers, who are black, refused a plea agreement because they said they didn’t want to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit.”

      Below, I have edited Hayes’ description to include only those parts that are relevant and actually true:

      “on Memorial Day 1993 …

      “a guy named Robert Leaf

      “They were … pulled over and all three men were arrested.

      “The Horton brothers … are black.”

      Luckily for people interested in knowing the truth — a group that decidedly does not include Chris Hayes — the Horton brothers spent their years in prison clogging up the courts with frivolous appeals, so it’s possible to find out how these innocent lambs were somehow convicted of A CRIME THEY DIDN’T COMMIT!

      In dismissing their most recent appeal, here’s how the Pennsylvania Superior Court summarized the “evidence adduced at trial” — that is, evidence presented in open court, supported by physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, subjected to cross-examination, and believed by 12 members of a jury:

      “On May 31, 1993, [Dennis Horton], his brother Lee Horton (‘Lee’), and a co-conspirator Robert Leaf (‘Leaf’) robbed Filito’s Bar located at 5th Street and Hunting Park Avenue.

      “During the course of the robbery, [Dennis Horton], who was carrying a rifle, shot Samuel Alemo multiple times. Alemo later died from his gunshot wounds. [Dennis Horton] also shot Luz Archella and her daughter Luz Martinez, injuring both. Leaf brandished what appeared to be a black pistol while Lee took money from bar patrons. After leaving the bar, the three men fled in a blue automobile.

      “A passerby was able to supply police with a description of the vehicle and a partial license plate number. A radio call was sent out, which included a description of the three assailants, their vehicle, and the last four digits of the license plate. A police officer observed the vehicle a short time later only a mile from the crime scene, and placed [Dennis Horton] and his companions under arrest.

      “Police recovered a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle from the backseat of the car, as well as a black pellet gun under the front passenger seat. Ballistics testing identified the rifle as the same weapon used during the robbery at Filito’s. [Horton], Lee, and Leaf … were taken to the hospital where Martinez and her daughter, as well as another bar patron, Miguel DeJesus, identified them as the robbers.”

      (The judges, incidentally, were all Democrats, including the only black woman on the 38-member appellate court, who subscribes to the theory that prison is “The New Jim Crow.”)

      As you can see right away, one problem with the media’s version of events is: What the hell happened to the other two guys?

      This was a daytime robbery of a bar, where two of the perpetrators walked around, taking the patrons’ wallets at gunpoint — not a nighttime mugging witnessed from 20 yards away. The victims had plenty of time to observe the perps. However much criminal defense lawyers attack eyewitness testimony, the patrons certainly knew it was three guys, not one; that they were black, not white; and they were male, not female.

      But more important, right after the murdering thieves sped off, a passerby called the police with a description of the car, including four of six numbers from the license plate. Within minutes, that very car was stopped by the police a mile from the bar. And you’ll never guess what they found in that car … three black guys and a recently fired rifle!

      Explain, again, how the Horton brothers happened to be in that car?

      Right after their arrest, all three men were positively identified at the hospital by the people they’d shot at earlier that day. But even without that identification, again: They were caught in the getaway car, mere minutes after the crime.

      So if I understand it correctly, the media’s theory of the crime is as follows:

      Immediately after the robbery — and I mean immediately! — Leaf told his REAL accomplices: I’ve got a fantastic idea! You guys get out of the car. I know these two brothers — the Hortons — who look exactly like you and I’m pretty sure are wearing the exact same clothes. Also, their car is identical to yours and — you’ll never believe this — their license plate number is only off by two digits. I’ll just call them to come pick me up and wait here by the side of the road with the long-barreled — and easy to conceal! — rifle we just fired — OH CRAP! IT’S THE POLICE!

      Look, it would be one thing if Fetterman defended his yearslong PR campaign on behalf of the murdering Horton brothers by saying, They’ve served long enough! Everybody deserves a second chance. I would disagree, especially because the brothers continue to deny their guilt — but in that case, at least Fetterman would only be a gullible fool, and not a despicable, bald-faced liar.


      A.F. Branco Cartoon – Buyer Beware

      A.F. BRANCO | on September 15, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-buyer-beware/

      Democrats are celebrating their Inflation reduction act as inflation grows and the 401-Ks sink.

      Inflation Reduction Act Cartoon
      Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2022.

      DONATE to A.F.Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

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


      BY: HELEN RALEIGH | SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

      Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/14/germanys-green-energy-follies-are-a-warning-to-the-united-states/

      Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin

      Author Helen Raleigh profile

      HELEN RALEIGH

      VISIT ON TWITTER@HRALEIGHSPEAKS

      MORE ARTICLES

      Germany is reportedly working on reducing the nation’s economic dependency on Communist China due to concerns about “human rights abuses and the risks of being beholden to an increasingly assertive authoritarian state,” Reuters reports. Berlin finally learned one lesson from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: it’s dangerous to economically rely on authoritarian regimes. 

      Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s policies — building an economy based on Russia’s energy supply and China’s market demand — were primarily responsible for German’s economic predicament today. Zealous in fighting climate change, Merkel shut down coal mines and retired the majority of nuclear power plants in Germany while relying on Russia for energy and raw materials, despite repeated warnings from the Trump administration. By 2020, Russia supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas and about a third of all the oil that Germans burned to heat homes, power factories, and fuel vehicles.

      While paying Russia billions of euros for energy supply (the money no doubt helped finance Putin’s war chest), Merkel neglected to invest in German’s armed forces, even after Putin annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. She outsourced Germans’ and, to a larger extent, Europe’s security to the United States and simply hoped for the best. When Merkel retired in 2021, after being in office for 16 years, German’s military was left “in a weak position and require years of renewal to become a credible deterrent to Russian aggression,” according to The American Institute for Contemporary German Studies.  

      Strengthened China Ties

      Besides empowering and enriching Russia, Merkel was keen on strengthening Germany’s economic ties with China while in office. No other leaders from Western democracies had visited China more often than Merkel (she had 11 state visits to China).

      To promote Germany’s export-oriented economy, Merkel was indifferent to China’s aggression in the South China Sea, its geopolitical expansion through the “Belt and Road” infrastructure project, and its increasingly assertive foreign policies. In addition, she avoided criticizing China’s mishandling of Covid-19 in the early days of 2020 and turned a blind eye to many human rights abuses in China, especially the genocide of Uyghur Muslims and suppression of the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. 

      Under Merkel, China became Germany’s largest trading partner in 2016. German’s auto industry especially relies on China — about 50 percent of German car maker Volkswagen’s profit comes from China. Merkel’s China policy has made Germany’s economy vulnerable and helped speed up the Chinese military’s modernization.

      Beijing reportedly focused on investments in Germany to obtain critical technologies, especially those with dual-use, meaning both civilian and military applications. For example, engines made by German companies have powered several types of Chinese navy warships, Deutsche Welle found.  

      Although Merkel retired in 2021, the effects of her economic policies continued. According to a German Economic Institute (IW) study, Germany’s economic dependency on China has continued to grow in 2022. “China’s share of German imports rose to 12.4 percent in the first half of 2022, compared with only 3.4 percent in 2000. German imports of Chinese goods… have surged by 45.7 percent year-on-year in the comparable period of the first six months. Germany’s trade deficit with the country had leapt to almost EUR 41 bn by mid-2022.”

      A Wake-Up Call

      After Russia invaded Ukraine, Germany joined other EU nations in imposing punitive economic sanctions on Russia. Putin retaliated by weaponizing his energy supply to Europe, sending energy prices soaring and dealing a blow to the German economy. 

      Inflation in Germany has reached a 40-year high. Suppose Putin shut off the natural gas supply to Europe, as he threatened. In that case, many predict an energy-induced recession in Europe is inevitable, and Germany could lose close to $240 billion in economic output over the next two years.

      The grim economic outlook, and the fact that Beijing refused to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and helped Russia evade the West’s economic sanctions by purchasing Russian energy and agriculture products, have become a wake-up call for Germany. Additionally, Beijing’s “zero-Covid” policy that has kept dozens of cities and millions of Chinese people in lockdown means German businesses have had limited access to the Chinese market, and the trend will continue in the foreseeable future. 

      The German Economic Institute called for the government to change its economic policy, “specifically a reduction in incentives for doing business with China and a shift towards more trade with other emerging markets.” It also warned German businesses to “curb their dependency on China.” Otherwise, companies may expose themselves to bankruptcy due to Western sanctions imposed on China in the event of the People’s Liberation Army’s invading Taiwan. 

      Deutsche Bank CEO Christian Sewing also warned, “When it comes to dependencies, we also have to face the awkward question of how to deal with China.” He appealed to the German government to decouple economically from China and acknowledged such a move would “require a change no less fundamental than decoupling from Russian energy.” 

      Germany Stepping Back

      These calls for action have reached their desired audience. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock acknowledged Germany couldn’t afford to “just behave following the motto ‘business first,’ without taking into account the long-term risks and dependencies.”

      Reuters reports that Germany’s economic ministry is considering several actions to cut Germany’s reliance on China, including reducing or scrapping investment and export guarantees for China and no longer promoting trade fairs and manager training there. It is also contemplating screening not just Chinese investments in Germany but also German investments in China. It also might submit a complaint to the World Trade Organization about unfair Chinese trade practices, together with the Group of Seven, an intergovernmental political forum consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

      While Germany is waking up to the risks of economic dependency on authoritarian regimes, the Biden administration has deepened our nation’s economic reliance on China with a green revolution that centers around replacing fossil fuels with solar and wind, and gas-powered cars with electric vehicles (EVs). China dominates the global supply chain of raw materials and parts for EV batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines. The nation has been able to keep the manufacturing cost low by burning coal and employing forced labor from Uyghur and other ethnic minorities.

      Even Politico has had to admit the dirty truth: “The U.S path to clean energy goes straight through China.” Germany’s economic woes should serve as a timely warning to the Biden administration that relying on an authoritarian regime is both dangerous and foolish.


      Helen Raleigh, CFA, is an American entrepreneur, writer, and speaker. She’s a senior contributor at The Federalist. Her writings appear in other national media, including The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Helen is the author of several books, including “Confucius Never Said” and “Backlash: How Communist China’s Aggression Has Backfired.” Follow her on Parler and Twitter: @HRaleighspeaks.


        BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

        Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/14/for-lack-of-public-confidence-in-the-supreme-court-john-roberts-has-only-himself-to-blame/

        John Roberts speaking at a conference
        U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts

        Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

        SHAWN FLEETWOOD

        VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

        MORE ARTICLES

        U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is back in the public spotlight and his latest remarks on judicial integrity are turning heads. Appearing at the 10th Circuit Bench and Bar Conference in Colorado Springs, Colorado on Friday, the chief justice spoke about the perceived credibility of the Supreme Court among the American public and how disagreeing with its opinions “is not a basis for questioning [its] legitimacy.”

        “The court has always decided controversial cases and decisions have always been subject to intense criticism, and that is entirely appropriate,” Roberts said. “But I don’t understand the connection between the opinions people disagree with and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”

        Following the Supreme Court’s rulings on several hot-button issues this past session, such as the striking down of Roe v. Wade and upholding of Second Amendment rights, Democrats and their sycophants in legacy media have been quick to vilify the high court and call into question its ability to operate as an independent body simply because a majority of justices didn’t give them the outcomes they wanted. While it’s fair for Roberts to push back against such logic and distinguish the legitimacy of the high court from its judicial decisions, his next comments were impossible to take seriously.

        “If the court doesn’t retain its legitimate function of interpreting the Constitution, I’m not sure who would take up that mantle,” the chief justice said. “You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is, and you don’t want public opinion to be the guide about what the appropriate decision is.”

        For someone who holds the rank of chief justice, the lack of self-awareness from Roberts is stunning. Throughout his tenure on the Supreme Court, Roberts’s judicial decision-making on various high-profile cases has been guided by “public opinion.”

        When the court was considering the constitutionality of Obamacare in the 2012 NFIB v. Sebelius case, for instance, Roberts reportedly took extensive actions behind the scenes to alter the Supreme Court’s final decision on the matter, even though Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional. After initially siding with his Republican-appointed colleagues in striking down the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) “on the grounds that it went beyond Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce,” Roberts got cold feet over fears of potential public blowback over the high court’s impending decision and worked with his Democrat-appointed colleagues to change it.

        As reported by SCOTUS biographer Joan Biskupic in her book, “The Chief,” Roberts’s bid to play politics led him to form a deal with leftist Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan that upheld and struck down certain portions of the ACA.

        “After trying unsuccessfully to find a middle way with [Justice Anthony] Kennedy, who was ‘unusually firm’ and even ‘put off’ by the courtship, Roberts turned to the Court’s two moderate liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan,” a review of “The Chief” published in The Atlantic reads. “The threesome negotiated a compromise decision that upheld the ACA’s individual mandate under Congress’s taxing power, while striking down the Medicaid expansion.”

        Biskupic’s reporting echoes findings released by CBS News’ Jan Crawford. She in 2012 reported that “Roberts pays attention to media coverage” and that “[a]s chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court” and “is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.”

        In spite of his efforts to maintain the court’s favorability as measured by often-biased poll results, Roberts’s games in the NFIB v. Sebelius case did the exact opposite. As detailed in their bestselling book, “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court,” Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway and President of the Judicial Crisis Network Carrie Severino detail how “Pew [Research] reported that after the decision the Court remained at its all-time-low 52 percent approval.”

        “The accepted narrative, even among those who welcomed the chief’s decision, was that he changed his legal position not on principle but in response to public pressure,” Hemingway and Severino write. “The right lost respect for him, and the decision won him no friends on the left, which still portrays him as unforgivably conservative and a craven political operative. It was a regrettable outcome for anyone concerned about the legitimacy of the Court.”

        Roberts’s deference to the consistently changing and poll-manipulated opinions of the American public at the expense of upholding the Constitution didn’t stop at the Obamacare ruling, either. Over the years, Roberts has routinely abandoned originalism for political activism, with the court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision striking down Roe‘s made-up “constitutional right” to an abortion serving as a more recent example.

        Despite Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all correctly maintaining that the precedent established in Roe was unconstitutional garbage, Roberts attempted — yet again — to play politician and convince one of his Republican-appointed colleagues to change his or her vote before the opinion was released. Originally reported by The Washington Post and later Biskupic, Roberts directed his lobbying to save Roe toward justices including Brett Kavanaugh, which “continued through the final weeks of the [2021-2022] session.”

        “Multiple sources told CNN that Roberts’ overtures this spring, particularly to Kavanaugh, raised fears among conservatives and hope among liberals that the chief could change the outcome in the most closely watched case in decades,” Biskupic writes. “Once the draft was published by Politico, conservatives pressed their colleagues to try to hasten release of the final decision, lest anything suddenly threaten their majority.”

        The report went on to detail how the abrupt May leak of the Supreme Court’s majority draft opinion in Dobbs “thwarted” Roberts’ efforts, with Biskupic noting how the chief justice “can usually work in private, seeking and offering concessions, without anyone beyond the court knowing how he or other individual justices have voted or what they may be writing.”

        In the final opinion, Roberts ultimately sided with the leftist justices of the court in upholding Roe, while also voting with his Republican-appointed colleagues to uphold the Mississippi 15-week abortion law as constitutional.

        Whether he wants to admit it to himself or not, a decline in public confidence in the Supreme Court isn’t due to any originalist rulings, but to Roberts’s political activism. The role of a judge is — and always has been — to apply the Constitution as it was originally written by the Founders; not manipulate the law to satisfy some personal desire for public approval.

        In abdicating his responsibility as a justice, Roberts has given the country every reason to be skeptical of the court’s ability to operate freely from the politics that plague America’s societal discourse. If the chief justice had any interest in ensuring the future of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, he would quit acting like Mitch McConnell in a robe and start behaving like the judge he was appointed to be.


        Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves 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


          By Billy Hallowell, Op-ed Contributor | Wednesday, September 14, 2022

          Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/journalist-sounds-alarm-on-grotesque-medical-scandal.html/

          A hand holds up a small transgender pride flag. The blue and pink stripes represent the colors for a boy and girl, while the white stripe represents self-declared gender identities, such as transitioning, intersex, neutral and undefined gender. | Getty Images

          A journalist who has extensively covered the transgender debate recently revealed why the topic has so resonated, explaining “something inside … snapped” when he learned about what was happening to children, and the “horror” immediately motivated him to action.

          READ ALSO: ‘Functional Atheism’: Popular Pastor Delivers Gut-Check on Worry, Breaks Down Biblical Moment That Could Transform How We Tackle It

          Brandon Showalter, a reporter for The Christian Post, is among the most well-versed and unrelenting journalists to tackle the transgender movement, exploring the impact of puberty blockers, “disfiguring surgeries,” and the moral chaos he believes is shielding so many from the truth.

          “Something inside me snapped, and I just thought, ‘Well, I’ve just got to dig into this and scrutinize this more deeply, because this is absolutely insane,'” Showalter said ona recent episode of “The Inside Story” podcast. “I just remember thinking to myself, ‘They’re doing what to children?!'”

          He continued, “I just realized the extent of the horror, and I realized someone needed to step up and tell the truth about it.”

          Listen to Showalter share his story on “The Inside Story” (subscribe to the show here):

          https://player.edifi.app/embed/index.html#/episodes/’Something-Inside-Me-Just-Kind-of-Snapped’:-Journalist-Reveals-Moment-He-Was-Compelled-to-Investigate-Trans-‘Cult-of-Confusion’/5305562

          Showalter believes the happenings surrounding the transgender movement constitute “one of the most grotesque health scenarios” in America, which is why he continues to lend his voice to the discussion.

          He’s just one of the voices in Tucker Carlson’s new, two-part Fox Nation series, “Transgressive: The Cult of Confusion.”

          For Showalter, covering the transgender movement began after he started exploring the issue and realized many journalists simply weren’t covering it from a place of truth.

          Watch him join CBN’s Faithwire to explain:

          “I realized that within journalism … mainstream legacy publications were using false pronouns to refer to people as the opposite sex and it was so confusing even reading news articles that I couldn’t even keep the story straight,” he said. “But then … I realized that children were being given puberty-blocking drugs.”

          With the reality of what was unfolding — including the prescribing of drugs to kids he believes have no basis for being prescribed — Showalter was stunned.

          “I just realized the extent of the horror, and I knew that someone had to stand up and tell the truth about it because very few people in the legacy media were,” he said. “It’s crazy.”

          Showalter also began to explore stories of detransitioners — people who started or fully underwent attempts to change their sex but who came to regret their life-altering decisions. The media often shield or ignore these stories, but Showalter hasn’t backed away from delving into the tragic details.

