A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and Presiden
Unlike the military-industrial complex, the Censorship Complex affects all aspects of governance, controlling the information available to you on every topic.
The Biden administration may have abandoned plans to create a “Disinformation Board,” but a more insidious “Censorship Complex” already exists and is growing at an alarming speed.
This Censorship Complex is bigger than banned Twitter accounts or Democrats’ propensity for groupthink. Its funding and collaboration implicate the government, academia, tech giants, nonprofits, politicians, social media, and the legacy press. Under the guise of combatting so-called misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information, these groups seek to silence speech that threatens the far-left’s ability to control the conversation — and thus the country and the world.
Americans grasped a thread of this reality with the release of the “Twitter Files” and the Washington Examiner’s reporting on the Global Disinformation Index, which revealed the coordinated censorship of speech by government officials, nonprofits, and the media. Yet Americans have no idea of the breadth and depth of the “Censorship Complex” — and how much it threatens the fabric of this country.
In his farewell address in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower cautioned against the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power” via the new sweeping military-industrial complex. Its “total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — [was] felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.” Replace “military-industrial” with “censorship,” and you arrive at the reality Americans face today.
Origins of the Censorship Complex
Even with the rise of independent news outlets, until about 2016 the left-leaning corporate media controlled the flow of information. Then Donald Trump entered the political arena and used social media to speak directly to Americans. Despite the Russia hoax and the media’s all-out assault, Trump won, proving the strategic use of social media could prevail against a unified corporate press. The left was terrified.
Of course, Democrats and the media couldn’t admit their previous control over information converted to electoral victories and that for their own self-preservation, they needed to suppress other voices. So instead, the left began pushing the narrative that “disinformation” — including Russian disinformation — from alternative news outlets and social media companies handed Trump the election.
The New York Times first pushed the “disinformation” narrative using the “fake news” moniker after the 2016 election. “The proliferation of fake and hyperpartisan news that has flooded into Americans’ laptops and living rooms has prompted a national soul-searching, with liberals across the country asking how a nation of millions could be marching to such a suspect drumbeat. Fake news, and the proliferation of raw opinion that passes for news, is creating confusion,” the Times wrote, bemoaning the public’s reliance on Facebook.
“Narrowly defined, ‘fake news’ means a made-up story with an intention to deceive, often geared toward getting clicks. But the issue has become a political battering ram, with the left accusing the right of trafficking in disinformation, and the right accusing the left of tarring conservatives as a way to try to censor websites,” the Times wrote, feigning objectivity. But its conclusion? “Fake and hyperpartisan news from the right has been more conspicuous than from the left.”
Two days later, Hillary Clinton repeated the narrative-building phrase, condemning what she called “the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year.” But then, as if to remind Democrats and the legacy press that he had wrestled control of the narrative from them, Trump branded left-wing outlets “fake news” — and just like that, the catchphrase belonged to him.
Disinformation Is Scarier if It’s Russian
That didn’t deter the left in its mission to destroy alternative channels of communication, however. The media abandoned its “fake news” framing for the “disinformation” buzzword. “Misinformation” and “mal-information” were soon added to the vernacular, with the Department of Homeland Security even defining the terms.
But silencing conservatives would require more than merely labeling their speech as disinformation, so the various elements of the Censorship Complex deployed what they called “the added element of Russian meddling” in the 2016 election, with Clinton amplifying this message and blaming the spread of social media misinformation for her loss.
Priming the public to connect “disinformation” with Russia’s supposed interference in the 2016 election allowed the Censorship Complex to frame demands for censorship as patriotic: a fight against foreign influence to save democracy!
The Censorship Complex Expands
The Censorship Complex’s push to silence speech under the guise of preventing disinformation and election interference hit its stride in 2017, when FBI Director Christopher Wray launched the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) purportedly “to identify and counteract malign foreign influence operations targeting the United States.”
The “most widely reported” foreign influence operations these days, Wray said, “are attempts by adversaries — hoping to reach a wide swath of Americans covertly from outside the United States — to use false personas and fabricated stories on social media platforms to discredit U.S. individuals and institutions.” Wray’s statement perfectly echoed the claims Clinton and Democrats had peddled ad nauseam in the press, and it foreshadowed how the Censorship Complex would soon mature.
The launch of the FITF in 2017 brought together numerous representatives from the deep state. The FBI’s Counterintelligence, Cyber, Criminal, and Counterterrorism Divisions worked closely with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security, and other intelligence agencies, as well as “state and local enforcement partners and election officials.”