          READ ALSO: ‘Only Jesus Can Save America’: Michael Brown’s Pressing Message to Christians Across the Nation

          “Theologically, I just see it as we need to stand up for the integrity of the human body. This is so horrible,” he said. “You just don’t do this to the human person … this is a medical scandal. This is one of the most grotesque, horrible medical scandals the world has ever seen.”

          Showalter said even non-Christians are beginning to read his investigative reports as they deal with these issues in their own lives and families.

          “The truth is true, no matter who says it,” he said.

          Showalter hopes his work — and, in particular, his appearance in “Transgressive: The Cult of Confusion” — helps people see the truth.

          “I hope that it pulls back the curtain. I hope that people see that this is some of the most wretched, sadistic, monstrously terrible child abuse and that it’s one of the worst medical scandals that the world has ever seen,” he said. “I hope that people are punched in the gut — that they are confronted with the raw, horrific evil that this is.”

          Beyond knowledge, Showalter said he hopes people are encouraged to stand up against what’s unfolding.

          “Once you see this, you can’t unsee it,” he said.


          By Jim Hoft | Published September 14, 2022

          Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/09/trump-endorsed-karoline-leavitt-runs-away-primary-win-despite-5-million-smear-ads-kevin-mccarthy-gop-elites-trump-congratulates/

          Kevin McCarthy, Congressional Leadership Fund, and Defending Main Street spent $5 million to prevent Karoline Leavitt from winning her primary election for New Hampshire’s District 1 that was held on Tuesday.

          McCarthy, GOP Elites and Super PACs dumped $5 million to stop Karoline Leavitt.

          It is the same tactics the GOP elites use in every state. They can’t win on the issues so they spend MILLIONS to slander and smear MAGA Republican candidates.

          MILLIONS!

          #NH01 GOP primary getting expensive as Defending Main Street kicks its spending up to $1.27M to oppose Karoline Leavitt. The GOP’s Congressional Leadership Fund SuperPAC has spent $1.4M, largely on boosting Matt Mowers. Anti-Leavitt spending is now the largest single component. https://t.co/WMpGLdae1b pic.twitter.com/FeUSqBSksv

          — Rob Pyers (@rpyers) September 7, 2022

          ** You can support Karoline Leavitt here.

          Leavitt once tweeted that Dr. Deborah Birx was a “DEEP STATE DOCTOR” — We agree.

          On Tuesday Karoline Leavitt won her primary by 10 points!

          President Trump cheered Karoline’s big win!

          https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/108997006470192139/embed

          Last Thursday night Karoline Leavitt joined Tucker Carlson to discuss the $5 million in attack ads and smears by the GOP elites.

          Here is Karoline’s campaign ad.

          Jim Hoft

          Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.


          By JOHN HUGH DEMASTRI, CONTRIBUTOR | September 14, 2022

          Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/14/producer-costs-high-inflation/

          U.S. President Joe Biden travels to Ohio
          REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

          The prices faced by producers rose by 8.7% year-on-year in August as inflation continues to challenge businesses, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

          While down from the near-record highs of 11.3% in June, the current price increases were over 4 times the typical rates — between 1 and 3% annually — seen in 2019 and 2020according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index (PPI), which measures the prices suppliers charge businesses and other customers. These elevated rates mirror Tuesday’s Consumer Price Index (CPI), which pegged inflation at 8.3%, according to the BLS. (RELATED: Food Prices Hit 40-Year High, Keep Breaking Records Every Month)

          A significant component of the decrease was accounted for by a 5.2% decline in energy costs, according to the BLS. Mirroring July’s results, the index for foods and all goods less food and energy rose by 0.1% and 0.2%, respectively.

          The index for all products other than foods, energy and trade services rose by 5.6% year-over-year,  less than the 5.8% posted in July, according to the BLS. The price for unprocessed goods was still incredibly elevated, at 36.1%, more than July’s value of 30.4%, as a spike in the price of natural gas kept prices up.

          The Biden administration has been taking a victory lap on economic conditions, with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen claiming the economy had undergone one of the fastest recoveries in modern history. President Joe Biden claimed that the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act had helped to combat inflation “at the kitchen table,” in a Tuesday speech at the White House.

          Simultaneously, the BLS’ monthly CPI report placed inflation at 8.3%, and found that food prices had increased 13.5% annually. Rent and electricity were also up, 6.7% and 15.8% respectively.

          Increased rent prices have put pressure on families in particular, with the average cost of a single family rental home up about 13.4% this year, according to CNBC. At a median cost of $2,495 per month, families who might otherwise save to purchase a house are being priced out of home ownership, CNBC reported.

          Gas prices also remained incredibly elevated, despite having fallen 12.2% month-on-month, and were still up 25.6% compared to the same time last year, the BLS reported.


          CAROL ROTH | September 14, 2022

          Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/roth-fed-is-going-to-it-up/

          On the back of the August CPI report, the hotter-than-expected headline inflation and core inflation (without food and gas) numbers are being perceived as bad news for Federal Reserve policymakers. While investor expectations for next week’s meeting were that the Fed would hike the target interest rate by 75 basis points (three-quarters of a percent), there were hopes that a more positive inflation report would give the Fed cover to raise its target rate only by 50 basis points (half a percent). Now, while the 75 basis-point hike is still the expectation, there is concern the Fed may raise by a full percent.

          At issue is what that means for the broader economy. The hopes that the Fed could achieve what investors call a “soft landing” — bringing down inflation without tanking the economy in the process — were never realistic and now are broadly waning. Even Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who spins every bad piece of news (and also told us inflation was going to be “transitory” and not a problem), said in an interview this weekend, “The Fed is going to need great skill and also some good luck to achieve what we sometimes call a soft landing.”

          Well, it’s hard to say the Fed has a lot of skill. After years of artificially suppressing interest rates and loading up the balance sheet with trillions of dollars in assets, in March 2020 the Fed said it needed to take swift action to save the economy. Officials’ ensuing actions instead helped to destroy the economy, including enabling historic inflation.

          They also told us the “transitory” inflation lie, while refusing to stop their damaging policy. In fact, they didn’t officially reverse course until after inflation had reached a 40-year high. So, depending on their skill is like depending on me not to eat a slice of pizza if it is in front of me — that is, not a high dependability rate.

          The luck factor isn’t on their side, either. The Fed’s tool kit of increasing the interest rates and reducing the balance sheet (if officials ever get around to the latter) are demand-side tools. They are meant to quell consumer purchasing, reduce business investment, and slow down the economy. However, we have massive undersupply broadly throughout the economy: an undersupply of workers, food, energy, housing, and other commodities. The Fed can “print” money, but it can’t print people, food, or oil. So, the only way officials can slow things down is by substantially slowing economic activity.

          We already have had two quarters of negative real GDP, so aggressively trying to slow things further isn’t the luck a soft landing needs. Add on to that the global recessionary pressure, from those self-inflicted energy issues in Europe to the real estate bubble popping and other issues in China, and the macro backdrop doesn’t present as very “lucky” for the economy, either. The Fed, along with its government cronies, has made a deliberate mess of the economy. Don’t count on skill and luck to fix it any time soon.


          Is the red wave crashing? Polling expert says critical ‘warning sign is flashing again’ — and it’s not good for Dems

          CHRIS ENLOE | September 14, 2022

          Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/red-wave-polling-expert-warning-signs-dems/

          As the 2022 midterm election nears, polls increasingly indicate that Democrats will be more competitive than previously thought. The red tsunami, which once looked menacing, now appears to be nothing more than a small ripple. But polling expert Nate Cohn explained this week a key “warning sign is flashing again,” suggesting polls are overestimating Democrats’ prospects.

          Jen Psaki, the former White House press secretary turned MSNBC employee, claimed Tuesday that election forecasts have “flipped,” now showing Democrats in the driver’s seat less than two months from Election Day. Indeed, polls are increasingly showing Democrats may not lose control of the Senate and potentially even the House. But those polls do not tell the whole story.

          Cohn wrote in the New York Times that ahead of the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden was outperforming then-President Donald Trump in many of the same regions of the country where polls overestimated support for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Such overestimation in favor of Democrats appears to be happening again.

          “That warning sign is flashing again: Democratic Senate candidates are outrunning expectations in the same places where the polls overestimated Mr. Biden in 2020 and Mrs. Clinton in 2016,” Cohn wrote.

          Cohn highlighted one Senate race in particular — Republican Sen. Ron Johnson’s battle against Democrat Mandela Barnes in Wisconsin — as a potential bellwether for bad polling after a recent Marquette Law School poll showed Barnes leading Johnson by a significant margin of 7 points.

          Cohn explained:

          But in this case, good for Wisconsin Democrats might be too good to be true. The state was ground zero for survey error in 2020, when pre-election polls proved to be too good to be true for Mr. Biden. In the end, the polls overestimated Mr. Biden by about eight percentage points. Eerily enough, Mr. Barnes is faring better than expected by a similar margin.

          The Wisconsin data is just one example of a broader pattern across the battlegrounds: The more the polls overestimated Mr. Biden last time, the better Democrats seem to be doing relative to expectations. And conversely, Democrats are posting less impressive numbers in some of the states where the polls were fairly accurate two years ago, like Georgia.

          When Cohn plotted the places where polls overestimated Democrats, he discovered a “consistent link between Democratic strength today and polling error two years ago.” According to Cohn, “persistent and unaddressed biases” in survey methodology — like nonresponse bias — is causing pollsters to derive misleading polls. What this means practically, he explained, is that what appears to be Democratic strength in the run-up to the election could actually be nothing more than a “mirage.”

          If the same polling errors from previous elections persist this year, Republicans will handily win the House and could even take control of the Senate.


          A.F. Branco Cartoon – Root Causes

          A.F. BRANCO | on September 14, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-root-causes/

          A failing economy, rising crime, inflation, fentanyl, etc. Biden and the Dens are at the root.

          Biden and the Dems at the Root of Disaster
          Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2022

          DONATE to A.F.Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

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


          BY: SOPHIA CORSO | SEPTEMBER 13, 2022

          Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/13/crime-runs-rampant-in-democrat-strongholds-with-shootings-beheading-last-weekend/

          Crime scene tape

          Author Sophia Corso profile

          SOPHIA CORSO

          MORE ARTICLES

          In Democrat-run cities with defund the police initiatives, gun control policies, and illegal immigrants, crime has dramatically increased. While most crime that the leftist media covers at length is done to further their political narrative, much more crime that does not garner the same coverage makes these cities a dangerous place to live.

          This weekend was no exception, as crime ran rampant in Democrat strongholds across the nation. Here are just a few highlights.

          Philadelphia, PA

          Over the weekend, 20 people were shot in the city of Philadelphia, four of whom were pronounced dead. There were an additional four stabbings this weekend in the east coast city. This deadly weekend put the city at 380 homicides for the year so far as of Saturday. While 2021 was the deadliest year the city has seen, Philadelphia is set to surpass last year’s record this year if this murder rate continues.

          The four fatalities included a 64-year-old man who was repeatedly shot then pronounced dead at the hospital, according to a local news outlet. Joseph Durpee, a man who was in the area when this shooting occurred, stated, “It’s exhausting.” Like other Philadelphians, he wants “to walk around and not fear for [his] life.”

          As a result of this rise in crime, reports show that the people of Philadelphia, specifically women, are increasingly becoming gun owners. According to Breitbart, “women began flooding into concealed carry classes as crime rose last year” and “outpaced men ’51 percent to 49 percent’” in concealed carry permit applications.

          Former police firearms instructor Terrance Lappe stated, “I’ve been living in Philadelphia for almost 64 years and have never seen anything like this.” She added, “That’s why I carry a gun.”

          Chicago, IL

          Six people were shot and killed in Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s Chicago this past weekend, with an additional seven teenagers wounded among the 28 total non-fatal shootings. The shootings occurred between 5:00 p.m. Friday and 5:00 a.m. Monday.

          Among the fatal attacks over the weekend included a 45-year-old man who was found in Washington Park on the South Side with a gunshot wound to the chest Friday evening. He was pronounced dead at University of Chicago Medical Center.

          Four minors were shot within a six-hour span on the South Side, including a 17-year-old boy who was wounded in a drive-by shooting and taken to the hospital in critical condition. A 14-year-old boy was also wounded in a drive-by shooting but was in “good condition” when taken to the hospital.

          While shootings are down from last year in Chicago, overall crime has risen to upwards of 45 percent in some districts, driving businesses out of the crime-ridden city. Despite this major uptick, Lightfoot stated last month that Chicago is making “progress” on crime. Violence committed and shootings of multiple Chicago residents each weekend, including teenagers, does not “scream” progress to people outside of Lightfoot’s line of thinking.

          San Carlos, CA

          Illegal immigrant Jose Rafael Solano Landaeta is in custody on murder charges for the brutal beheading of his ex-girlfriend Karina Castro this past Friday. Castro, who was also a mother of two, had placed a restraining order against Landaeta in April, according to law enforcement sources. Landaeta also “has criminal priors,” a report stated.

          Castro’s grandmother stated that Landaeta was “a diagnosed schizophrenic on meds” and “would use that as an excuse for his behavior.”

          Unfortunately, this murder is not the only crime states have seen as a result of mass illegal immigration. Just last month, two Mexicans who entered the United States illegally were charged with the murder of a North Carolina sheriff’s deputy.

          Another illegal immigrant was just sentenced 29 years in a U.S. prison for “violent” and “sadistic” home invasions in Texas. Not only are legal U.S. residents shelling out massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to provide for lawbreaking migrants, their cities see crimes committed by this population rising as well.

          According to reports, the Biden administration has allowed several hundred suspected terrorists inside the United States as part of its poorly vetted Afghanistan refugee pool.


          Sophia is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Le Moyne College. She majors in English and intends to pursue a career in journalism.


            BY: EDDIE SCARRY | SEPTEMBER 13, 2022

            Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/13/kamala-harris-on-nbc-were-only-a-legitimate-democracy-if-democrats-are-in-power/

            Author Eddie Scarry profile

            EDDIE SCARRY

            VISIT ON TWITTER@ESCARRY

            MORE ARTICLES

            Democrats and their fangirls in the national media pretend they have this thoughtful, nuanced view about where the country is right now, but it really boils down to: None of America’s institutions or political processes are lawful nor legitimate unless we’re the ones controlling them.

            Elections, Supreme Court decisions, legislation signed into law, “norms,” etc. All of it holds meaning so dear to their hearts.*

            *Except when Republicans are in power, in which case it’s all fraudulent.

            That dynamic was reinforced in virtually everything Vice President Kamala Harris said during an interview that aired Sunday with NBC’s Chuck Todd. She said the Senate filibuster rule should be discarded for Democrat priorities, but believed it should be maintained for everything else. Roll the tape…

            Todd: “Are you comfortable that this could end the legislative filibuster for good, probably, even if you only try to do it for two issues?”

            Harris: “No, I’m not. No I’m not.”

            She said the country needs a president who will “speak up and raise the alarm” about those “who right now are vividly not defending our democracy.” Then she excused Democrats who actively supported and elevated Republican primary congressional candidates who voiced skepticism about the 2020 election.

            Back to the tape…

            Todd: “When you see the Democratic Party and some parts of the party funding ads to promote some of these election deniers in primaries… Is this something you’d be comfortable with?”

            Harris: “I’m not going to tell people how to run their campaigns, Chuck.”

            She professed to be deeply dedicated to ensuring the world witnesses America’s dedication to “the importance of democratic principles, rule of law, human rights.” Then she undermined our highest court, accusing the justices of being politically motivated.

            To the tape…

            Todd: “How much confidence do you have in the Supreme Court?”

            Harris: “I think this is an activist court.”

            There is no logical end to Harris and every other Democrat leader’s thought process other than: When we run things, it’s right, just, and everyone must accept. When it’s not us, everything is improper, invalid, and unlawful.

            To be a Democrat is not to be pro-democracy. It’s to pursue a one-party state.


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


            By Ian M. Giatti, Christian Post Reporter | Tuesday, September 13, 2022

            Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/these-states-top-us-educational-freedom-report-card.html/

            Getty Images

            Parents looking for more options and transparency when schooling their children may want to head toward the Sunshine State.  A new report from conservative public policy think tank the Heritage Foundation ranked Florida as the most parent-friendly jurisdiction in the union, followed by Arizona, Idaho and Indiana.

            The inaugural 2022 edition of the “Education Freedom Report Card” also ranked New Jersey, New York and the District of Columbia as the least favorable for parents seeking choice and transparency in their child’s education. The report card uses a metric of four broad categories — school choice, transparency, regulatory freedom and spending — and utilizes 30 “discrete factors” to determine each state’s score. 

            Florida’s top ranking is mainly due to its academic transparency and a “strong” education savings account (ESA) program, more commonly known as school vouchers, the report stated. Florida adopted its ESA program in 2014, followed by several other states, including Mississippi (2015), Tennessee (2015), North Carolina (2017) and West Virginia (2021). Florida ranked first in “academic transparency,” meaning that “Florida lawmakers set a high standard for academic transparency and rejecting critical race theory’s pernicious ideas in 2022.”

            “State officials approved a proposal that prohibits teachers and administrators from compelling students to affirm the prejudiced ideas of critical race theory,” the report reads. “Lawmakers also approved a proposal that requires academic transparency so that parents and taxpayers can review classroom assignments before educators use such materials as part of K–12 instruction.”

            Earlier this year, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Parental Rights in Education Act, which prohibits public school teachers and third parties from instructing students about sexual orientation or gender identity in grades three and younger. The law also requires schools to notify parents about changes affecting their child’s mental, physical and emotional health.

            The law also prevents school districts from withholding information from parents at a time when many school districts nationwide are barring teachers from discussing trans-identified students’ social gender transition with their parents at the students’ request. 

            Florida ranks seventh overall in return on investment (ROI) for education spending, a variable that measures academic achievement for the investment in terms of spending per pupil. Florida also ranked second in regulatory freedom, meaning the state’s teachers and students are able “to pursue education largely devoid of red tape.”

            “An impressive 42 percent of Florida teachers are alternatively certified, making their way to K–12 classrooms through a means other than a traditional university-based college of education,” the report added. “The state has full reciprocity of teacher licensure, allowing anyone with a valid teaching license from another state to teach in Florida, or anyone who holds a certificate issued by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.”

            Arizona, which expanded its ESA option to every child statewide in July, ranked second on Heritage’s report card. However, data for the ranking was collected in the early spring of 2022 before the passing of Arizona’s universal ESA program. This means next year may see the state catapult over Florida to the top ranking. That didn’t stop Arizona from ranking first for school choice on the 2022 report card.