Significantly, the FITF viewed “strategic engagement with U.S. technology companies, including threat indicator sharing,” as crucial to combatting foreign disinformation. That perspective led to the FBI’s hand-in-glove relationship with Twitter, which included monthly and then weekly meetings with the tech giant, some of which CIA representatives attended. This symbiotic relationship also led to the censorship of important — and true — political speech, such as the New York Post’s reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop, which exposed the Biden family’s pay-to-play scandal right before a critical presidential election.
State Department Renovates Its Wing
In 2011, by executive order, the Department of State established the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications to support government agencies’ communications “targeted against violent extremism and terrorist organizations.” While renamed the Global Engagement Center in 2016, the center’s counterterrorism mission remained largely unchanged. But then at the end of that year, Congress expanded the Global Engagement Center’s authority, directing it “to address other foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation activities.” And with language straight out of the Russia hoax playbook, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 further refined the Global Engagement Center’s mission:
The purpose of the Center shall be to direct, lead, synchronize, integrate, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and foreign non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of the United States and United States allies and partner nations.
Together, the State Department and the many intelligence agencies behind the FITF worked not just with Twitter but with the array of tech giants, such as Google and Facebook, pushing for censorship of supposed mis-, dis-, and mal-information. But the deep state was not alone. The “disinformation” contagion also reached the Hill, nonprofits, think tanks, and academic institutions with both politics and a desire to suckle at the federal teat driving a frenzied expansion of the project. Together these groups pushed for even more silencing of their opponents, and the Censorship Complex boomed.
The danger Eisenhower warned the country of in 1961 is mild in comparison to the threat of the Censorship Complex. Unlike the military-industrial complex that reached only one function of the federal government, the Censorship Complex affects all aspects of governance, controlling the information available to you and your fellow Americans on every topic.
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.
In a recent addition to the “Twitter Files,” Matt Taibbi revealed to the public how Twitter — the preferred social media platform of politicians, academics, and journalists — co-opted the algorithmic blacklist of a bipartisan neoliberal propaganda outfit known as Hamilton 68.
Hamilton 68 was a digital dashboard that, as my colleague Emily Jashinsky recently discussed, was used to perpetuate and mainstream the myth of Russian interference in American politics through algorithmic censorship and suppression.
But it wasn’t just egghead professors, left-wing activist journalists, and the tragically narcissistic (Adam Schiff) who perpetuated the thoroughly repudiated lie that Russia determined the outcome of the 2016 presidential election by hijacking the internet.
Hamilton 68 was of unique interest to the unelected members of the American government who staff the national bureaucracy and compose the federal civil service. It was — and likely still is — used by these bureaucrats on a regular basis to substantiate and launder bogus intel into the government’s policy-making narrative to further establish a rule of permanent bureaucracy and chip away at the democratic nature of the American republic.
Amanda Milius, a former member of the Trump administration and the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Content at the State Department, recently confirmed this when speaking to The Federalist.
Outsourcing Intelligence Makes Being Corrupt Easier
According to Milius, from the day Hamilton 68 went online, senior officials at the State Department were elated because it enabled them to effectively outsource large swaths of their information sourcing for communications. Naturally, this was a huge time saver since “everything [was] 100 times redundant,” and having access to pre-sourced and verified intel from somewhere you trust while trying to maintain a fast-paced digital communications bureau with 24-hour access to the rest of the world would be a massive time saver.
Once the department began to process intel from Hamilton 68, they insisted that they could “use it as a tool to track all the Russian misinformation, which at that moment in 2017, was the shiny ball of foreign policy.”
Milius noted that with the election of Donald Trump, there was a distinct shift in the bureaucracy’s expressed priorities. Previously, the federal government had been preoccupied with the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), but along with Trump’s ascension to the presidency, federal agencies began to place a disproportionate emphasis on utilizing “public-private partnerships” to root out alleged Russian influence.
Another former senior government official recently suggested that information-based operations, a practice that in the digital era found its roots in the GWOT, was found to be useful in the domestic private sector as well. And this is likely how Hamilton 68 came into being. Individuals who had acquired specific skills while serving the country brought those skills home and began using them in service of political goals.
And Milius’ experience with the State Department’s “bot detection” efforts that were meant to keep tabs on people spreading Russian disinformation online substantiates this. She affirmed that the public-private partnership between the federal bureaucracy and Big Tech, in particular, established a sense of comfort and familiarity between the two bodies. Because bureaucrats were able to “take free trips to Silicon Valley and hang out with people from Google and Facebook and Twitter,” the managerial elite in both entities knew they were operating on the same wavelength.
This additional face time likely provided both groups reassurance that their ideological goals were similar and that they would have allies in the quest to delegitimize and stonewall Trump’s presidency.
Swamp Creatures Tend to Be Lazy
Once Hamilton 68 came online, an inordinate amount of attention was placed on 644 Twitter accounts that were flagged as “bots” spreading “Russian disinformation.” Thanks to Taibbi’s reporting, it is now publicly documented that these accounts were overwhelmingly run by American citizens and other Western civilians with no connection to Russia whatsoever. But to people involved in conservative politics at the time, it was clear that Hamilton 68 was a con.
“It was run by the teams that ran Russiagate, so this was yet another arm of their public attack on Trump and Trump supporters,” Milius said. “I was looking at the list of users, and I was like, ‘Bro, my secret handle is on there. Like all my friends are on there. I know these people. They’re not bots.’”
Milius stated that the individuals behind Hamilton 68 were directly providing “someone or multiple people” at the State Department with the lists of accounts being algorithmically monitored.
Such collusion would indicate the government was effectively taking orders from a politically biased third party about which private citizens it should monitor, suppress, and allow to be libeled by the corporate media.
And despite the fact that — as we now can deduce — the people behind Hamilton 68 knew what they were doing was fraudulent, the users who were algorithmically placed on these curated lists had information about them used to source not only news stories about a malicious foreign presence in American domestic issues but as the basis for intel used in reports within federal agencies.
Furthermore, the data analytics included alongside Hamilton 68’s information were frequently drastically inflated to manufacture a sense of severity, Milius said, further indicating to her and to some of those with whom she worked that the entire operation was bogus. When data analysts in the State Department would compare the analytics provided by Hamilton 68 with the actual data from the monitored accounts’ traffic, they would find massive discrepancies, she noted. The people behind Hamilton 68 were blatantly lying, and if people looked in the right places the lies fell apart.
But because their numbers were few and leadership enjoyed the convenience of pre-sourced intel, Hamilton 68 continued to be utilized by the State Department.
The Deep State Is a Hammer; Everything Else Is a Nail
Even Yoel Roth, the former head of trust and safety at Twitter, knew that Hamilton 68 was bogus. There is no reason to believe that GS-15s in the State Department had a good-faith reason to accept it at face value. After all, bureaucrats overwhelmingly favored Hillary Clinton in 2016, so why wouldn’t they take a chance at sabotaging someone they believed would lead the U.S. down the wrong path?
Milius contends that the political bias of entrenched bureaucrats who make decisions in federal agencies played a key role in deciding to utilize a tool like Hamilton 68, subsequently prolonging the narrative of Russian collusion.
“They wanted [Russian collusion] to be true so badly,” she said. “They felt like they were freedom fighters. In their minds, every Trump appointee was probably a Russian plant because, in their minds, Trump was a Russian plant.”
“The whole media pretended that this Russaigate thing was real. It didn’t just affect citizens. It affected everyone who worked in Washington, D.C., which includes everybody that worked with the [State] Department, the CIA, and more,” she continued. “These people were going home at night being told Trump and his people were Russian agents and then would come into work with the idea that they were going to save America from us.”
If Trump and everyone affiliated with him are Russian assets, and Russian assets pose an existential threat to the country, why wouldn’t a well-meaning new hire at the State Department who wants to grow in his career treat an intelligence briefing sourced from Hamilton 68 with the utmost importance if his boss told him to?
What Else Is Being Used Against Us?
Whether they were conditioned by their superiors and Big Tech or not, hundreds if not thousands of entries and mid-level bureaucrats perpetuated the lie the Russian government hijacked American politics. They, along with the corporate media and the universities, went along with this narrative to weaponize society against people — American citizens — who supported a democratically elected president from a major political party.
Taibbi’s reporting shows how Hamilton 68 was used by Big Tech and the corporate media to perpetuate the myth of Russian collusion by unfairly suppressing and regulating speech online. Milius’ experience at the State Department indicates how it was used to weaponize one of the most important parts of the federal government against the American people.