            According to the report, Idaho’s third-place ranking stems largely from its high ROI and transparency.

            On the other end of the ranking, New Jersey, New York and D.C. are “doing little to provide transparency, accountability, and choice to families,” the report finds, citing those jurisdictions’ 49th, 50th and 51st rankings, respectively.

            The report also underscored that while school choice remains vital, a growing number of existing schools are embracing critical race theory as “teachers have abandoned the practice of teaching their students about a shared sense of national identity, and districts are coercing teachers and students to affirm ideas that violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

            “Schools are teaching children to affirm the lie that America is systemically racist, despite seminal laws, such as the Civil Rights Act, and the monumental cultural shifts and racial progress brought on by the civil rights movement,” the report states.

            The report’s authors — Lindsey Burke, Jay Greene, Jonathan Butcher and Jason Bedrick — urge lawmakers to consider legislation that would prohibit “any public official from compelling teachers or students to affirm or profess any ideas, especially concepts that violate state and federal civil rights laws.”

            The report’s authors also contend that parents, taxpayers and policymakers should also have access to curriculum and instructional materials and that such access was a welcome benefit gleaned from remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

            “[P]arents should know if teachers assign homework from the Black Lives Matter Week of Action website, for example, so that they can have informed discussions with their children, school administrators, and board members,” the authors wrote. “Our report card accounts for state policymakers who have adopted provisions reaffirming state and federal civil rights laws and academic transparency provisions.”

            The ongoing debate comes as American public school systems have seen an exodus of students since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020.

            One report from the nonpartisan research group Education Next found that 2 million fewer students have been enrolled in non-charter public schools since spring 2020 when many public schools were closed for in-person instruction.

            While conservative organizations have issued resounding endorsements of school voucher programs, those programs are mostly opposed by public school teachers’ unions. The American Federation of Teachers argues that vouchers will primarily serve as tax breaks for wealthy families that can afford to send their kids to private schools. 

            Zeph Capo of the Texas American Federation of Teachers told KHOU-11 in August that voucher programs “really haven’t worked out well.”

            “As a matter of fact, most of the evidence shows that it’s actually been a waste of money and it hasn’t actually improved education,” Capo was quoted as saying.

            But Burke, the director of the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation, told The Christian Post the study seeks to change the national conversation. 

            “We hope this report card catalyzes education freedom across the country,” said Burke. “That more professionals are able to enter the classroom without having to go through woke colleges of education; that parents have radical transparency around the content their children’s schools are teaching, that school boards become more responsive to parents than to teachers unions by moving more school board elections on-cycle; and that, most importantly, every child can choose the learning environment that’s right for them through universal education choice.”


            By Jim Hoft | Published September 12, 2022

            Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/09/9-11-kamala-harris-compares-islamists-behind-sept-11-attacks-threat-trump-supporters-video/

            On Sunday liberal media host Chuck Todd asked Kamala Harris if the threat from Trump and conservatives was as great as the threat from Al-Qaeda when they murdered 2, 000 plus Americans.

            Chuck Todd: We are now at the 21st marking of the September 11th attacks. This was a foreign terrorist attacking our democracy, attacking this country. We are now as a nation fighting a threat from within. Is the threat equal or greater than what we faced after 9-11?

            Kamala Harris: That’s an interesting question… There’s an oath that we always take, which is to defend and uphold our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. We don’t compare the two in the oath but we know they both can exist.

            They both believe this pure lunacy.

            They don’t just say that Jan 6 selfie-takers were as threatening to ‘our democracy’ as Al Qaeda 9/11 hijackers-

            This lunatic regime believes it. And that’s the frightening part.
            pic.twitter.com/opQyg98mnM

            — Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) September 11, 2022

            There were 2,977 murdered by Islamists on September 11, 2001 attacks. There were 4 Trump supporters killed on January 6, 2021. The demonic left believes this is comparable!

            As The Gateway Pundit reported earlier — This is not the first time Kamala compared the 9-11 attacks to January 6.

            Via Midnight Rider.

            Jim Hoft

            Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.


            By JOSEPH MACKINNON | September 13, 2022

            Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/satans-child-arrested-child-rape/

            On Monday, the U.S attorney’s office for the Middle District of Florida announced the arrest of 40-year-old Miguel Diaz Gonzalez. He has been charged with production of child pornography. Gonzalez, who is alleged to have operated online under the username “Satan’s child,” was reportedly in possession of a video wherein he is depicted raping an 8-year-old who had previously been in his care.

            Gonzalez first became a person of interest when the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was tipped off to potential illegality involving an online storage account tied to the username “Satan’s child.” Investigators examined the account and the contents associated with it, finding child sexual abuse material.

            Authorities traced the account to Gonzalez’s Orlando home. Having executed a search warrant of the property, law enforcement agents determined Gonzalez was the user of the account in question. With the link established, they executed another warrant to search the account.

            According to the Justice Department, officials found a video documenting Gonzalez’s rape of a child.

            Gonzalez was arrested by the FBI on September 8. His booking report indicated that he had several tattoos depicting skulls and demons as well as one that read “F— the world.”

            If convicted, Gonzalez faces a maximum sentence of 30 years.

            The FBI, Orlando Police Department, Seminole County sheriff’s office, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement were involved in the investigation.

            This case is brought as part of Project Safe Childhood (PSC), a nationwide initiative to combat the technology-facilitated epidemic of child sexual exploitation. PSC was launched in May 2006 by the DOJ and works through a network of federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to protect children and throw offenders behind bars.

            According to the DOJ, technological advances have “encouraged child sexual exploitation offenders, especially those operating online, to an unprecedented degree.” The department noted that virtually every new technology made available to law-abiding citizens can be weaponized by degenerates against the innocent.

            Encryption, IP-masking technologies, highly protected online communities, video-streaming services, and mobile devices, in the wrong hands, can help offenders elude law enforcement and continue victimizing children.

            Assistant United States attorney Cortney Randall, who has been with the PSC for nearly 15 years, noted that victims can be targeted in a variety of ways. Whereas Gonzalez’s alleged victim was someone he knew personally, some offenders reach out to children via messaging apps and online games.

            Randall told Fox46, “When you do come across something online or someone does try and contact your child please report it to law enforcement. … Even if your child is not a victim, that person is just going to go out and find a new victim.”

            Even if offenders responsible for victimizing children are imprisoned, their criminal content may remain in circulation online for the consumption of other offenders. For this reason, the PSC has highlighted the importance of hunting down those who produce, distribute, and possess child pornography.

            The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children tip line is active 24/7.


            By JOHN HUGH DEMASTRI, CONTRIBUTOR | September 13, 2022

            Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/13/inflation-drop-wont-stop-fed/

            FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Joe Biden signs "The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022" into law at the White House in Washington
            REUTERS/Leah Millis/File Photo

            Inflation was at 8.3% in August, significantly exceeding economists’ predictions with core prices jumping even higher, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index (CPI).

            Core prices, which measures all prices less food and energy, remained elevated at 6.3%, slightly higher than July’s 5.9%, according to the BLS. With core prices remaining strongly elevated, it is unlikely that the Federal Reserve will slow its rate of interest increases designed to combat inflation, and will once again hike rates by 0.75% next week, according to The Wall Street Journal. (RELATED: Fed Unveils Bleak Forecast In Another Troubling Sign For The Economy)

            Economists had predicted inflation to decrease from 8.5% to around 8.1%.

            “The Federal Reserve will require at least three months of reassuring inflation data—along with evidence of a cooling labor market—before considering softening its tone,” said Mark Haefele, chief investment officer at UBS Global Wealth Management, according to the WSJ. This estimate is in line with the Federal Reserve’s estimate that the fight against inflation will likely take until the end of the year, according to a report.

            The energy index continued to fall 5% from Julybut energy costs have still increased 23.8% year-on-year, according to the BLS. Gasoline in particular remains high at 25.6%, down from 44.9% in July, with fuel oil remaining up 68.6% even after falling 5.9% in August.

            Food prices posted the largest 12 month increase in 43 years, with a 11.4% year-on-year increase in national food prices, up from July’s 10.9%, according to the BLS. Prices for shelter also remain elevated, increasing 6.2% year-on-year, compared to 5.7% in July.

            Under President Biden’s economic plan, we’re:
            – Bringing home jobs that went overseas
            – Making things here in America
            – Making our supply chains more secure
            – Winning the race for the future

            — The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 10, 2022

            The Biden administration has been taking a victory lap on economic conditions, with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen claiming that the U.S. had undergone an exceptionally rapid recovery “by any traditional metric,” in remarks at a Ford electric vehicle facility Sept. 8. She went on to say that “Household balance sheets are strong.”

            The Federal Reserve, which operates independently of the Biden administration, has been less optimistic, and described the economy as “generally weak” in a report just one day prior to Yellen’s speech. Roughly half of the regional banks that comprise the Federal Reserve system reported that their regional economies were either stagnant or declining, with the remainder reporting either slight or modest growth.

            “Last month President Biden made a huge production over a 0.0% month-to-month change in the CPI from June to July,” said Peter C. Earle, economist at the American Institute for Economic Research in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “There isn’t anything to celebrate in today’s July-to-August CPI numbers, so the likely spin will be to return to touting the so-called Inflation Reduction Act.”


            A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Other Washington

            A.F. BRANCO | on September 8, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-the-other-washington/

            Out with the old in with the new with Tiffany Smiley bringing fresh new ideas over Patty Murray’s stale old socialist policies.

            Patty Murray vs Tiffany Smilely
            Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2022.

            A.F. Branco Cartoon – Borderline Insanity

            A.F. BRANCO | on September 13, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-borderline-insanity/

            The Mexican cartels are said to be bringing terror across our border and throughout the country.

            Cartels The New ISIS
            Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2022.

            DONATE to A.F.Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

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

            SUMMING UP THE WEEK


            Friday, September 9, 2022


            BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | SEPTEMBER 08, 2022

            Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/08/citizens-worldwide-have-had-enough-of-globalist-idiocy/

            Protests in the Czech Republic

            Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

            SHAWN FLEETWOOD

            VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

            MORE ARTICLES

            While you wouldn’t know it by following America’s legacy media, citizens across the globe are expressing widespread dissatisfaction with their respective government’s failed leadership. Whether it’s at the ballot box or in the streets, tens of thousands of people are openly rejecting the globalist ethos permeating governments worldwide that has resulted in higher costs of living, skyrocketing energy prices, and increasing difficulty among citizens addressing their families’ basic needs.

            Spanning from Europe to South America, the backlash has been broad in both message and scope.

            Indonesia

            Thousands of Indonesians turned out en masse in some of the country’s biggest cities on Tuesday to demand that their “government reverse its first subsidised fuel price increase in eight years amid soaring inflation.”

            According to Reuters, “[u]nder pressure to control a ballooning energy subsidy budget, President Joko Widodo on Saturday said he had little choice but to cut the subsidy and let fuel prices rise by about 30 percent,” with oil costs “32% higher than a year ago.”

            “Protests took place in and around the capital, Jakarta, and in the cities of Surabaya, Makassar, Kendari, Aceh, and Yogyakarta, among a series of demonstrations led by students and labour groups that police say could draw big crowds this week,” the Reuters report reads. “Thousands of police were deployed across Jakarta, many guarding petrol stations, fearing they could become targets of mounting anger over a price increase that unions say will hurt workers and the urban poor the most.”

            As noted by Bloomberg News, Indonesia “has one of the highest poverty rates in the world at 9.5%,” with the cost of necessary items like food set to become more expensive amid the country’s inflation increase.

            “Workers are really, really suffering right now,” said Abdul Aris, a union official.

            Italy

            In Naples, Italians gathered in the streets outside the city’s town hall this past weekend to voice their displeasure with the nation’s rising energy costs. Protestors at the demonstration were filmed burning their energy bills in metallic bins while purportedly chanting phrases such as “We don’t pay the bills!” and “Now it will be chaos!”

            “We don’t want [soaring bills] anymore!” protestors also shouted.

            According to The London Economic, “Residents in the country will be asked to turn down the heating starting from October to help curb energy use, with limits on the use of central heating in public buildings also being brought in.”

            Given that Italy is “heavily reliant on Russia for gas imports,” the European sanctions put on Moscow and Rome’s acceleration towards “green energy” are expected to leave Italians facing a rough winter ahead.

            Chile

            Voters in Chile over the past weekend overwhelmingly rejected a newly proposed, left-wing constitution that would have provided the government with vastly more power and control over the country’s citizenry.

            According to The Blaze, the “170-page document containing 388 articles” would have “enshrine[d] 100 rights including the right to: a ‘nutritionally complete’ diet; ‘leisure’; ‘neurodiversity’; equality for ‘sexual and gender diversities and dissidences, both in the public and private spheres’; housing; sex parity in all public institutions; and to free education.”

            With nearly two-thirds (61.9 percent) of Chileans opposing the measure, the vote represents a humiliating defeat for the country’s socialist president, Gabriel Boric, who supported the proposed constitution.

            “I commit to put my all into building a new constitutional itinerary alongside congress and civil society,” Boric said.

            Opponents of adopting the radical document celebrated voters’ decision, with Carlos Salinas, a spokesman for the Citizens’ House for Rejection, saying that “[t]oday we’re consolidating a great majority of Chileans who saw rejection as a path of hope.”

            “We want to tell the government of President Gabriel Boric… that ‘today you must be the president of all Chileans and together we must move forward,” he said

            Czech Republic

            In the Czech Republic, approximately 70,000 citizens showed up in the nation’s capital of Prague on Saturday to protest their government’s handling of the ongoing energy crisis and to express opposition to the European Union and NATO. Organized by a wide swath of ideologically diverse political groups, “including the Communist Party of the Czech Republic and the Eurosceptic Tricolor Citizens’ Movement,” demonstrators “held Czech flags, as well as placards against the EU and NATO, Prime Minister Petr Fiala, rising energy prices, and calls for neutrality and dialogue with Russia.”

            Protestors also demanded “the resignation of the current coalition government of conservative Prime Minister Petr Fiala, whom they criticize for following pro-Western policies and allegedly paying more attention to war-torn Ukraine than to his citizens.”

            “The purpose of our demonstration is to demand change, mainly in solving the issue of energy prices, especially electricity and gas, which will destroy our economy this fall,” event co-organizer Jiří Havel said.

            The head of the Tricolor Party, Zuzana Majerová Zahradníková, echoed similar sentiments, saying that the “Czech Republic needs a Czech government” and that “[Prime Minister Petr] Fiala’s government may be Ukrainian, maybe Brussels, but not Czech.”

            Event organizers are currently scheduling another protest for Sept. 28, according to The New Voice of Ukraine.

            Other countries that have experienced protests against their governments in recent weeks include New Zealand and Germany, among others.


            Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves 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


            By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor | Friday, September 9, 2022

            Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/calif-cant-force-doctors-to-help-in-assisted-suicide-court.html/

            Reuters

            A judge has temporarily blocked California from enforcing a law that a Christian medical organization claims would force its members to participate in the process of assisted suicide despite its moral objections. U.S. District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha granted a preliminary injunction last Friday halting enforcement of a provision of the state’s Health & Safety Code.

            The 19,000-member Christian Medical & Dental Associations and Dr. Leslee Cochrane sued California over a bill that they say removed conscience protections for medical professionals morally opposed to any form of participation with assisted suicide. While Aenlle-Rocha disputed the plaintiffs’ religious discrimination claims, he believes “they are likely to succeed on their Free Speech claim.”

            “The ultimate outcome of this requirement is that non-participating providers are compelled to participate in the Act through this documentation requirement, despite their objections to assisted suicide,” wrote Aenlle-Rocha, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.

            The judge’s order blocks the state from enforcing the provision requiring a healthcare provider unwilling or unable to participate to “document the individual’s date of request and provider’s notice to the individual of their objection in the medical record.” 

            While the provision in question still allows doctors not to perform physician-assisted suicide, the policy requires doctors to document the date of the patient’s request for lethal drugs in the patient’s medical record and “transfer the records of that first oral request to a second physician upon the patient’s request.” Plaintiffs argued that the provision requires objecting healthcare professionals “to discuss, refer for, or otherwise participate in assisted suicide.”

            The Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit religious freedom advocacy organization representing the plaintiffs, celebrated the temporary block in a statement Tuesday.

            “Our clients seek to live out their faith in their medical practice, and that includes valuing every human life entrusted to their care. Participating in physician-assisted suicide very clearly would violate their consciences,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot.

            “We’re pleased the court followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NIFLA v. Becerra that clarified First Amendment protections extend to religious medical professionals.”

            In 2015, then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed the End of Life Option Act, which took effect in 2016 and made California the fifth state to allow residents to end their lives with doctor-prescribed drugs. Last October, California passed Senate Bill 380, which opponents said reduced the level of conscience protections for medical professionals opposed to physician-assisted suicide. In February, CMDA and Cochrane sued California on grounds the new law forces a physician with a patient who requests an assisted suicide to “document the request in that patient’s medical record, even if the physician objects to participating in assisted suicide in any way.” 

            “In sum, the original End of Life Options Act provided broad protection for conscientiously objecting physicians, but SB 380 eliminates or limits that protection,” read the suit.

            “Plaintiffs desire not to participate in assisted suicide in any way, but they fear penalization under SB 380 and action against their medical licenses if they do not.”

            Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook


            By HAROLD HUTCHISON, REPORTER | September 08, 2022

            Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/08/dcnf-gabe-kaminsky-fbi-nics-forms//

            DCNF - Kaminsky FBI RAV Guns - Featured
            Screenshot/Rumble/Real America’s Voice

            A Daily Caller News Foundation reporter described how the FBI pressured Americans to sign away their gun rights during a Wednesday appearance on Real America’s Voice.

            “The FBI opened various investigations into online threats made online, things like people … making controversial remarks on social media, potentially people tipping other people off, maybe saying things on things like planes, and the FBI received these tips, open investigations and after that, they use these investigations as an impetus to show up at people’s homes or in other redacted locations,” DCNF investigative reporter Gabe Kaminsky said on “The Water Cooler.” (RELATED: ‘A Certain Irony’: Rand Paul Rips FBI After Bombshell DCNF Report)

            WATCH:

            At least 15 people signed forms relinquishing their Second Amendment rights after the FBI presented them, Kaminsky reported. Gun Owners of America obtained the forms through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and provided them to the DCNF.

            “Obviously, we spoke to a lot of legal experts and a lot of gun experts, including people at Gun Owners of America and lawyers who have worked lot with these groups and are very familiar with these groups, who were unsure of the legality of how this bodes for not only the Second Amendment, but other statutes of U.S. code,” Kaminsky said.

            One of the statutes in question discusses handling those who are mentally incompetent.

            “The glaring discrepancy here is that the Gun Control Act of 1968 rules that the only way people can be barred, or one way people can be barred from possessing guns is if they are ruled mentally defective or adjudicated as mentally defective or adjudicated as being in a mental facility, and so these people are not going through that legal process,” Kaminsky said.

            Our reporter @gekaminsky went on @RealAmVoice to talk about how the FBI was trying to get Americans to give up their second amendment rights. pic.twitter.com/8wejg2Y1aN

            — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 8, 2022

            The House of Representatives voted in 2017 to overturn an Obama-era regulation allowing the Social Security Administration to share information about those with mental illness with the FBI, which operates the National Instant Background Check System (NICS).

            The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.


            Friday, September 9, 2022

            I came across this video this morning. It’s from Preger U and a great explanation of the difference between a Democracy (which we Are not), and a Republic, which we are.

            The Difference Between a Democracy and a Republic

            If you ask Americans to name their country’s form of government, most of them will say they live in a democracy. However, the real answer is more complicated (and unexpected) than that. Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, explains.


            By DAVE URBANSKI | September 09, 2022

            Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/joe-scarborough-says-jesus-never-talked-about-abortion/

            Joe Scarborough — host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” — said Friday that “Jesus never once talked about abortion” in the New Testament, and he accused pro-life Christians of “heresy,” saying they’re “perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ down to one issue.”

            “Morning Joe” ran a video of Republican South Carolina state Sen. Katrina Shealy, who calls herself “pro-life,” speaking against a near-total abortion ban in the state — which was defeated Thursday. In the clip, Shealy said those in favor of an abortion ban without exceptions for rape and incest are “miscommunicating with God — or maybe you’re just not communicating with him at all.”

            Scarborough lauded Shealy’s speech and then accused pro-life Christians of “heresy” and suggested that Jesus doesn’t necessarily oppose abortion because the Bible doesn’t record him having said the word.

            “As a Southern Baptist, I grew up reading the Bible — maybe a backslidden Baptist, but I still know the Bible. Jesus never once talked about abortion, never once! And it was happening back in ancient times, it was happening during, in his time!” Scarborough said angrily. “Never once mentioned it, and for people perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ down to one issue, it’s heresy.”

            He then ripped pro-life Christians again, saying they’re “using” Jesus to force raped children to carry pregnancies to term, noting the recent case of the 10-year-old Ohio rape victim who traveled to Indiana to get an abortion since she couldn’t get one in her home state.

            “If you don’t believe me, if that makes you angry, why don’t you do something you haven’t done in a long time?” Scarborough said sarcastically. “Open the Bible, open the New Testament, read the red letters. You won’t see it there. And yet there are people who are using Jesus as a shield to make 10-year-old raped girls go through a living and breathing hell here on Earth. They’ve also conveniently overlooked the parts of the New Testament where Jesus talks about taking care of the needy. Taking care of those who are helpless, who live a hopeless life. Because they believe, these state legislators believe, that life begins at fertilization and ends at childbirth.”

            Reproductive Rights Has Galvanized Michigan Voters, Says House Member youtu.be

            (H/T: The Daily Caller)


            By Ian M. Giatti, Christian Post Reporter | Thursday, September 8, 2022

            Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/being-a-patriotic-american-doesnt-make-you-a-christian-nationalist.html/

            Courtesy of Mark Creech

            When it comes to history, and American history in particular, definitions matter. In 2006, before becoming the leader of the free world, former President Barack Obama famously said, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation — at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”

            It wouldn’t be the last time the 44th president would suggest America once held to an exclusivist Christian identity, but the claim begged a larger question: did it ever? By the end of Obama’s first term, most Evangelical leaders seemed to say “no.” A 2012 survey conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals found less than a third of American Evangelicals believed the U.S. is a “Christian nation,” though there was considerable debate over exactly what that looks like. A decade later, not much has changed.

            In a wide-ranging interview, Dr. Richard Land, executive editor of The Christian Post, urged American Christians, regardless of their political persuasion, not to allow the Left to define how they see the United States.

            According to Land, the Left-leaning American media invented the hot-button phrase “Christian nationalism” as a pejorative term that serves to undermine the fundamental relationship between Christians and this nation as defined in the U.S. Constitution. 

            “I’m not a Christian nationalist,” Land said. “I’ve read about some, but I don’t know any.”

            “I think it is a tactic by the Left and their toadies in the media to suppress patriotic beliefs and to suppress the idea that America is a unique country,” added Land.

            “They hate that, they don’t believe it themselves.”

            The notion of Christian nationalism has a contentious history, one that some commentators say stretches back at least as far as the dawn of the New Deal, when Christian leaders rallied around the Cross of Christ in response to what they saw as government encroachment.

            For others, the phrase conjures up images of Jerry Falwell Sr. and the Religious Right of the 1970s and early 1980s, or former President Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again movement — and, for some, its alleged corollary, the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, which The Washington Post headlined as a “kind of Christian revolt.”

            Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry, authors of the bookTaking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, defined the term as the belief that the “United States is and should be a Christian nation.”

            Whitehead and Perry wrote: “Christian nationalism merely uses the Bible to impose its conservative political agenda. By asserting that they are true followers of Christ in a country that is founded on Christian principles, adherents of Christian nationalism can brand their political opponents as both ungodly and un-American.”

            But Land, who also serves as president emeritus and adjunct professor of theology and ethics at Southern Evangelical Seminary,  rejects the term.

            “To be a patriotic American does not make you a Christian nationalist,” he said. “To believe God has played a unique role in our history, or that America is a unique nation, does not make us Christian nationalists.’

            “Pejoratively, they want to tie Christian nationalism to racism and to prejudice, and I reject those labels.”

            In celebration of the nation’s independence back in July, Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of First Baptist Dallas, told his congregation that while he doesn’t consider himself a “Christian nationalist,” he does believe the United States was founded as a “Christian nation.”

            In his message, Jeffress said that anyone listening to “left-wing” organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union or the Freedom From Religion Foundation “will come to believe that America was founded by men with a wide diversity of religious beliefs.” That couldn’t be further from the truth, according to Jeffress, who added, “that version of American history belongs in the same category as the story of George Washington and the cherry tree: it is a complete myth.”

            While Land conceded that Jeffress was making a “valid point,” he said he disagrees with him when it comes to the question of whether we were founded as a Christian nation. Instead, Land believes America is “an experiment combining Judeo-Christian values with Enlightenment ideas,” but warned that it “doesn’t work unless the majority of the people are aware of being subject to a higher authority.”

            Land said, “Jeffress and I, because we’re both Baptists, believe in separation of both Church and State, and thus believe the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution belong to everyone, regardless of their faith.”

            He further noted that the Declaration of Independence makes reference to God numerous times, perhaps most famously in its conclusion in which the Founders wrote: “For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

            Still, Land said, that’s a far cry from declaring America to be a Christian nation.

            “I don’t believe we were founded as a Christian nation,” he said. “I believe we were founded by people who were Christians or were operating out of a Christian worldview. 

            “In the Declaration of Independence, they do not declare their independence from God, they’re just declaring their independence from Great Britain.”

            Twelve of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, for instance, were Presbyterian — including the sole clergyman signer, John Witherspoon — for which reason many Presbyterians today claim loyalists to King George III saw the American Revolution as a largely “Presbyterian Rebellion.”

            Witherspoon himself went on to help formalize the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution, paving the way for the birth of the U.S. federal government.

            The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion” and “government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.” It also prohibits the government from “unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.”

            More than two centuries after an 1802 letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in which Jefferson famously described the First Amendment as “a wall of separation between Church and State,” Land and others contend that all the limitations in the First Amendment are on the State, not the people.

            The amendment was intended, Land added, to protect “the church” from “the state.”

            Two days after he sent the letter, Jefferson attended a church service conducted in the House of Representatives.

            Five years before the first Congress convened, the Capitol building was used as a church, according to the Library of Congress. The first services were held in the fall of 1800 in the north wing of the House. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson himself began attending church services at the Capitol, before he later famously created his own version of Scripture to omit fundamental tenets of the faith, including the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

            In what might be the judiciary’s most overt reference to America as a Christian nation, U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Brewer, writing the majority decision in the 1892 case Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, noted the observance of the Sabbath and other traditions as a “clear recognition” of faith in civic life.

            “These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation,” wrote Brewer.

            It’s that extensive confluence of Christian faith and American history that, according to Land, raises the question of defining exactly what is meant by phrases such as Christian nationalist.

            “When people who are liberal try to label a Christian nationalist as anybody who believes America has anything to do with God or that God has anything to do with America, they’re denying most of American history,” he said.

            Many of the Founding Fathers, added Land, “believed that God, for some reason, had a special interest in the United States of America.”

            John Adams, the country’s second president, who, according to Land, “had more to do with the Constitution than anybody except James Madison,” said in 1798: “We have a government designed only for a moral and religious people. It is insufficient for any other.”

            “What he meant by that was, if you’re going to have limited government … you’ve got to have a majority of the population who are voluntarily obeying the law when nobody else is around because they are aware that they are accountable to a higher authority,” Land said.

            He pointed to Puritan founder John Winthrop, who spoke about America as “a city upon a hill,” a phrase echoed over 300 years later by President Ronald Reagan.

            “Was [Winthrop] a Christian nationalist?” Land asked.

            Abraham Lincoln once called America the “last best hope of Earth,” one that “the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.”

            “Was he a Christian nationalist?” again asked Land.

            As the U.S. lurched toward World War I, Woodrow Wilson, the son of a Presbyterian minister, spoke about fighting “the war to end all wars.”

            “Was he a Christian nationalist?” Land asked rhetorically.

            Pointing to John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address, Land said while the speech became well-known for a number of reasons, many overlook what Kennedy said was the driving force behind our nation: “For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe — the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”

            “That’s pretty clear,” said Land.

            In fact, with a handful of exceptions, nearly every president in American history has been identified with Protestant Christianity. Yet with the exception of Trump, none of them have been historically accused of appealing to Christian nationalist ideology.

            2016 presidential election 

            When it comes to global use, the term Christian nationalism was relatively — though not completely — nonexistent for the first two decades of this millennium, seeing only slight bumps during the George W. Bush administration. Part of that, according to Google, is due to a lack of search engine data.

            Around the time of Trump’s election in November 2016, the term “white nationalism” — a much more pejorative precursor to the more narrow Christian nationalism — saw a sharp rise in searches, fueled in part by allegations of Trump’s support from white nationalist figures like David Duke and William Johnson.

            The first significant spike in searches for Christian nationalism came in August 2019 following a pair of mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. But it wasn’t until the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, that both search terms were seemingly conflated and the contemporary notion of Christian nationalism seeped into the national consciousness.

            Outlets like HuffPost ran articles suggesting the events of Jan. 6 — which it described as “an episode that was permeated with the symbols of Christian nationalism” — were directly tied to the government allowing and even funding conservative Christian education in the United States.

            Even more left-leaning media sites such as Vice reported hearing from Christians around the country who “said they’ve witnessed their congregations lose focus and slide into Christian nationalism” even as churches grow “older and whiter than before.”

            During a 2021 webinar hosted by Christians Against Christian Nationalism, a coalition of faith leaders and organizations, the progressive Rev. Michael Curry, presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church, said while he believes that there are “innocent forms of Christian nationalism,” he warned of a “more virulent or dangerous kind” that involves people viewing their country as “God’s favorite.”

            “That borders on blasphemy, idolatry,” argued Curry. “That kind of nationalism is dangerous. It is dangerous to civic health; it is dangerous to the health of a Christian.”

            Progressive Christian activist and author Shane Claiborne, who is listed as one of the endorsers of Christians Against Christian Nationalism, called on churches to remove the U.S. flag from their altars or consider adding the banners of other nations following the Jan. 6 violence. 

            “To be part of the Body of Christ is to transcend nationality,” the Red Letter Christians co-founder and leading figure in the New Monasticism movement argued. “That’s part of what it means to be ‘born again.’”

            But Land said while he’s personally faced criticism for churches he’s attended where both the American and Christian flags were displayed, there’s never been any doubt about which one comes first.

            “Every church I’ve been in, we understand the pecking order: the ultimate flag is the Christian flag,” he said.

            Land recalled memories of being a young boy in Houston, Texas, and being led to recite a Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag, the Christian flag and the Bible. So, why then do we have the American flag in church when there are so many people who come from other countries to our churches?

            “The reason is, the American flag has never tried to persecute Christians,” Land said. “Almost all of the other countries in the world at some point in time, they have persecuted some kind of Christians.’ 

            “But in America, the American flag has been the symbol of the First Amendment, which is about religious freedom. And it’s the First Amendment for a reason. All the other freedoms protect the ‘first’ freedom, which is the right to worship God as we please or not to worship Him at all.’ 

            “So I have no problem with the American flag being in churches. The American flag is a symbol of soul freedom.”

            The corporate press 

            Since the events of Jan. 6, some of America’s best-known media outlets have published a number of stories referring to Christian nationalism in relatively stark headlines, including: 

            • “The Far-Right Christian Quest for Power” – The New York Times
            • “Christian nationalism is surging. It wasn’t inevitable” – The Washington Post
            • “Christian nationalism is a threat, and not just from Capitol attackers invoking Jesus” – USA Today
            • ‘Lynchburg Revival’ Activists Warn Of Rising ‘Christian Nationalism’ – NPR
            • “White Christian Nationalism is the Most Dangerous Weapon in America” – Newsweek
            • “Trump’s army of God: Doug Mastriano and the Christian nationalist attack on democracy” – Salon

            While by no means a comprehensive list, even such a relatively small sample of headlines underscore what Land described as a “Southern Poverty Law Center kind of attitude” among the American media establishment toward patriotic Christians.

            Land said the use of Christian nationalist and nationalism is merely another attempt by the political Left to “label Christians with what they see as a negative label … the same way they tried to make cisgender a negative label.”

            “Basically, if you believe in any sense that America has a unique role to play in the world, and that God in His providence has had something to do with the United States, then you’re a Christian nationalist.’ 

            “Then they start saying, ‘This is just for white people.’’”

            For Land, such a view, both secular and otherwise, is incompatible with American history.

            He recalled one episode where our first President George Washington wrote a letter to a Jewish congregation in Rhode Island, welcoming them not as guests, but as fellow Americans.  

            “May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants,” Washington wrote.

            Land said that sentiment is intrinsic to the fabric of our country.

            “We believe in religious freedom,” Land said. “You’re free to have your mosque, you’re free to have your Shinto temple, you’re free to have your synagogue.”

            He pointed to a 2015 poll that found 62% of American adults believe in the notion of American exceptionalism, that God has granted America a “special role” on the world stage.

            “We are not [a] chosen nation, but America is exceptional, and God has blessed us in unique ways,” he said. “We are the recipients of divine providence, divine blessing, and blessing, by definition, is undeserved. Otherwise, it would be called a reward.’

            “No nation has been blessed by God more than the United States of America, and that incurs certain obligations.”

            For Land, understanding Christian nationalism or any other intended pejorative involving patriotism and faith should be viewed not through the lens of social media tribalism, but in its historical context.

            “On the whole, and it is on the whole that such questions must be answered, American influence in the world has been a positive influence and not a negative influence. Wherever America’s gone, there’s been more freedom, been more respect for minorities, more respect for women.’

            “That’s why so many people want to come here.”

            In fact, Land said, it’s the continued desire of people from all over the world trying to make their way to the U.S. that speaks to America’s decidedly remarkable place in history.

            “I don’t think it’s Christian nationalism to say America is a unique country,” he said. “Every other country in the world is founded on blood and soil. People of certain ethnicities, people of a certain geographic location. Not the United States.’ 

            “The United States is based upon an idea: anybody can become an American.”

            Facing opposition from ideological movements like critical race theory (CRT) — which, according to Land, seeks to “deconstruct American history and make America out to be an awful place” — Land said now more than ever, it’s important for Christians to push back against blanket descriptors like “Christian nationalism.”

            “They should reject the term and replace it with things like ‘patriotic American’ or ‘someone who understands how unique the Declaration of Independence is,’” he said. 

            “It’s not racist. Anybody can become an American, and we’ve demonstrated that by our history.”


            BY: ASHLEY BATEMAN | SEPTEMBER 08, 2022

            Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/08/vaccine-mandates-are-flipping-voter-registrations-and-driving-political-change/

            lawyer testifying before council meeting

            Author Ashley Bateman profile

            ASHLEY BATEMAN

            MORE ARTICLES

            A devout Christian, father, and African-American, Michael Anderson didn’t feel represented by either party and until Jan. 31 of this year, remained politically unaffiliated. But a series of events has led him to align with and campaign alongside conservatives in one of North Carolina’s most liberal counties.

            Anderson is an attorney for a Big Tech company in Charlotte. Headquartered just a few miles across the border in South Carolina, his company claims the fifth largest internet footprint in the United States. Higher-ups have a stated goal of widespread “influence.” They are making good on that goal.

            On Nov 18, 2021, the CEO stood before an all-employee meeting at the Charlotte location and declared for the “greater good of humanity” it was no longer enough to segregate the workers who had not received a Covid-19 vaccine. They had to be removed entirely. The entire company had been working remotely for nearly two years at that point, Anderson said. The announcement came just before the holidays.

            “Hundreds of people found out that day they would be fired unless they submitted to the mandate without an approved medical or religious exemption,” Anderson said.

            Anderson reached out to co-workers via an internal Slack channel sharing his concerns and received a flood of responses expressing stress and fear.

            “I’ve worked in some difficult places with some difficult people and that was the most difficult week of my career,” Anderson said. “I grew up in a single-parent family below the poverty level. Single mothers [were contacting me]. Pregnant women were contacting me to see whether they could receive a medical exemption. There were so many inequities and unjust consequences to this poorly thought out, draconian mandate.”

            About 60 employees linked up. “All these people [losing their jobs] are super high-performing, hardworking people, some who have been in the company for 15-16 years,” Anderson said. “I asked the CEO to change the policy, the director of diversity, the General Counsel; I couldn’t change their minds.”

            Anderson began using his legal expertise to assist exemption-seekers. Alongside like-minded freedom fighters, he developed a coalition, ByManyOrByFew, to inform, educate and connect voters.

            “I thought we ought to do something to fight against these policies and funnel people toward politicians who were freedom-minded,” he said.