Both narratives likely only give us a look under the hood. We know about the Hamilton dashboard — which is still operational, albeit under the slightly different moniker of Hamilton 2.0 — solely because of the “Twitter Files,” and we know of the use of Hamilton 68 at the State Department because of people like Milius who are willing to share their stories.
We have no reason to believe Hamilton 2.0 isn’t being used by the government, nor do we know whether systems similar to the Hamilton dashboard are being used to curate lists of people on platforms other than Twitter.
But we do know that unelected members of the government are weaponizing themselves against the American people in collaboration with the private sector as they chip away at our democratic republic. This is irrefutable.
So, the question remains: what else is the U.S. government using to monitor its citizens while mobilizing against domestic targets who have done nothing wrong?
Samuel Mangold-Lenett is a staff editor at The Federalist. His writing has been featured in the Daily Wire, Townhall, The American Spectator, and other outlets. He is a 2022 Claremont Institute Publius Fellow. Follow him on Twitter @Mangold_Lenett.
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump.
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump.
No matter how you define “marriage,” there is zero respect for it in the so-called Respect for Marriage Act. You may believe it serves to federally codify the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision that rejected marriage as a male-female union. Maybe it would do so temporarily. But that’s not the endgame.
If you’re paying attention, you can see that the Senate’s recent 62-37 vote for cloture on HR 8404 puts us one step closer to abolishing state recognition of marriage entirely. That’s where this train is headed.
This will happen the same way such things always happen — through a demonization campaign that frames skeptics as bigots who are guilty of discrimination. That’s how you get Democrat-pliable Republicans such as Mitt Romney and craven Supreme Court justices like Anthony Kennedy to sign on. That’s how you manufacture a public opinion cascade, warning average Americans that they’ll be pummeled with lawsuits and ostracism if they dare think out loud.
And that’s how Democrats in Congress are likely in the not-too-distant future — via HR 8404 — to make the case that marriage actually comes with privileges that discriminate against the unmarried. Disagree? You’re a bigot who deserves to be socially ostracized! Self-censorship in the face of such accusations will pave the way, as always.
Collectivists Hope to Destroy Private Life and Regulate Relationships
Once they’ve gotten to that point via HR 8404 and Republicans who supported the measure, congressional Democrats will doubtless push us to agree that marriage is a discriminatory institution. We’ll start seeing more anti-marriage initiatives supported by singles, millennials, Julias, and gen Z, all well-groomed for the moment by teacher’s unions, academia, and media.
They’ll fall for the pitch that we can all just write up domestic partnership contracts instead. “Marriage” would then become nothing but a legal relationship (a contract) between two (or more) people for any purpose at all. Bureaucrats would broker those contracts. This proposal is all mapped out in Sunstein and Thaler’s 2008 book “Nudge.” It’s also been promoted for decades by internationally acclaimed feminist legal scholar Martha Fineman who writes that a system of contracts replacing marriage will help the state “regulate all social interactions.”
Under a system that abolishes state recognition of marriage, the family could no longer exist autonomously or unmolested by the state. How could it if the state no longer recognizes marriage as the foundation of the family unit? The government would have no requirement to recognize religious rites of marriage as valid. Thus, it would meddle more deeply in religion and religious communities that recognize bonds of kinship through blood ties.
We Become Atomized Individuals in the State’s Eyes
The atomization resulting from this will have repercussions that go beyond the bill’s guarantee to treat any difference of opinion as a federal crime. If we continue on this path, the government will no longer have to recognize any biological relationships. It need not recognize any legal right you might have as the parent of your biological child. Why should it? It would have already abolished its recognition of the union that produced the child.
Some of this process has already been completed through gender-neutral language in documents like passports, birth certificates, or the rules of the 117th Congress that do not recognize the words “mother,” “father,” “son,” or “daughter.”
Much groundwork has also been laid by surrogacy and abortion laws that treat children as chattel to buy, sell, and dispose of at will. And why would the state have to recognize any other relationships resulting from marriage if it no longer recognizes marriage? It could ignore your blood relationships to brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or any familial bond. In this scenario, you’d likely need a license to raise your own child, an old communist goal that the so-called Respect for Marriage Act conjures up.
When all there is are bureaucratized domestic partnership arrangements, the government would no longer need to recognize spousal privilege and thereby could legally coerce spouses to testify against one another in court. It could also abolish the default path of survivorship through which your inheritance goes to your spouse or next of kin. Instead, the state would be free to redistribute your nest egg at will in its great bureaucratic wisdom.