            But Anderson didn’t stop there. Within weeks of the company announcement, he decided to run for a North Carolina House seat in Mecklenburg, one of the most Democratic counties in the state. Choosing a party affiliation by now was a no-brainer.

            In preparation to testify before the South Carolina House and Ways subcommittee on December 7, 2021, for a workplace vaccination bill that could eventually impact the North Carolina arm of the company he works for, Anderson reached out to both political parties. Not one Democrat would respond, but many Republicans fighting for individual rights did. “Forty-four Caucasians were fighting to protect my rights,” he said.

            Vaccines historically have a disparate impact on minorities. Anderson references the Tuskegee Experiment, as one horrific example. He saw history repeating itself with the Covid-19 vaccine, led by a Democratic president.

            “When you had these vaccine mandates come out, I placed the blame at the feet of President Biden,” Anderson said. “Although his mandates were ultimately unsuccessful, a lot of companies were encouraged and enabled to have their own vaccine mandates and a private company has a lot more flexibility compared to the government. As a result, by their terms, that caused systemic, institutional racism because it has a disparate impact on minorities.”

            That is who Anderson specifically wants to champion; and who Democrats continuously fail to support or outright harm with disastrous policies. Even with the CDC’s recently updated vaccine guidelines, Democratic leaders like Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser are pursuing policies that hurt miniorities disproportionately, like a vaccine mandate that would bar 40 percent of D.C. black teenagers from in-person learning.

            “My district is 60 percent African American, 20 percent Latino,” Anderson said. “The reason why I like that and that’s where I want to be is not only because I am African American, there’s no demographic flipping faster from Democrat to Republican than Latino. And if you look at the vaccine mandates, there is no race that was hurt worse than African Americans.”

            Minority voters have been impacted by other far-left policies, and are expressing their discontent at the polls. A recent interview by NPR with political scientist Ruy Teixeira revealed how Democrats are driving minority voters to flip partisanship, especially in the Latino population. 

            “…[T]he ultra-progressive wing of the Democratic Party privileging criminal justice reform over public safety,” has become a major concern of minority voters, Teixeira said. “People want to be safe from crime, and that includes a lot of nonwhite voters. It is not a matter for them of choosing between the two, but rather above all, you’ve got to keep our community safe.”

            Anderson’s opponent for NC House District 99, Democratic Rep. Nasif Majeed, supported the “ultra-progressive” defunding of the Charlotte police in his previous campaign. Charlotte now has only 1,600 police officers for a city of 1 million people. Three hundred defections or retirements are expected in the near term and salaries start as low as $40,000. A lack of manpower has resulted in unanswered 911 calls and crimes below a felony going entirely unaddressed. “Social justice warriors” are crippling police response, according to local law enforcement.

            Democrats’ leftist ideologies ruin cities and Anderson wants to get his town back on track, but he knows reform isn’t possible alongside current Democrats in North Carolina’s House, who hold a majority in the legislature. 

            A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Anderson grew up below the poverty level in a biracial, single-parent home. Progressive policies pressed during the pandemic are driving inequity that entrap and eliminate those the far-left claim to champion, he said. He feels there is no place for him in the Democratic Party right now.

            Through door-to-door campaigning, he’s found that many registered Democrats in Charlotte agree.

            “I ask people what issues they need represented and how the system is failing them,” Anderson said. “You have to have conversations with people to know.”

            Empowered by a Democrat president, Democrat House, and a coalition of Democrat governors, Covid-19 tyranny has driven a new type of minority leader like Anderson to represent an increasingly diverse Republican party — one that engages in the political battle and fights for the now tenuous freedoms once taken for granted.


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


            By JACK MCEVOY, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT REPORTER | September 08, 2022

            Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/08/uk-lifts-fracking-ban-combat-energy-crisis/

            Liz Truss Presents Plan To Mitigate Surging Energy Costs
            (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

            British Prime Minister Liz Truss said Thursday that she is lifting the ban on fracking to help her country reduce exorbitant energy prices.

            Truss, who was appointed as the new Conservative Prime Minister on Tuesday, announced in the House of Commons that she will enable oil and gas developers to seek permission from the government to increase domestic fuel supplies as the U.K. looks to combat its energy crisis. Truss said she hopes to get fracking operations started within the next six months and is also approving 100 new exploration licenses for oil and gas drilling in the North Sea(RELATED: British Pound Hits Lowest Level Against US Dollar In 37 Years)

            “We will make sure that the U.K. is a net energy exporter by 2040,” Truss told parliament. “We are supporting this country through this winter and next, and tackling the root causes of high prices so we are never in the same position again.”

            Fracking, a process that harvests oil and gas from buried shale rock, was banned in England in 2019 by the Conservative Party due to concerns about the safety of the practice, according to the 2019 Conservative Party Manifesto.

            PRESTON, ENGLAND – SEPTEMBER 16: An aerial view of the Cuadrilla shale gas extraction (fracking) site at Preston New Road, near Blackpool on September 16, 2019 in Preston, England. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

            Truss also placed a £2,500 ($2,888) cap on skyrocketing household electricity bills for two years as part of an economic package that could cost the U.K. about £150 billion ($172 billion). Soaring utility costs have caused thousands of Britons to protest price hikes and refuse to pay their bills until they are reduced by the government, according to the protest group Don’t Pay U.K.

            “We are facing a global energy crisis, and there are no cost-free options,” she stated.

            Sanctions on Russian fuel supplies as well as the cut-off of natural gas via the Nord Stream 1 pipeline are causing British and European electricity prices to spike as countries look to ration fuel supplies ahead of winter. Additionally, the U.K. aims to reach net-zero emissions targets by 2050 by implementing a carbon emissions trading scheme that lowers the competitiveness of fossil fuels and accelerates investments in green energy, according to the U.K. government.

            The British Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.


            By DAVE URBANSKI | September 08, 2022

            Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/oil-gas-workers-association-tweet-power-california/

            California’s historic heat wave pushed temperatures to all-time record highs across the state Tuesday, including in San Jose (109 degrees) and Sacramento (116 degrees), according to the Weather Channel.

            A temperature readout at an El Dorado Savings Bank in Sacramento, California, on Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2022.Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

            The mercury wasn’t nearly as high in Los Angeles on Tuesday (93 degrees) after topping out at 101 degrees Sunday. But according to Marc Brown — anchor for WABC-TV news in Los Angeles — the power still went out at the station Tuesday night:

            The loss of power likely didn’t come as a big surprise. Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom asked state residents to curtail electricity usage Tuesday to ease the strain on power grids:

            Newsom’s video appeal was met with a fair amount of mockery, particularly from commenters who didn’t believe the governor was suffering much under the heat compared to others. In the same way, Brown’s tweet about the power going out at KABC-TV attracted some sarcasm — but the comment that got the most attention came from the Oil & Gas Workers Association:

            “Get somebody to bring you 5 gallons of wind turbine,” the Oil & Gas Workers Association quipped back.

            Interestingly, days after California’s statewide power grid emergency declaration — and facing the potential of rolling blackouts — the state activated four gas-powered emergency generators.

            How did folks react?

            Other commenters, as you might expect, loved the response from the Oil & Gas Workers Association:

            • “Oh my gosh, @ogwausa, you won at Twitter,” one commenter reacted.
            • “This tweet wins,” another user declared.
            • “That had to be the best reply,” another commenter said. “The media is just as complicit in this disaster perpetuated by the alleged administration[s] in Washington and Sacramento. I wonder if ABC’s backup generators are run on windmills and solar panels?”
            • “Basic incompetence,” another user wrote. “California has all the resources it needs, they just have to execute smarter. Have [U.S. Rep.] Eric Swalwell [D-Calif.] head over [to] the wind turbine farm, lay down one of his notorious potent vigorous farts, and get those turbines spinning. Problem solved, you’re welcome.”
            • “This may be my favorite tweet in the history of Twitter,” another commenter announced.
            • “This is my favorite response. Ever,” another user said.
            • “I think I just fell a little in love with you!!!” another commenter confessed.

            By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor | Thursday, September 8, 2022

            Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/queen-elizabeth-ii-dies-at-age-96.html

            Queen Elizabeth II arrives with for the opening of the sixth session of the Scottish Parliament on October 02, 2021, in Edinburgh, Scotland. | Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

            Queen Elizabeth II, Britain’s longest-reigning monarch, died Thursday at age 96 after 70 years on the throne and serving as head of the Church of England.

            “The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon,” stated the official Royal Family Twitter handle on Thursday. “The King and The Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow.” 

            The news came shortly after Buckingham Palace announced that the queen was under medical supervision at Balmoral due to health concerns, though they noted that she was comfortable.

            “Following further evaluation this morning, the Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision,” they stated.

            All of the queen’s children and the Duke of Cambridge traveled to Balmoral to be by her side. 

            On Tuesday, the queen appointed the new Prime Minister Liz Truss as her last public duty. 

            Earlier this year, Elizabeth II had missed multiple ceremonies, including Easter Sunday worship in April and events tied to her Platinum Jubilee celebration in June, due to health and mobility issues. 

            Born April 21, 1926, in Mayfair, London, Princess Elizabeth was the first child of King George VI, who ruled from 1936 after his brother King Edward VIII resigned, until his death in 1952.

            During World War II, Princess Elizabeth joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service of the British Army, where she served as a mechanic and rose to the rank of Junior Commander.

            Before taking the throne, Elizabeth married Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, in 1947. The union produced four children and lasted until April 9, 2021, when Philip died at age 99.

            Queen Elizabeth II had her coronation at Westminster Abbey on June 2, 1953, with the ceremony being overseen by Archbishop of Canterbury Geoffrey Fisher.

            In addition to secular responsibilities as monarch, Elizabeth II also held the title of “Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England,” and oversaw various Church affairs.

            The position goes back to King Henry VIII, who made himself head of the Church of England after splitting from the Roman Catholic Church when the pope refused to grant him a divorce.

            “On the advice of the Prime Minister The Queen appoints Archbishops, Bishops and Deans of the Church of England, who then swear an oath of allegiance and pay homage to Her Majesty,” explained The Royal Family website.

            “In 1970 The Queen became the first Sovereign to inaugurate and address the General Synod in person. Since then Her Majesty has inaugurated and addressed the opening session of the General Synod every five years after diocesan elections.”

            The gradual breakup of the British Empire that had begun under her father’s reign continued during the 1950s and 1960s, as numerous overseas holdings gained independence.

            Over time, the British Empire transformed into the Commonwealth of Nations, a body that includes many former British colonies, but now voluntarily cooperates as equals to promote economic development and peaceful political goals.

            “Elizabeth II has thus made visits to other countries as head of the Commonwealth and a representative of Britain, including a groundbreaking trip to Germany in 1965. She became the first British monarch to make a state visit there in more than five decades,” explained Biography.

            “During the 1970s and 1980s, Elizabeth continued to travel extensively. In 1973 she attended the Commonwealth Conference in Ottawa, Canada, and in 1976 traveled to the United States for the 200th anniversary celebration of America’s independence from Britain.”

            On Sept. 9, 2015, Elizabeth set the record for the longest reigning monarch in British history, with the queen officially opening the Scottish Borders Railway on that day.

            “Many including you, First Minister, have also kindly noted another significance attaching to today, although it is not one to which I have ever aspired,” she stated in a speech at the opening event.

            “Inevitably, a long life can pass by many milestones; my own is no exception. But I thank you all, and the many others at home and overseas, for your touching messages of great kindness.”

            The queen is survived by her four children, eight grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren. 

            Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook


            Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 07, 2022

            Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2022/09/07/dems-a-killer-on-every-block-and-two-rapists-in-every-backyard—p–n2612783/

            The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

            Dems: A Killer on Every Block and Two Rapists in Every Backyard

            Source: AP Photo/Susan Walsh  

            The country is experiencing an historic surge in violent crime, and the link between Democratic policies and the crime wave is more firmly established than the law of gravity.

            Republicans — are you guys awake?

            This week, the Democrats and their auxiliary staff in the media gave less attention to the grisly kidnapping and murder of Eliza Fletcher than they did to two black girls allegedly snubbed by a performer in a Muppet costume a couple of months ago.

            Fletcher, a 34-year-old hardware heiress, kindergarten teacher and married mother of two, was out for an early morning run near the University of Memphis campus on Friday when a 38-year-old career criminal, Cleotha Abston, leapt out of his SUV and dragged her, kicking and screaming, into the passenger side of his vehicle.

            Based on copious evidence, including video and DNA, police arrested Abston almost immediately. His career highlights include a lengthy juvenile record: theft, aggravated assault, aggravated assault with a weapon and rape — as well as the violent kidnapping of a prominent attorney, whom he drove around in the trunk of his car for hours, looking for ATMs.

            But Abston refused to tell police what he had done with Fletcher.

            On Tuesday, police announced they’d found her body. Big story, right? MSNBC cut away from the press conference on this abduction-murder about four minutes in. The New York Times put the story on page A-20.

            The old media motto “If it bleeds, it leads” has been replaced with “No stories that would make black people — or more to the point, white liberals — feel uncomfortable.” Fletcher, you see, was white, and Abston — well, as the black police officer said to my friend reporting a violent assault, “Black, right?”

            Given that Memphis has recently elected a Soros-style Democratic district attorney, the kidnapper will probably be back on the street before the hapless Muppet impersonator is employable again.

            But aren’t you glad Democrats have a zillion “crime” proposals that will take guns away from the law-abiding? Just think of what might have happened if we introduced guns into this situation! Under Biden’s “Safer America Plan,” attempted kidnappings will be fought mano a mano: a delicate 130-pound woman vs. a 6-foot, 175-pound man.

            Yeah, you can definitely trust Democrats on crime, America.

            Democrats enthusiastically supported the 2020 BLM riots that did more than a billion dollars’ worth of damage just in the first two weeks and left at least 25 people dead.

            In the midst of this Democrat-encouraged destruction, candidate Biden, ol’ lunch-bucket Joe — the police have never had a truer friend! — took a knee at a BLM protest. You couldn’t get him out of his basement to campaign, but BLM was too important!

            His running mate, Kamala Harris — as well as loads of his campaign staff — openly bragged about contributing money to bail out antifa and BLM rioters. Democrats — and only Democrats — supported “Defund the Police!” and actually did manage to defund the police in cities around the country.

            As president, nearly a year after George Floyd’s death — giving Biden plenty of time for sober reflection — he issued an official White House statement bemoaning the fact that black people have to fear “interactions with law enforcement,” and blaming the “systemic racism” of the police for “the exhaustion that Black and brown Americans experience every single day.”

            They “wake up,” Biden said, “knowing that they can lose their very life … after a grocery store run or just walking down the street or driving their car or playing in the park or just sleeping at home.” (Or after robbing a store, ingesting a massive quantity of fentanyl, then resisting arrest; threatening police with a knife; or standing next to a guy who’s shooting at the police from your hallway.)

            Days before the 2020 election, Philadelphia police officers shot a career criminal, Walter Wallace Jr., as he was coming at them with a knife. Bodycam video shows the officers backing up while yelling at Wallace to drop the knife. But he wouldn’t do it. When the cops finally had a clear shot that wouldn’t endanger civilians, they fired. Wallace died. (Don’t believe Wikipedia; watch the video.)

            In just the first five days of the ensuing riots, 57 Philadelphia police officers were injured, some seriously, and 19 law enforcement vehicles damaged. (In addition to fighting injustice, the protesters were doing some much-needed shopping: More than 10 miles from the protest site, stores such as Walmart, Lowe’s and Five Below were looted.)

            As rocks and bricks rained down on Philly police, candidate Biden tweeted about the beloved Walter Wallace Jr. (prior convictions: robbery, assault, possessing an instrument of crime after kicking down a woman’s door and putting a gun to her head, and another assault charge for punching a police officer in the face):

            “Our hearts are broken for the family of Walter Wallace Jr., and for all those suffering the emotional weight of learning about another Black life in America lost. Walter’s life mattered.”

            We’re still waiting for Biden’s tweet on Eliza Fletcher’s life. He’s probably too busy, ensuring that you won’t be able to get a gun in a country where criminals run amok because we can’t put another “black body” in prison.


            BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | SEPTEMBER 07, 2022

            Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/07/brittany-aldean-has-nothing-to-apologize-for/

            Jason and Brittney Aldean

            Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

            SHAWN FLEETWOOD

            VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

            MORE ARTICLES

            What started out as an innocent remark on Instagram has left Brittany Aldean, the wife of country music singer Jason Aldean, as the target of an unhinged wave of attacks from America’s demented “Trans the Kids” crowd.

            In a late-August video reel showing herself transforming “from a relatively makeup-free face into fully ready glam,” Aldean captioned the post by saying she’d “really like to thank [her] parents for not changing [her] gender when [she] went through [her] tomboy phase” and that she “love[s] this girly life.”

            While only an anodyne caption, the comment evoked the ire of self-proclaimed country artist Cassadee Pope, who took to Twitter to lash out at Aldean for comparing her “‘tomboy phase’ to someone wanting to transition.”

            “You’d think celebs with beauty brands would see the positives in including LGBTQ+ people in their messaging,” Pope said.

            Fellow country singer Maren Morris also decided to throw her irrelevant opinion into the mix, saying, “It’s so easy to, like, not be a scumbag human” and calling Aldean “Insurrection Barbie,” in an apparent reference to the Aldeans’ previously expressed support for former President Donald Trump.

            Rather than back down and cower in the face of the latest left-wing, angry mob, Aldean is doubling down and openly criticizing the demonic practice of forcibly mutilating children seemingly being championed by Pope and Morris.

            “Advocating for the genital mutilation of children under the disguise of love and calling it ‘gender affirming care,’ is one of the worst evils. I will always support my children and do what I can do [to] protect their innocence,” Aldean said on Instagram. “Some parents want to be accepted by society so badly that they’re willing to make life-altering decisions for their children who aren’t old enough to fully comprehend the consequences of those actions. Love is protecting your child until they are mature enough as an adult to make their own life decisions.”

            “Karen Morris, thanks for calling me Barbie,” Aldean added in response to Morris’s tweet.

            Since the social media spat, Aldean has continued in professing her advocacy for children being exploited by deranged, pro-trans leftists, with the beauty-line entrepreneur recently reaffirming her views during an interview on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

            “I think that children should not be allowed to make these life-changing decisions at such a young age,” she said. “They are not mature enough; they should have parents who love them and advocate for them regardless. We have ages on everything. We have it for cigarettes, driving, military, voting. … Yet for some reason people think that we can let a child choose their gender so young? It’s very baffling to me.”

            She continued, saying that “[t]here are so many consequences of doing that a[t] such a young age” and that “[s]ociety should be able to sit back, speak our minds about it and fight for these children.”

            Aldean has since released a Barbie-inspired T-shirt with the phrase “Don’t tread on our kids,” with profits from the apparel line benefiting Operation Light Shine, a charity dedicated to helping “fight child exploitation and human trafficking.”

            Aldean Is Right

            Despite the hyperbolic virtue signaling from elitists like Pope and Morris, Aldean’s remarks about the realities of “transitioning” minors are 100 percent correct. Medically mutilating children’s genitals and pumping them full of wrong-sex hormones in the name of “care” is not compassionate; it’s satanic.

            Just as is the case with any other weighty subject matter, most children have no clue what sex is, let alone transgenderism. The idea that minors are well-rounded and knowledgeable enough to understand the long-term implications associated with removing one’s penis or breasts is a hair-brained narrative that only the most hardcore leftists in society could convince themselves is true.

            As noted by Federalist Contributor Samantha Stephenson, even among youth with gender dysphoria, “studies indicate that in all likelihood, symptoms will resolve in 93 percent of these children by the time they reach adulthood or even earlier — an outcome that is taken off the table for children subjected to experimental hormones with largely unknown effects, whose bodies are mutilated and fertility stolen.”

            Ultimately, parents signing off on mutilating their child’s genitals are not doing what’s best for their son or daughter, but for themselves. From its inception, medically “transitioning” minors has always been about adults inflicting their will upon innocent, unsuspecting children, who are forced to live with the consequences of their parents’ ill-advised decision-making.

            But rather than stand up and join Aldean in defending these kids, woke-ified celebrities like Pope and Morris will continue to attack anyone who dares to defy their twisted, pagan religion, which somehow convinces them that castrating and sterilizing children is both virtuous and humane. To them, who cares if these kids grow up to regret the procedure or become suicidal as a result? All that matters is getting a pat on the back from America’s residential, left-wing mob.

            At the end of the day, Brittany Aldean has nothing to apologize for. The dangers of medically mutilating children are simply too horrific for society to sit in silence. Following Aldean’s lead, any and every sane American who understands the evils associated with this barbaric practice must speak up and get active, lest our children continue to pay the price.


            Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves 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


              BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND | SEPTEMBER 07, 2022

              Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/07/has-the-trump-raid-made-bill-barr-forget-all-about-deep-state-deceit/

              Bill Barr

              Author Margot Cleveland profile

              MARGOT CLEVELAND

              VISIT ON TWITTER@PROFMJCLEVELAND

              MORE ARTICLES

              Bill Barr is wrong about the Mar-a-Lago raid for the same reason Barr’s critics were wrong about his decision to investigate the Russia-collusion hoax.

              Barr’s opinion now and those of his adversaries when he served as Trump’s attorney general both rest on the assumed veracity of leaks, spin, and misleading narratives. The facts have since vindicated Barr’s decision to investigate the investigators who targeted Trump, and until the details surrounding the latest attack on Trump are proven, nothing said by the Biden administration or its partners in the press should be accepted as true.

              On Friday and again on Tuesday, Barr appeared on Fox News to discuss the Mar-a-Lago raid and the Department of Justice’s investigation into former President Donald Trump. During both appearances, Barr repeated the storylines pushed by the D.C. media cartel since news first broke that the FBI had raided Trump’s Florida home.

              In his appearance on “America Reports” on Friday, Barr told hosts Sandra Smith and John Roberts he personally thought that for the DOJ “to take things to the current point they probably have pretty good evidence.” Barr continued:

              Now let me just say I think the driver on this from the beginning was loads of classified information sitting in Mar-a-Lago. People say this was also unprecedented but it’s also unprecedented for a president to take all this classified information and put it in a country club, OK. How long is the government going to try to get that? They jawbone for a year. They were deceived on the voluntary actions taken. They then went and got a subpoena. They were deceived on that, they feel. And the facts are starting to show they were being jerk around. And so how long do they wait?

              While he caveated his comments as “speculation,” and noted that until we see the evidence, “it’s hard to say,” Barr’s conclusions flow from the assumption that the details made public by the DOJ and the leaks to the media represent the truth — and the whole truth.

              But those very same leaks should make Barr leery. Special Counsel John Durham’s team is leak free. Similarly, the other men Barr trusted to handle the sensitive investigations into the Clinton Foundation, the inappropriate prosecution of Michael Flynn, and the evidence of the Biden family corruption coming from Ukraine, ensured their teams kept the investigations confidential. Conversely, the previous get-Trump plots all relied on media leaks to push falsehoods about the investigations, whether it was Crossfire Hurricane, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, or the impeachment efforts.

              The evidence also indicates that the “driver” of the investigation was not the “loads of classified information sitting in Mar-a-Lago,” but Trump: He was the man; the government just needed a crime. 

              As I detailed soon after the raid, the trail to Mar-a-Lago began at the White House long before the discovery of classified material in boxes returned to the National Archives. The now-retired head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), David Ferriero, recalled “watching the Trumps leave the White House and getting off in the helicopter that day, and someone carrying a white banker box, and saying to myself, ‘What the hell’s in that box?’” According to Ferriero, “that began a whole process of trying to determine whether any records had not been turned over to the Archives.”

              NARA then made a criminal referral to the DOJ based not merely on the presence of classified materials but also suggesting Trump violated 18 U.S.C. § 2071 because the former president returned a document that he had previously torn up. NARA’s interactions with Trump contrast sharply with its handling of former President Barack Obama’s presidential documents and how it handled Hillary Clinton’s violations of federal law, as I’ve detailed extensively here, exposing the referral as a political hit.

              Not only has Barr accepted the false narrative that the “driver” of the investigation was “loads of classified information sitting in Mar-a-Lago,” but during both yesterday and Friday’s interviews, the former attorney general repeated several of the storylines seeded by the leakers. While Barr made clear that the outcome of any charging decision depended on what the evidence showed and how clear it was, he has clearly internalized the leakers’ version of events.

              “If they clearly have the president moving stuff around and hiding stuff in his desk and telling people to dissemble,” Barr noted at one point, the DOJ is more likely to charge the former president. “They were deceived on the voluntary actions taken. They then went and got a subpoena. They were deceived on that, they feel,” Barr remarked. Then yesterday, Barr told Fox News’s Martha MacCallum that there is “evidence to suggest they were deceived.” 

              The evidence, though, consists of select documents released by the DOJ, including heavily redacted documents, and media leaks. In other words, it’s precisely what convinced half the country that Trump colluded with Russia. 

              While it is possible that Trump deceived the DOJ or that he defied the grand jury subpoena, the entire Mar-a-Lago episode tracks the Russia-collusion-hoax playbook too closely to give credence to any of the accusations levied against the former president. And Barr is wrong to trust them.


              Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.


                By Jordan Conradson | Published September 6, 2022

                Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/09/dont-want-civil-war-vote-democrats-november-psychopath-kathy-griffin-threatens-civil-war-republicans/

                Kathy Griffin, the same psychopath who took photos and released a video of herself holding the decapitated head of President Trump, is now declaring civil war if Americans don’t vote for Democrats in November.

                The Gateway Pundit previously reported on her unapologetically grotesque stunt and her following attacks on the President’s youngest son, Barron.

                The new threat comes after Joe Biden’s hateful and disgusting Hitler-esque speech where he threatened MAGA Republicans and declared them “a clear and present danger to our democracy” from a blood-red stage with Marines standing guard behind him.

                According to Joe, it’s not the radicals, lunatics, and criminals who threaten Supreme Court justices and vandalize churches, pregnancy centers, and the offices of pro-life groups. Nor is it the violent Democrat domestic terrorist who conspired in an assassination plot against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

                What about the Democrat that tried to murder an entire Republican softball team?

                Or when the left-wing mob defaces and removes statues of historical figures, they are told to hate?

                Or is it the radical leftists who tried to assassinate Steve Bannon and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene multiple times by sending armed police to their homes looking for a confrontation?

                Nope. It’s peaceful, law-abiding Patriots who want cheap gas, safe communities, and low taxes that “represent extremism” in the eyes of dictators like Joe Biden.

                Leftist Kathy Griffin’s latest rhetoric is that of a literal domestic terrorist, not to mention her outright voter intimidation against all Americans.

                She is now trending on Twitter because of this threat on America.

                Griffin got “ratioed” in the comment section on this tweet by regular people, calling out the absurdity and indicating they WILL vote Republican regardless of their party if she means this.

                Many also called out the hypocrisy of the radical left and Joe Biden, the modern-day equivalent of Adolf Hitler.

                Where is the FBI?

                They are too busy acting as Joe Biden’s “personal Gestapo” and raiding the homes of freedom-loving patriots like President Trump and his family.


                THE RUBIN REPORT | BLAZETV STAFF | September 07, 2022

                Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/shows/the-rubin-report/biden-civil-rights-match-lie/

                During a rousing Labor Day speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, President Joe Biden falsely claimed that he was “very engaged” in the civil rights movement in the 1960s — a bogus story he has repeated so many times that “advisers” have had to “gently remind” him that he’s lying. Even CNN and the New York Times have called BS on Biden’s repeatedly debunked claim to civil rights fame.

                “I got very engaged in — in my case, the civil rights movement. And — and as a kid, I was — I worked a lot in the movement at work. And I got deeply involved in the Democratic Party, because the Democratic Party in Delaware was a southern Democratic Party then,” Biden said during his speech on Monday.

                On “The Rubin Report” Tuesday, BlazeTV host Dave Rubin shared a clip of CNN’s Jake Tapper in 2019 debunking Biden’s claims about having marched in the civil rights movement.

                “[Biden] lied to voters, according to the New York Times … about having marched in the civil rights movement,” Tapper said before playing a clip of Biden making the false claim as far back as 1987, which Biden debunked himself the same year.

                Tapper went on the share a quote from the 2019 New York Times article:

                More than once, advisers had gently reminded Mr. Biden of the problem with this formulation: He had not actually marched during the civil rights movement. And more than once, Mr. Biden assured them he understood — and kept telling the story anyway.

                “That is really, really weird,” Tapper remarked.

                It was also really weird when Biden claimed in January to have been “arrested” during the civil rights movement, saying “Seems like yesterday, the first time I got arrested — anyway.”

                And in September 2021, Biden weirdly lied about coming “out of the civil rights movement.”

                And here are a few more examples of Biden spinning tall tales about his civil rights activism, which he swears was “for real … not a joke.”

                Joe Biden Faces Questions Over Claims of Civil Rights Activism youtu.be

                Then there’s this montage of a whole bunch of other really, really weird lies from Biden’s “doomed” 1988 presidential campaign.

                Seems like Uncle Joe has had a little problem with serial lying for a really, really long time.

                Rubin suggested that Biden may have been remembering his “mentor” and “friend” Democratic Senator and KKK member Robert Byrd when he said he got deeply involved in the civil rights movement back when “the Democratic Party in Delaware was a southern Democratic Party.”

                Rubin also talked about the continued fallout from Biden’s divisive “MAGA Republicans” speech, Fox News’ Peter Doocy catching Biden in a lie about his own comments, and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre doubling down on Biden’s talking points. Watch the video below. Can’t watch? Download the podcast here.


                By NICOLE SILVERIO, MEDIA REPORTER | September 06, 2022

                Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/06/fbi-agents-discover-foreign-nation-nuclear-capabilities-mar-a-lago/

                President Trump Welcomes Finnish President Niinisto To White House
                (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

                The government anonymously leaked accusations that the FBI retrieved a document detailing a foreign government’s military defenses and nuclear capabilities inside Mar-a-Lago.

                A slew of the documents obtained at the Aug. 8 raid at Mar-a-Lago allegedly contained top secret content that only the president, his Cabinet members and near-Cabinet-level members are authorized to have knowledge of, sources told The Washington Post. Some of the information requires special clearances where only a few dozen people are allowed to have access to the operation’s existence. The sources did not reveal which foreign government’s information was contained in the document nor where in Mar-a-Lago the material was found, The Post reported. The leakers provided no detail on these so-called “nuclear documents,” leading to many unanswered questions on the severity and actual content in this document.

                U.S. intelligence and defense communities have four separate categories for material classified as “nuclear documents:” nuclear weapon science and design, nuclear plans for allied countries, including Britain and France, plans for adversaries and nations in the gray zones that include Israel and India.

                The FBI searched Trump’s home in part to find any classified documents relating to nuclear weapons, The Post previously reported. A receipt of property released to the public Aug. 12 disclosed that the FBI obtained 11 sets of classified documents, around 300 in total. These sets consisted of four sets of top secret information, three sets of secret and three more sets of confidential material. (RELATED: DOJ Says It Already Reviewed Documents Taken In Mar-A-Lago Raid)

                PALM BEACH, FL - JANUARY 11: The Atlantic Ocean is seen adjacent to President Donald Trump's beach front Mar-a-Lago resort, also sometimes called his Winter White House, the day after Florida received an exemption from the Trump Administration's newly announced ocean drilling plan on January 11, 2018 in Palm Beach, Florida. Florida was the only state to receive an exemption from the announced deregulation plan to allow offshore oil and gas drilling in all previously protected waters of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

                (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

                The Department of Justice (DOJ) later released a highly redacted affidavit revealing that 14 out the 15 boxes sent to the National Archives and Record Association (NARA) in January had classification markings. The boxes contained 184 documents – 25 of the documents had “top secret” markings, 92 were labeled “secret” and 67 had a “confidential” warning. The document on the foreign government was one of the last batches of material found, The Post reported.

                A grand jury issued May 11 ordered for all classified documents and top secret information to be returned to NARA, The Post reported. The subpoena listed more than two dozen sub-classifications of documents labeled “S/FRD,” which is primarily saved for the military use of nuclear weapons.

                Agents reportedly found documents that are top secret to the extent that senior officials in President Joe Biden’s administration are unauthorized to review them, according to The Post. Some of the documents were referred to as “HUMINT Control Systems,” which are used to protect intelligence gathered from secret human sources. Some material was never meant to be shared with foreign nations, according to the affidavit.

                U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon approved Trump’s request for a special master to review the documents and temporarily barred the Department of Justice further review of the material. Some of the material had reportedly been subject to attorney-client privilege, though the DOJ found “limited” items protected under those terms.


                By JOSEPH MACKINNON | September 07, 2022

                Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/chinese-christians-internationally-stalked-by-communist-regime/

                Throughout its history, but with renewed vigor in recent years, the atheistic communist Chinese regime has sought to crush or at the very least control Christianity within Chinese borders. Christianity is regarded by the communist leadership as a foreign threat to its control and well-being — one that Mao Zedong endeavored to eliminate altogether. Although Chinese Christians of all denominations have routinely been subject to harassment, torturedetentions, and executions inside China’s borders, the CCP has recently taken more brazenly to hounding those who have fled abroad.

                Exodus

                Pastor Pan Yongguang and 61 congregants belonging to the Shenzhen Holy Reformed Church fled China to the South Korean island of Jeju in 2019, seeking asylum. The CCP required that the SHRC and its members should join a registered church, one strictly regulated by the regime, or otherwise be disbanded and barred from assembling.

                Registered churches are required to display images of Chinese dictator Xi Jinping and communist propaganda alongside or in lieu of religious images. Homilies are censored. Surveillance cameras installed on altars record all church happenings. Additionally, to ensure state atheism takes, people under the age of 18 are barred from participating in religious ceremonies.

                Pastor Pan had no intention of registering.

                Pressure mounted when the regime, responding to the 2019 pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, sought to everywhere re-exert its dominance. Pastor Pan said that “quasi-martial law” was consequently imposed on Shenzhen and upon his parish. The SHRC mulled over what to do. The church put the matter to a vote, and the majority elected to leave.

                Though they successfully made it to South Korea, it was made abundantly clear both by local authorities and U.S. officials that Pastor Pan’s congregation would be unable to stay. Less than 1% of asylum seekers were permitted to stay in 2019.

                Bob Fu of the non-governmental Christian nonprofit China Aid warned, “If they get deported back to China by Korean officials, every member of this church will face extreme punishment.” Fu was not speaking hyperbolically.

                Within months of the SHRC’s exodus, Pastor Wang Yi, the founder of one of China’s largest unregistered churches, was sentenced to nine years in prison, denied all political rights, and fined. Yi’s fate is commonplace for Christians in the region.

                Spanish journalist Pablo M. Diez has elsewhere noted how Catholic Bishop James Su Zhimin, like others who refused to subordinate themselves to CCP religious regulators, was “disappeared” after “having spent most of his life deprived of his freedom.”

                Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong was similarly arrested May 11, 2022, for his religiosity, support of freedom, and criticism of the CCP.

                For fear of being returned by South Korea to China to suffer the kind of fate met by Zhimin, Yi, and Zen, the SHRC congregants migrated instead to Thailand, where they believe CCP agents are still stalking them.

                Repercussions

                Despite escaping China, Pastor Pan and his parish have nevertheless been subject to continued harassments, threats, and surveillance by the CCP. Those they left behind in China have also paid the price for their families’ Christianity, in the way of intimidation, interrogation, and other statist abuses, including the prohibition of a newborn child’s legal status.

                The pastor, whom CCP agents have accused of “treason,” “collusion with foreign forces,” and “subversion of state power,” learned that his siblings and mother have been penalized as a result of his actions.

                Another congregant’s relative in the mainland was told by communist officers, “Your descendants may suffer.”

                The presumed objective of the CCP’s mistreatment of the expat Christians’ relatives is to coerce Pastor Pan and his parish back to China, where if not executed, they may be placed in reeducation camps and forced to renounce their faith.

                China is home to tens of millions of Christians. Although the communist Chinese regime stated in 2018 that there were only 44 million Christians within its borders, this is regarded by many to be a gross undercount, as official figures only factor in members of registered Christian groups (in which the SHRC, house Christians, and the underground Catholic Church are not numbered).

                2011 Pew Forum report indicated the number of Christians, including Protestants and Catholics, exceeded 67 million. The Economist similarly indicated in 2020 that official numbers aren’t reflective of the reality; that Chinese Christians and Muslims together outnumber the membership of the communist party (92 million).

                A broader problem

                The CCP does not only send its agents abroad to stalk Christians who have fled. Freedom House issued a report last year indicating that China “conducts the most sophisticated, global, and comprehensive campaign of transnational repression in the world.” It targets religious and ethnic minorities (e.g., Christians, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Falun Gong practitioners), political dissidents, human rights activists, and others.