Indeed, there is no reason to doubt that the Respect for Marriage Act serves as a midwife to the radical left’s long-held goal of abolishing state recognition of marriage. It will allow the government to regulate our relationships, rendering each of us naked before its power.
We are each being set up for a pre-arranged marriage with Big Government operating as our abusive spouse.
Such Atomization Is a Totalitarian Necessity
The path to human atomization is the natural arc of all totalitarian systems in the making. They must always first isolate people in order to control them through terror, as Hannah Arendt noted in her work “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” Tyrants always mask their intentions by borrowing from tradition, using words like “respect for marriage,” “love,” or “equality” as they march us all into virtual solitary confinement.
There’s nothing new about this trajectory. It’s a long-standing vision of all totalitarian systems, which first came into the open with the Communist Manifesto’s proclamation, “Abolish the family!” Communists referred to traditional religion as “the opiate of the people” while setting up communism as a pseudo-religion that demanded unquestioning loyalty. The resulting dependency then truly becomes the fentanyl of the people.
Such deceptions are why Schumer and company talk about marriage as though the government has some sort of litmus test for “love.” But anyone with half a brain knows that love’s got nothing to do with a functioning state’s interest in marriage. Marriage is an institution that exists to allow for a structured society and for the protection of children.
Of course, we easily forget such facts while living in a nation that increasingly promotes infanticide, assisted suicide, recreational drug use, child pornography, and other ways to torture and kill our children. In fact, virtually all of their policy positions are tailor-made for family breakdown, community breakdown, and for hostility toward religious communities.
But maybe you like feeling lonely and alienated, like the idea of a childless and hopeless future, and are all for the state regulating your personal relationships and conversations. Well, then, you’ll like the “Respect” for Marriage Act.
But the destruction of bonds of affection and loyalty in the private spheres of life makes sense from the point of view of statists. Those loyalties get in the way of their ambitions for power and social engineering. They are invested in isolating us so that we become dependent upon them.
Stella Morabito is a senior contributor at The Federalist. She is author of “The Weaponization of Loneliness: How Tyrants Stoke Our Fear of Isolation to Silence, Divide, and Conquer.” Her essays have appeared in various publications, including the Washington Examiner, American Greatness, Townhall, Public Discourse, and The Human Life Review. In her previous work as an intelligence analyst, Morabito focused on various aspects of Russian and Soviet politics, including communist media and propaganda. Follow Stella on Twitter.
Dr. Anthony Fauci has been propped up by the left as a savior throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. If leftists wrote a Marvel superhero movie, former President Donald Trump would be like Thanos, and Fauci is supposed to be some sort of Avenger who saves that day. The problem with that picture is that as far as I’m aware, Avengers are not supposed to brutally murder puppies and mutilate their bodies.
According to a watchdog group called the White Coat Waste Project, that is exactly what the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases did under the leadership of Fauci.
“Documents obtained by WCW through the Freedom of Information Act show that Fauci’s division at the National Institutes of Health ordered cruel and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on dogs and other animals that cost taxpayers $1.68 million,” the group said in a Tuesday news release.
This follows an August report that NIAID sent $424,455 in taxpayer money to the University of Georgia in September 2020 for research that would infect beagles with parasites so that an experimental drug could be tested on them.
In that research, documents obtained by WCW show at least 28 beagles were set to be infected with the parasites for three months. Afterward, they would be euthanized and their blood would be collected. The research was supposed to be completed by January 2022, but it is unclear whether the beagles were euthanized, according to the Daily Caller.
According to the new report from the Daily Caller, additional animal research took place between October 2018 and February 2019. These experiments reportedly included 44 beagle puppies aged 6-8 months who were given experimental drugs through either injection or force-feeding.
Afterward, WCW said the dogs were killed and dissected, supposedly for “research.”
In addition, NIAID paid for the abused puppies to have cordectomies, meaning part or all of their vocal cords were removed. WCW said Fauci’s division paid for these procedures so the puppies “couldn’t bark in the lab while they were being abused.”
NIAID defended the horrific treatment in its documents by saying the experiments were conducted to “provide data of suitable quality and integrity, in order to support applications to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies,” according to the Daily Caller.
In July, WCW told KABC-TV that human drugs were being tested on puppies because of a 1930s law requiring drugs to be tested on animals before humans.
However, when KABC reached out to the FDA for comment, the agency said it “requires that an FDA-approved medical product must be demonstrated to be safe and effective,” but “does not mandate that human drugs be studied in dogs.”