                For instance, over 1,500 ethnic Muslim Uyghurs have been detained in the Middle East and North Africa, many of whom have been extradited back to China. Thousands more have been targeted, hit with cyber attacks, or have had their families back in China threatened.

                The CCP has also activated agents in the United States. Earlier this year, five CCP spies were charged with stalking, harassing, and spying on Chinese nationals in New York.

                In October 2020, eight illegal agents of the CCP were charged for surveilling, locating, and intimidating targets of the communist regime. These agents intended to coerce their targets back to China, where “they would face certain imprisonment or worse following illegitimate trials.”


                A.F. Branco Cartoon – Face Plant

                A.F. BRANCO | on September 7, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-face-plant/

                Loan forgiveness and other stupid Democrat ideas blowing up in their face.

                Loan Forgiveness
                Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2022

                DONATE to A.F.Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

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


                BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND | SEPTEMBER 06, 2022

                Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/06/special-counsel-must-choose-risk-a-russia-hoaxers-second-acquittal-or-expose-more-deep-state-dirt/

                Special Counsel John Durham news on MSNBC

                Author Margot Cleveland profile

                MARGOT CLEVELAND

                VISIT ON TWITTER@PROFMJCLEVELAND

                MORE ARTICLES

                Crossfire Hurricane agents never intended to drop their investigation of Donald Trump, and therefore any lies he told the FBI did not affect their decision-making, Igor Danchenko argued in a motion filed on Friday seeking dismissal of the criminal charges pending against him in a Virginia federal court. With the trial set to start next month, Special Counsel John Durham must now decide whether to acknowledge the deep state’s complicity or risk a second acquittal.

                Durham charged Danchenko last year with five counts of making false statements to the FBI related to Danchenko’s role as Christopher Steele’s primary sub-source in the fake dossier the Hillary Clinton team peddled to the FBI and the media. According to the indictment, Danchenko lied extensively when he provided Steele with supposed intel, and then later made false representations to the FBI during a series of interviews. 

                One count of the indictment concerned Danchenko’s denial during an FBI interview on June 15, 2017, of having spoken with “PR Executive-1” about any material contained in the Steele dossier. According to Durham’s team, “PR Executive-1,” who has since been identified as the Clinton and DNC-connected Charles Dolan, Jr., told Danchenko that a “GOP friend” had told him Paul Manafort had been forced to resign from the Trump campaign because of allegations connecting Manafort to Ukraine.

                “While Dolan later admitted to the FBI that he had no such ‘GOP friend’ and that he had instead gleaned this information from press reports, Dolan’s fabrication appeared in the Steele dossier.” But according to the indictment, when the FBI asked Danchenko whether he had talked with Dolan about that and other details included in Steele’s reports, Danchenko lied and said he hadn’t. 

                The four remaining counts of the indictment concerned Danchenko’s alleged lies during questioning by the FBI on March 16, May 18, October 24, and November 16, 2017, concerning conversations he supposedly had with Sergei Millian, who was the then-president of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce. According to the indictment, Danchenko told FBI agents during those interviews that he believed Millian had provided him information during an anonymous phone call, including “intel” later included in the Steele dossier that there was “a well-developed ‘conspiracy of cooperation’ between the Trump Campaign and Russian officials.” However, no such call ever occurred, Durham’s team charged. 

                In seeking dismissal of these five counts, Danchenko’s attorneys argued in the motion to dismiss they filed on Friday that the government’s false statement charges failed as a matter of law because ambiguity in the FBI’s questions and in his own answers make it impossible to show he knowingly lied to the government. What proved more intriguing, however, was Danchenko’s second argument based on “materiality.” Here, in essence, Danchenko argued that his statements, even if knowingly false, could not create criminal liability because they were immaterial to the FBI’s investigation. 

                To support this argument, Danchenko notes that the FBI was already investigating Millian’s “potential involvement with Russian interference efforts long before it had ever interviewed or even identified Mr. Danchenko,” apparently based on Steele’s claim that Millian served “as the source of relevant information.” Accordingly, Danchenko maintains his supposed lies were not the reason the FBI targeted Millian.

                Danchenko further emphasizes in his brief that Steele had falsely told the FBI that “Danchenko had reported meeting with [Millian] in person on multiple occasions.” Danchenko exposed Steele’s own lies by telling the FBI he had never met with Millian “and could not be sure he ever spoke to him,” Danchenko’s attorneys stress in their motion to dismiss, thus calling Steele’s “statements, and portions of the Company Reports, into question.” Yet, even after learning of Steele’s apparent lies, the FBI did not alter the course of the investigation and, in fact, continued to rely on Steele’s reporting to seek renewals of the FISA surveillance orders, Danchenko’s brief underscores to argue that nothing Danchenko said during his interviews really mattered to the FBI.

                Because Danchenko’s statements failed to change the trajectory of the government’s investigation into Millian and more broadly Trump and his associates, Danchenko posits that “it is difficult to fathom how the government would have made any decision other than to continue investigating [Millian] … regardless of what Mr. Danchenko told them.” In other words, Danchenko’s alleged lies were immaterial.

                As a matter of law, Millian’s materiality argument is weak, but as a matter of defense-attorney rhetoric, it holds the potential to score Danchenko an acquittal. 

                Potential for Acquittal

                The legal standard for materiality requires a false statement to have “a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, either a discrete decision or any other function of the agency to which it is addressed.” Further, “the falsehood need not actually influence the agency’s decision-making process, but merely needs to be ‘capable’ of doing so.” Thus, legally speaking, that the Crossfire Hurricane team, and later Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, seemed unconcerned with what Danchenko said, as shown by their continued reliance on Steele and his dossier, is irrelevant. The question is whether the lie was capable of influencing how a hypothetically “objective” government official would have acted had they known the truth.

                While Durham’s team will argue to the jury — assuming the district court denies Danchenko’s motion to dismiss the indictment — that the alleged lies were capable of influencing several decisions of the FBI agents, the reality is that the jurors will have a hard time buying that proposition unless Durham exposes the malfeasance of the Crossfire Hurricane agents and the members of Mueller’s team. In short, Durham needs to tell the jury that Danchenko’s alleged lies did not actually influence the government’s investigation because the agents were out to get Trump.

                If the Special Counsel’s office does not take this tack, what the jury will hear is the story Danchenko previewed in his motion to dismiss: 

                “During the course of its investigation into the [Steele dossier], the FBI determined that the defendant, Igor Danchenko, was a potential source of information contained in the [dossier]. In order to assist the FBI in its investigation of the accuracy and sources of the information in the [dossier], Mr. Danchenko agreed to numerous voluntary interviews with the FBI from in or about January 2017 through November 2017. He answered every question he was asked to the best of his ability and recollection. As part of the 2017 interviews, FBI agents asked Mr. Danchenko to review portions of the [dossier] and describe where he believed the relevant information had derived from and to explain how any information he had provided to [Steele] may have been overstated or misrepresented in the [dossier].”

                Danchenko did as the FBI asked, his defense will argue to the jury, before stressing that even after Danchenko highlighted Steele’s lies to the bureau, agents continued to investigate Millian. This fact will serve as a lynchpin for Danchenko to argue that his statements, even if false, were immaterial.

                A Likely Argument

                In his motion to dismiss, Danchenko previewed another argument likely to be repeated at trial, namely that no one thought Danchenko lied until the appointment of a second special counsel. “The Special Counsel’s office closed its entire investigation into possible Trump/Russia collusion in March 2019,” Danchenko noted in his motion, stressing that while “approximately thirty-four individuals were charged by Mueller’s office, including several for providing false statements to investigators. Mr. Danchenko was not among them. To the contrary, not only did investigators and government officials repeatedly represent that Mr. Danchenko had been honest and forthcoming in his interviews, but also resolved discrepancies between his recollection of events and that of others in Mr. Danchenko’s favor.”

                While these arguments are currently aimed at the court, a repeat will surely follow during next month’s trial, and unless Durham provides the jury with an explanation for the FBI and Mueller’s lack of concern over Danchenko’s statements to investigators, an acquittal seems likely.

                Durham’s Strategy

                We won’t have to wait until the start of the trial to learn Durham’s likely strategy, however, as the government’s response to Danchenko’s motion to dismiss will likely provide some strong hints, especially given some of the assertions included in Danchenko’s brief. For instance, in his summary of the facts, Danchenko claimed, based on the DOJ’s inspector general report, that there was an “articulable factual basis” to launch Crossfire Hurricane based on “information received from a Friendly Foreign Government.” The “information received from a Friendly Foreign Government” refers to then-Australian diplomat Alexander Downer’s claim that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos made suggestions that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign with the release of damaging information about Clinton. 

                Those well-versed in the Russia-collusion hoax will remember that Durham has already publicly pushed back against the Inspector General’s claim that Downer’s tip prompted the launching of Crossfire Hurricane. Durham released a statement following the publication of the IG report contradicting the IG’s assertion and revealing that “based on the evidence collected to date,” his team had “advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

                Another passage in Danchenko’s brief could similarly prompt pushback by Durham. Relying again on the inspector general’s report on FISA abuse, Danchenko asserts that there is “no evidence the [Steele] election reporting was known to or used by FBI officials involved in the decision to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.” 

                Two years have passed since the IG issued its report, however, and during that time Durham has been continuing to investigate the claimed predication of Crossfire Hurricane. If his team found evidence that Steele’s reporting prompted the launch of Crossfire Hurricane, Danchenko’s motion provides a perfect opportunity for Durham to publicly reveal that evidence.

                Whether Durham will reveal these details and others remains to be seen. And while the special counsel’s office used pretrial court filings in the criminal case against former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann to pepper the public with new revelations about the Russia-collusion hoax, the lead prosecutor in that case, Andrew DeFilippis, is no longer prosecuting the case against Danchenko. We should know soon whether Durham, who is now personally involved in the Danchenko prosecution, will use the case to expose more details about SpyGate. 

                Durham has already filed his first motion in limine, or a pretrial request for the court to rule on the admissibility of evidence, in the Danchenko case. That motion, however, concerns classified information and was thus sealed. The special counsel will likely be filing several more motions in limine in the weeks to come, with the court last week entering an order encouraging the parties to file those motions “as early as possible,” but no later than October 3, 2022, absent good cause. 

                Those motions, as well as Durham’s response to Danchenko’s motion to dismiss, will provide some insight into the special counsel’s planned strategy in the Danchenko case and specifically whether the special counsel will highlight the complicity of the deep state in the Russia-collusion hoax. If Durham doesn’t, it might cost his team a second loss.


                Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.


                  By Jim Hoft | Published September 5, 2022

                  Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/09/dirtbag-andrew-weissmann-suffers-meltdown-florida-judge-respects-rule-law-blocks-lawless-doj-assault-trump/

                  Earlier today, Judge Aileen Cannon granted President Trump’s request for a Special Master review of the material confiscated by the Biden DOJ during their raid on his home at Mar-a-Lago.

                  Judge Cannon also ‘temporarily enjoins’ or forbids the Biden regime from ‘reviewing and using the seized materials’ pending the completion of the review.

                  This decision by the Florida judge enraged the lawless left who is accustomed to running roughshod over the US Constitution in their ongoing attempts to destroy President Donald Trump. Andrew Weissman, the former Justice official who ran the Mueller special counsel and is now a contributor on the fake news channels, suffered a meltdown following the decision. Sal Greco, a politically persecuted and fired NYPD officer, responded to Weissman’s temper tantrum.

                  Via Sal Greco.

                  After violating the civil rights of mob victims, the Enron defendants ( who’s convictions were overturned because of his misconduct ) and Paul Manafort; Andrew Weissmann ranting about “the rule of law “is a joke.

                  Andrew Weismann is in a lavender rage because an honest and courageous judge has delayed the politicized DOJ effort to destroy @realDonaldTrump while holding him to a different standard then Barrack Obama.

                  For the second time in his legal career, Andrew Weismann comes across a judge that actually respects the rule of law. The last time was the when his Enron convictions were overturned for his prosecutorial misconduct.

                  Here are a few of the twitter rants by Andrew Weissmann.

                  Jim Hoft

                  Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.


                  By NICOLE SILVERIO, MEDIA REPORTER | September 06, 2022

                  Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/06/peter-doocy-karine-jean-pierre-tweets-trump-stole-2016-election/

                  Peter Doocy and Karine Jean-Pierre
                  [Screenshot/YouTube/White House press briefing]

                    Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy read White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s old tweets claiming former President Donald Trump stole the 2016 election to her face Tuesday. Doocy asked the press secretary about false claims that the 2016 election was “stolen” as the White House repeatedly argues that “MAGA [Make America Great Again] Republicans” pose a threat to democracy over their claims about the 2020 election was fraudulent. The press secretary said the White House will focus on the present rather than 2016.

                    Doocy then read 2016 tweets where Jean-Pierre said Trump and Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp “stole an election.”

                    “If denying an election is extreme now, why wasn’t it then?” he asked.

                    “So let’s be very clear that that comparison that you made is just ridiculous,” she said.

                    “How is that ridiculous?” Doocy interjected.

                    “You’re asking me a question, let me answer it,” she pushed back. “I was talking specifically at that time of what was happening with voting rights and what was in danger of voting rights. That’s what I was speaking to at the time and here’s the thing, I have said, Governor Kemp won the election in Georgia. I’ve been clear about that. I have said President Trump won the election in 2016 and I’ve been clear about that.” (RELATED: Jean-Pierre Says Biden’s Attacks On ‘MAGA Republicans’ Are ‘Not Political’)

                    The press secretary said the claims of a stolen election in 2020 led to the violence that took place on January 6, 2021. She claimed the riot led to the death of Capitol police officers, even though all of the officers died either from suicide or natural causes after the riot.

                    “What we are talking about right now is let’s not forget what happened on January 6, 2021, where we saw an insurrection, a mob that was incited by the person who occupied this campus, this facility at that time,” she said. “And it was an attack on our democracy. Let’s not forget people died that day. Law enforcement were attacked that day. That was the danger that we were seeing at the time. That’s what the president has called out and that’s what he’s going to do continue to call out.”

                    “So yes, when you have MAGA Republicans, an extreme part of Republicans, who just deny or do not want to really say what exactly happened on that day or say it was a protest when it clearly was not a peaceful protest. That’s not what we saw on that day. Yes, the president’s going to call that out.”

                    Ashli Babbitt a self-described Trump supporter who entered the building during the riot, was also killed at the riot. A Capitol police officer, Lt. Michael Byrd, fatally shot her in the left shoulder and neck.

                    Jean-Pierre told Doocy that the majority of Americans agree that democracy and the people’s rights must be protected.


                    Democrat claims election-denying is ‘hallmark’ of fascism. But his election-denying past quickly tells on him.

                    CHRIS ENLOE | September 06, 2022

                    Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/raskin-hallmark-fascist-party-election-denying/

                    Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-Md.) praised President Joe Biden on Sunday for attacking Trump supporters because they exhibit the “hallmarks” of being members of a fascist party. But it turns out Raskin has seemingly committed the same sin he alleged is critical to fascism.

                    Speaking on CBS News’ “Face The Nation,” Raskin suggested the Republican Party, especially the faction that supports Donald Trump, has evolved into a “fascist political party.”

                    “Two of the hallmarks of a fascist political party are: One, they don’t accept the results of elections that don’t go their way; and, two, they embrace political violence,” Raskin said.

                    “I think that’s why President Biden was right to sound the alarm this week about these continuing attacks on our constitutional order from the outside by Donald Trump and his movement,” he added.

                    Raskin wants Gingrich, Ginni Thomas and Pence to testify to Jan. 6 committee www.youtube.com

                    Raskin was responding to Trump’s controversial demand that the 2020 presidential election be held again “immediately” or that he be declared the “rightful winner” of the election. The demand came after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan the FBI warned the social media giant about Russian “misinformation” just before the Hunter Biden laptop story broke in October 2020. Social media companies quickly suppressed or outright censored that story, which has since been vindicated as neither misinformation nor false.

                    The charges of fascism are self-incriminating, because Raskin has openly questioned the outcome of presidential elections in the past. For example, Raskin has described George W. Bush as a “court-appointed president” who was not rightfully elected.

                    “The court has been thwarting formation of the popular will, the most spectacular example being Bush v. Gore, where the majority by a 5-4 vote enjoined the counting of more than 100,000 ballots in Florida and essentially gave America its first court-appointed president,” Raskin said on April 21, 2003.

                    \u201cIncredible work by the RNC to find a 2003 (!) clip of Jamie Raskin saying that the 2000 presidential election was stolen.\u201d

                    — max (@max) 1662384189

                    Meanwhile, Raskin was one of several House Democratic lawmakers who objected to the certification of Trump’s Electoral College victory in January 2017. Their effort ultimately failed because not one Democratic senator supported them. Democrats, in fact, have a long history of questioning the legitimacy of elections they lose.

                    Over the weekend, the Republican National Committee published a long video showing numerous Democrats questioning the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, the 2004 presidential election, the 2016 presidential election, and the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election.

                    12 Minutes of Democrats Denying Election Results www.youtube.com


                    BY: CHRISTOPHER JACOBS | SEPTEMBER 06, 2022

                    Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/this-california-bill-would-outlaw-fast-food-and-intensify-inflation-2658150322.html/

                    fast food pizza

                    Author Christopher Jacobs profile

                    CHRISTOPHER JACOBS

                    VISIT ON TWITTER@CHRISJACOBSHC

                    MORE ARTICLES

                    Talk about irony: A governor who violated his own Covid lockdown rules by attending a party at a chichi restaurant could sign legislation that puts many fast-food establishments out of business.

                    Late in August, the California legislature passed a bill that would impose new mandates on certain dining establishments. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-French Laundry, has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the bill. If it becomes law, the measure would set an example that unions hope to export elsewhere, while raising inflation in the nation’s most populous state. Here’s how.

                    Separate Minimum Wage

                    The bill would create a council to mandate a separate minimum wage applying only to certain fast-food establishments. According to the bill, the council could impose a minimum wage for these establishments next year of as high as $22 per hour—an amount nearly 42 percent higher than the statewide minimum wage of $15.50 that takes effect on Jan. 1, and an amount subject to additional annual increases. Creating a higher minimum wage would raise business costs, and help push prices ever higher. As it is, families have struggled to keep up with the current high rate of inflation, with real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) average hourly earnings falling in most months over the past year. Hitting these families with even higher costs for a meal at a fast-food establishment—sometimes the only “luxury” working-class households can afford—would provide ordinary California residents another proverbial kick in the teeth.