This implies that NIAID’s reckless animal testing was conducted by choice, not out of obligation.
The timing of this new information is particularly ironic for Fauci. On Monday’s episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Carlson revealed Fauci had candles in his own home depicting himself as a saint.
“Tony Fauci isn’t just the high priest of Fauci-ism. He’s also a true believer himself,” Carlson said.
The very next day, Fauci was revealed to have overseen experiments brutalizing innocent puppies. Somehow, that doesn’t seem to be very “saint-like” behavior.
“People are naming puppies after Anthony Fauci, but he’s actually dogs’ and taxpayers’ worst nightmare,” WCW vice president of advocacy and public policy Justin Goodman told the Daily Caller.
“From poisoning puppies here at home to funding gain-of-function experiments in China, the government’s highest-paid employee has proven he can’t be trusted to spend taxpayer dollars responsibly. With NIH director Francis Collins retiring, Fauci should be the next one to go.”
Grant is a graduate of Virginia Tech with a bachelor’s degree in journalism. He has five years of writing experience with various outlets and enjoys covering politics and sports.
Jessica Berg Wilson’s obituary described the Seattle woman as “an exceptionally healthy and vibrant 37-year-old young mother with no underlying health conditions” who “died unexpectedly on Sep. 7 from COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT).”
The obituary on Legacy.com continued: “Jessica fully embraced motherhood, sharing her passion for life with her daughters. Jessica’s motherly commitment was intense, with unwavering determination to nurture her children to be confident, humble, responsible, and to have concern and compassion for others with high morals built on Faith.”
“Jessica’s greatest passion was to be the best mother possible for Bridget and Clara. Nothing would stand in her way to be present in their lives,” it said. “During the last weeks of her life, however, the world turned dark with heavy-handed vaccine mandates. Local and state governments were determined to strip away her right to consult her wisdom and enjoy her freedom.
“She had been vehemently opposed to taking the vaccine, knowing she was in good health and of a young age and thus not at risk for serious illness. In her mind, the known and unknown risks of the unproven vaccine were more of a threat.
“But, slowly, day by day, her freedom to choose was stripped away. Her passion to be actively involved in her children’s education—which included being a Room Mom—was, once again, blocked by government mandate. Ultimately, those who closed doors and separated mothers from their children prevailed.
“It cost Jessica her life. It cost her children the loving embrace of their caring mother. And it cost her husband the sacred love of his devoted wife. It cost God’s Kingdom on earth a very special soul who was just making her love felt in the hearts of so many.”
This very sad story was made even worse by the Twitter Police.
When a Twitter user shared Wilson’s obituary on Friday, adding in the caption that she had not wanted to get vaccinated, the post was slapped with a warning label.
“This Tweet is misleading,” it said. “Find out why health officials consider COVID-19 vaccines safe for most people.”
It provided a link so users could “find out more,” adding, “This Tweet can’t be replied to, shared or liked.”
Here is a screenshot of the Twitter warning label, which apparently was removed after many users complained about it.
This is what popped up if you clicked on the retweet button.
Misleading? On the contrary, it’s very clear. A healthy young woman, who believed that the vaccine posed a greater risk to her health than contracting the virus itself, was forced to comply with the school’s vaccine requirement for visitors if she wanted to be involved in her children’s classrooms. She took the vaccine and then died of a vaccine-induced blood clot. She was one of the unlucky ones.
The author of the tweet was not misleading readers, either. She was simply mourning the loss of a young mother who would not have gotten the vaccine (and therefore likely would not have died) had she not been forced to. Nobody was trying to convince others not to take the vaccine or claiming that it will cause mass deaths.
I am not anti-vax. Vaccines are a potent tool in the fight against COVID. That said, these vaccines do pose a risk to some individuals. Some might have medical reasons for rejecting the vaccine, and others are highly skeptical about taking a vaccine that was developed so quickly. Not everyone needs to be vaccinated.
This is tyranny, and it’s hard to believe this is happening in America.
Elizabeth is a contract writer at The Western Journal. Her articles have appeared on many conservative websites including RedState, Newsmax, The Federalist, Bongino.com, HotAir, Australian National Review, Independent Journal Review, Instapundit, MSN and RealClearPolitics. Please follow Elizabeth on Twitter.@StaufferVaughn
On Aug. 31, 2021, John Stokes was preparing for his senior season playing Division 1 NCAA golf at Tennessee State University. By Sept. 6, the 21-year-old was hospitalized with heart complications. What changed during the span of those four days? According to Stokes, he received the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.