                    The new council of 10 appointed individuals will “establish sector-wide minimum standards on wages, working hours, and other working conditions adequate to ensure and maintain the health, safety, and welfare of, and to supply the necessary cost of proper living to, fast food restaurant workers.” (The bill doesn’t specify whether the “cost of proper living” includes dinners at restaurants like the one Newsom decided to frequent in the fall of 2020.)

                    To put it more bluntly: A group of unelected bureaucrats will decide how to micro-manage hundreds of businesses across the Golden State. These mandates will of course raise costs for the restaurants, and the restaurants will have no choice but to raise prices in response.

                    Inefficient, Absurd Loopholes

                    The requirements in the bill only apply to chain restaurants with at least 100 establishments nationwide, and which serve food in the following manner:

                    (1) For immediate consumption either on or off the premises.

                    (2) To customers who order or select items and pay before eating.

                    (3) With items prepared in advance, including items that may be prepared in bulk and kept hot, or with items prepared or heated quickly.

                    (4) With limited or no table service. Table service does not include orders placed by a customer on an electronic device.

                    One could easily envision businesses changing their model to avoid becoming ensnared by the bill’s mandates. For instance, a restaurant could operate like Katz’s Delicatessen in New York City, where customers receive tickets upon entering and pay after eating, on their way out the door. Such a system would mean that restaurants would not meet the “pay before eating” definition contained within the statute, but it also could raise the risk of “dine-and-dash” incidents, which would raise a restaurant’s costs.

                    Similarly, establishments could try to exempt themselves from the reach of the new council by providing full table service. Of course, providing full table service would raise businesses’ costs (although perhaps not as much as complying with the mandates created by the new regulatory regime), exhaust employees by forcing them to wait on customer tables in addition to their existing duties, or both.

                    The idea that California could potentially do for fast-food restaurants what a full-service-only requirement has done to New Jersey’s gas stations—whereby McDonald’s and Burger King employees in California could only ask “Would you like fries with that?” while customers are reclined at table—illustrates the absurdity of this bill. Newsom should do his state a favor and veto the measure, sending this ill-tasting legislative creation back to the cooks in the legislature who created this mess.


                    Chris Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, and author of the book, “The Case Against Single Payer.” He is on Twitter: @chrisjacobsHC. Previously he was a senior health policy analyst for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a senior policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy Studies, and a senior policy analyst with the Joint Economic Committee’s Senate Republican staff. During the debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, Jacobs was a policy adviser for the House Republican Conference under then-Chairman Mike Pence. In the first two years of the law’s implementation, he was a health policy analyst for the Senate Republican Policy Committee. Jacobs got his start on Capitol Hill as an intern for then-Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). He holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and history from American University, where he is a part-time teacher of health policy. He currently resides in Washington, D.C.


                      Daniel Horowitz | September 06, 2022

                      Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-conservative-plan-biden-fourth-reich-2658150640.html/

                      The time has come for a coalition of governors, attorneys general, and state legislators to demonstrate the power of broad-based federalism to interpose against extreme federal tyranny.

                      Many conservative commentators have finally woken up to smell the stench of the Fourth Reich following Biden’s speech targeting political opposition, reminiscent of the authoritarian language of past dictators. However, they should have been awake since March 2020, when our government declared de facto martial law on our lives, liberty, and property and used our bodies as lab rats with an ever-growing list of experimental therapies. They should have awoken from their slumber after Americans were targeted with solitary confinement and disproportionate punishment for zero or nebulous crimes at the Capitol on January 6, after months of killing, rioting, and looting by BLM with impunity.

                      If Biden’s speech is really to be a turning point in this one-sided cold war that is heating up, conservatives should resolve to use the power they already wield over Republican governors and demand united action for states to protect constitutional rights from this thuggish Biden administration and national security deep state apparatus that threatens our liberties more than any foreign enemy in our history. Rather than making idle promises of winning back the House with RINOs or winning back the presidency years from now when it’s too late, we should be demanding action now from 20 or so GOP trifecta-controlled state governments. If they fail to take action now, then the entire point of federal elections with divided government is moot.

                      What would a coalition of federalism look like? A group of prominent governors, attorneys general, and state legislative speakers and majority leaders would initiate a declaration in one state – let’s call it the “Miami Declaration,” for example. The declaration would lay out a list of grievances and examples of the federal government violating the rights of the individual: from medical freedom and bodily autonomy to privacy infringement, collusion with big tech against First Amendment rights, and using federal agencies to persecute political opponents. The declaration would pronounce these states to be constitutional sanctuaries that protect all constitutional rights, including against the federal government. Here are just a few ideas that should be contained in the declaration:

                      • Criminalize the enforcement of any federal COVID mandate – whether by a federal, state, or private actor – within the boundaries of the states. This would include so-called federal lands within the state.
                      • Block federal agents from entering the states to target political opposition.
                      • Order all education and health care institutions within the state to stop complying with recent edicts on transgenderism or COVID with the threat of severe fines.
                      • Block the distribution of any new vaccines that have not been properly studied.
                      • Create a commission to study who is responsible for the COVID response and the botched therapeutics, along with an audit of what other therapeutics are in the pipeline that violate bioethical norms.
                      • Nullify onerous federal regulations on energy and mineral exploration and production within the coalition of states so that states can begin protecting their residents from the coming nuclear winter on energy use.
                      • Impose severe penalties on tech companies that censor political opponents of the regime until they come clean on the scope of collaboration with the federal government against these individuals.
                      • Provide legal and financial backing to those political dissidents being targeted by the federal government primarily for their political views.
                      • Suspend all training and cooperation between state and local law enforcement and the federal alphabet soup agencies.

                      Even if Republicans refuse to block funding for the vaccines, Paxlovid, and Ukraine – most likely because they agree with Democrats on those issues – they should at least withhold support until the extra funding for the IRS is kept out of the bill. Fighting overzealous taxation, especially when it is politically targeted, was always a universal value of the Republican Party. The IRS waited until Friday afternoon before the holiday weekend to admit that information from 120,000 form 990-T filers was inadvertently posted online due to “a human coding error.” These means the names, contact information, and financial information of about 120,000 people who have IRAs in non-security assets were breached. Does anyone really trust that the IRS is telling us the whole truth?

                      From now until the election, Republicans will seek to distract us with flaccid promises of deliverance in the future. The best way to verify their sincerity is by demanding that they actually use the power they currently hold to counter deeply destructive and unpopular policies from this regime.


                      A.F. Branco Cartoon – Red, White and Angry

                      A.F. BRANCO | on September 3, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-red-white-and-angry/

                      Biden with all the trappings of an authoritarian dictator tries to demoralize and dehumanize half the country.

                      Biden’s Hate Speach
                      Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2022.

                      A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Flame Thrower

                      A.F. BRANCO | on September 6, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-the-flame-thrower/

                      Democracy vs the Constitutional-Representative Republic is the difference between Mob-Rule and Rule-of-Law.

                      Democracy vs Constitutional Republic
                      Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2022

                      DONATE to A.F.Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

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



                      BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND | SEPTEMBER 02, 2022

                      Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/02/5-times-the-anti-trump-fbis-trust-us-promise-fell-apart/

                      former FBI Director James Comey

                      Author Margot Cleveland profile

                      MARGOT CLEVELAND

                      VISIT ON TWITTER@PROFMJCLEVELAND

                      MORE ARTICLES

                      The Biden administration and the corporate media continue to assure Americans that the FBI’s raid on former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home was both legally justified and of the utmost necessity. But the deep-state cabal and the leftist media cartel provided similar assurances about Crossfire Hurricane and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s targeting of Trump, with the assurances later proving worthless. 

                      Here are five times SpyGate taught Americans to distrust and disprove accusations leveled at Donald Trump.

                      1. Devin Nunes’ Memo Exposing FISA Abuse

                      On February 2, 2018, the House Intelligence Committee, then-chaired by Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, released a four-page memo detailing abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by the FBI. 

                      Before the memo’s release, the FBI publicly opposed the move, claiming in a public statement that the bureau had “grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.” Justice Department officials likewise opposed releasing the memo, warning that “doing so would be ‘extraordinarily reckless.’”

                      The then-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, also sought to scuttle the release of the memo — or at least preempt the detailed revelations of FISA abuse — by calling the memo a “conspiracy theory” in an op-ed for The Washington Post. In it, Schiff condemned the release, saying the memo was “designed to suggest that ‘a cabal of senior officials within the FBI and the Justice Department were so tainted by bias against President Trump that they irredeemably poisoned the investigation.’”

                      Nancy Pelosi, who is now speaker of the House, likewise attacked Nunes, demanding in a letter to then-House Speaker Paul Ryan that Nunes be removed as Intelligence Committee chairman. Nunes “disgraced” the committee with his “dishonest” handling of the committee’s review of the Russia collusion problem, Pelosi wrote. Nunes’ committee, Pelosi claimed, had become a “charade” and a “coverup campaign … to hide the truth about the Trump-Russia scandal.” 

                      In response to the Nunes memo, former FBI Director James Comey told the country the memo was “dishonest and misleading.” Comey further claimed it “wrecked the House intel committee, destroyed trust with Intelligence Community, damaged relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen.”

                      Former CIA Director John Brennan also attacked Nunes, calling his exposure of the FISA abuse “appalling” and an abuse of his chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee.

                      Of course, years later, Nunes was proven correct, as the inspector general’s report confirmed, establishing that the Republican House Intelligence chair had, if anything, understated the FISA abuse. 

                      For all the assurances the DOJ, FBI, their former leaders, and top politicians provided the American public, they were either lying or wrong — or both because there was “a cabal of senior officials within the FBI and the Justice Department … so tainted by bias against President Trump that they irredeemably poisoned the investigation.”

                      2. Surveillance Warrants Are Hard to Get

                      In addition to wrongly condemning Nunes’ memo, government officials attempted to calm concerns over the FISA surveillance by assuring the public that the process of obtaining a surveillance warrant was “rigorous” and that to obtain surveillance of American citizens, a court must find “probable cause” that warrants the wiretap.

                      Adm. Michael Rogers, then a commander of United States Cyber Command, testified about the FISA process during a March 2017 congressional hearing. In response to a question posed to eliminate “confusion in the public” about the collection of personal data, Rogers confirmed that the National Security Agency “would need a court order based on probable cause to conduct electronic surveillance on a U.S. person inside the United States.” 

                      During the same hearing, the then-recently fired former FBI Director Comey expanded on the surveillance process. “There is a statutory framework in the United States under which courts grant permission for electronic surveillance either in a criminal case or the national security case based on the showing of probable cause,” Comey testified before Congress. “It is a rigorous, rigorous process, involving all three branches of government,” the former FBI director stressed, noting it must go through an application process and then to a judge who must approve the order.

                      The IG report on FISA abuse proved the promised rigor didn’t exist. And the later conviction of Kevin Clinesmith for “falsifying a document that was the basis for a surveillance warrant against former Trump campaign official Carter Page,” punctuated that reality. The facts revealed in the IG report further established that Americans’ faith in the FISA Court to serve as a check on the government was misplaced, with the judges serving as but a rubberstamp of the DOJ’s surveillance applications. So much for those assurances.

                      3. Don’t Worry, ’Merica, No Spying on Trump Took Place

                      A third assurance Americans received from the powers-that-be was that no spying on the Trump campaign occurred. The inspector general’s report on FISA abuse disproved those reassurances as well, revealing that the “Obama Administration Spied on the Trump Campaign Big Time.”

                      This reality pushed Russia-collusion hoaxers into esoteric discussions on the true meaning of “spying.” Even the United States Senate played the “it depends what the meaning of spying is” game, with New Hampshire Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen quizzing FBI Director Christopher Wray on whether he would agree with then-Attorney General William Barr’s use of the word “spying.”

                      “I was very concerned by his use of the word spying, which I think is a loaded word,” Shaheen bemoaned. “When FBI agents conduct investigations against alleged mobsters, suspected terrorists, other criminals, do you believe they’re engaging in spying when they’re following FBI investigative policies and procedures?” the senator asked Wray.

                      “That’s not the term I would use,” Wray replied, before noting that different people use different colloquialisms. 

                      The discussion did not end there, however, with Shaheen pushing Wray on whether he had seen “any evidence that any illegal surveillance into the campaigns or the individuals associated with the campaigns by the FBI occurred.”

                      “I don’t think I personally have any evidence of that sort,” Wray replied.

                      But even sidestepping the silly debate over what “spying” means, the guarantee Shaheen provided the American public — that no illegal surveillance into the Trump campaign or individuals associated with the Trump campaign had occurred — proved worthless. 

                      The Department of Justice has since admitted that it illegally surveilled former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and that such surveillance reached Trump campaign documents. So, yes, our federal government illegally surveilled the campaign of a presidential candidate.

                      4. Redactions Are Necessary to Protect Sources and Methods

                      A fourth key commitment conveyed to Americans throughout the multi-year unraveling of the Russia collusion hoax concerned the need to redact details in the publicly released documents. Such redactions were necessary to protect sources and methods, our overlords assured us.

                      For instance, in a December 9, 2019 press release Wray issued in conjunction with the DOJ’s inspector general’s report on FISA abuse, Wray “emphasized that the FBI’s participation in this process was undertaken with my express direction to be as transparent as possible, while honoring our duty to protect sources and methods that, if disclosed, might make Americans less safe.” Wray further promised that the FISA abuse report presented all material facts, “with redactions carefully limited and narrowly tailored to specific national security and operational concerns.” 

                      Republican Sens. Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley challenged that portrayal of the redactions, suggesting in a letter to then-Attorney General William Barr that several footnotes “were classified in the IG report only because they contradict certain claims made in the public version of the inspector general’s report on FISA warrants documenting misconduct in the FBI’s spying operation of the Trump campaign.”

                      “We are concerned that certain sections of the public version of the report are misleading because they are contradicted by relevant and probative classified information redacted in four footnotes,” Grassley and Johnson wrote. “This classified information is significant not only because it contradicts key statements in a section of the report, but also because it provides insight essential for an accurate evaluation of the entire investigation.”

                      The Republican senators then asked for the four footnotes to be declassified, stressing that “the American people have a right to know what is contained within these four footnotes and, without that knowledge, they will not have a full picture as to what happened during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

                      In April of 2020, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell declassified the footnotes. And, as Grassley and Johnson had represented, the redactions weren’t necessary to protect “sources and methods.” Rather, the blacked-out lines were essential to distorting portions of the FISA report and to keeping the public in the dark about the full scope of the Spygate scandal.

                      Another document declassified by Grenell exposed that Mueller’s team falsely represented to a federal judge (and the American public) the substance of Michael Flynn’s December 2016 telephone conversation with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. 

                      As I reported following Grenell’s declassification of the transcript of the call between Flynn, Trump’s then-incoming national security adviser, and Kislyak, Mueller’s office deceived the country and a federal court when prosecutors claimed Flynn had discussed U.S. sanctions with his Russian counterpart. The transcripts established that, contrary to court filings, Flynn never raised the issue of sanctions with the Russian ambassador.

                      The release of the Flynn transcript did reveal, however, the FBI’s secret “sources and methods” — but the sources and methods were those of deep-state actors seeking to rid themselves of the president’s chosen national security adviser by launching a perjury trap and then lying about what Flynn said.

                      5. Crossfire Hurricane Was Properly Predicated 

                      To this day, both DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Wray maintain that the FBI’s launch of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was properly predicated. Publicly released FBI documents say otherwise. 

                      Former FBI agent Peter Strzok explained the supposed predicate for launching Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, in the opening “Electronic Communication” that he both prepared and approved. According to Strzok, the FBI opened the umbrella investigation into the Trump campaign after the government had “received information” “related to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s website/server.” 

                      But Strzok’s summary of the information received made no mention of any intel obtained by the FBI related to the DNC hacking. Rather, the supposed intel “consisted of information received from an unnamed representative, now publicly known to be Alexander Downer, a then-Australian diplomat” stationed in London. The opening memorandum explained that Downer had relayed “statements Mr. [George] Papadopoulos made about suggestions from the Russians that they (the Russians) could assist the Trump campaign with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.”

                      The opening document then asserted that Papadopoulos “also suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama.).” The electronic communication added a caveat, though, noting that it was unclear whether Papadopoulos “or the Russians were referring to material acquired publicly of [sic] through other means. It was also unclear how Mr. Trump’s team reacted to the offer.”

                      Thus, while Strzok framed the information received by the FBI as evidence “related to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s website/server,” the remainder of the Electronic Communication contradicted that claim and in fact acknowledged that the material might refer to “publicly acquired” information.

                      What the FBI did — or rather didn’t do — after the launch of Crossfire Hurricane further confirms the sham predicate set forth by Strzok in the Electronic Communication. 

                      While Papadopoulos’s statements to Downer supposedly prompted the FBI to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, agents failed to question Papadopoulos for six months. The FBI also put little (or no) effort into determining who purportedly told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary. The supposed source of that statement, Joseph Mifsud, could have been easily located soon after the launch of Crossfire Hurricane if the FBI genuinely believed Russia had conspired with the Trump campaign to hack and release the DNC emails.

                      Agents pursuing a legitimate investigation “would have immediately scoured Papadopoulos’s London-based connections and discovered he was associated with the London Centre of International Law Practice around the time he met with Downer. From there, the FBI could have easily fingered Mifsud as a possible source for the information, since he was listed as a board advisor and public source searches would show Mifsud had connections to Russia. (The intelligence community would have also hit on Mifsud’s many connections to Western intelligence agencies.)”

                      But the FBI did none of this, waiting instead until late January 2017 to quiz Papadopoulos on the source of the supposed inside information coming from Russia. Yet, Wray and the DOJ’s inspector general want Americans to trust them when they say that agents launched Crossfire Hurricane based on Papadopoulos’s London chat with Downer over drinks. 

                      Special Counsel John Durham, however, says otherwise, having released a statement following the DOJ’s report on FISA abuse that informed the public that, “based on the evidence collected to date,” his team had “advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

                      The special counsel’s public statements prove significant for two reasons. First, Durham’s comments refute the inspector general’s conclusions regarding the predication of Crossfire Hurricane. But beyond that, the fact that Durham needed to correct the record shows the lack of trust due the DOJ and even the inspector general’s office — something further confirmed during the special counsel’s prosecution of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann. 

                      Each of these five falsehoods peddled by the government to the public during the Russia collusion hoax has a clear corollary in the current scandal involving the FBI’s raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. And after the lies, pretext, and political warfare exposed during the unraveling of SpyGate, the DOJ and FBI’s current entreat to an angry public to “trust them” will be ignored — as it should.


                      Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

                        Tag Cloud