“I am a Division 1 student-athlete with no prior health issues, and I got the second COVID shot Tuesday [on Aug. 31],” he said in a now-viral TikTok video. “And within four days, I have been diagnosed with myocarditis and was told that I probably won’t be able to play my senior season now.”
According to his profile on Tennessee State’s website, Stokes was set to begin his second and final season with the program. His newly developed heart condition is putting his ability to play in jeopardy.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines myocarditis as “inflammation of the heart muscle,” and the agency says it can be caused by an immune system response to some trigger, such as an infection. The CDC has admitted myocarditis, along with an “inflammation of the outer lining of the heart” known as pericarditis, has been reported after mRNA COVID vaccines.
The agency even went as far as to say that these side effects are most common in adolescent or young adult males after receiving the second vaccine dose from either Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna. Yet the CDC continues to push the vaccine even on this specific group.
“CDC continues to recommend that everyone aged 12 years and older get vaccinated for COVID-19,” the agency says on its website.
“The known risks of COVID-19 illness and its related, possibly severe complications, such as long-term health problems, hospitalization, and even death, far outweigh the potential risks of having a rare adverse reaction to vaccination, including the possible risk of myocarditis or pericarditis.”
A simple study of the numbers will prove that this theory is questionable, at best. According to Statista, there had been 3,043 COVID-19 deaths among Americans aged 18-29 as of Sept. 8, 2021. In another chart, Statista reported 7,148,719 COVID-19 cases among Americans aged 18-29. That means that if you get COVID-19 between the ages of 18-29, you have approximately a .04 percent chance of dying from the virus.
In addition, that only takes into account known positive cases of COVID-19. It does not include unreported cases, nor does it include Americans aged 18-29 who never even get COVID-19. Suffice to say, the chances of 18 to 29-year-old Americans dying from COVID-19 are very slim.
While cases of myocarditis and pericarditis as a result of the vaccine are admittedly rare, they are at least a possibility. Many 18 to 29-year-olds are not willing to take that risk to protect themselves from a virus that has an extremely low chance of killing them. Even if you feel that 18 to 29-year-olds should be vaccinated, you should at least be able to see the problem with mandating a vaccine that has some potential to cause heart inflammation. The CDC’s argument that the risks of COVID-19 outweigh the risks of the vaccine is a choice that Americans should make for themselves, not one that the government gets to decide for them.
“It isn’t right for people to be forced to take the vaccine because there are actual side effects like this that could happen to you,” Stokes said. “Everyone should be informed of the side effects, and no one should be forced to take something that could cause what has happened to me.”
While the CDC says the possible long-term effects from COVID-19 are a reason to get the vaccine, Stokes said the possible long-term effects from the vaccine itself are unknown.
“No one knows the long-term effects of what’s possibly going to happen from this,” he said. “It’s kind of uncharted territory because everyone else with the same heart issues from the vaccine as me, we’re all being tracked and monitored.’
“We’re basically like test subjects from the vaccine, so it’s a very serious issue that really needs to be spread.”
Just as living unvaccinated could present a higher risk of getting COVID-19, receiving the vaccine presents its own risks. The choice of which risk to take has always been and must remain a personal one.
Grant is a graduate of Virginia Tech with a bachelor’s degree in journalism. He has five years of writing experience with various outlets and enjoys covering politics and sports.
For the past year and a half, those of us who have felt the pandemic was being used as a tool to manipulate people have been labeled conspiracy theorists by the establishment media and leftist elites. As time goes on, more evidence emerges that seems to suggest we were right all along.
According to the Post Millennial, students at Eatonville High School in Washington were forced to wear ankle monitors in order to participate in athletics.
An anonymous mother who spoke to the outlet said she received a text from her 15-year-old daughter saying she was asked to wear a monitor at a school volleyball practice. When her daughter did not answer her subsequent texts and calls and no one at the school was able to answer her questions, the mother eventually drove to the school’s campus.
School employees told her that a meeting had been held the prior week to discuss the implementation of a monitoring program. It was “allegedly designed for contact tracing in the event of a positive COVID test of a student,” the Post Millennial reported.
Both unvaccinated and vaccinated students were reportedly told to wear ankle monitors. If someone tested positive for COVID-19, unvaccinated students who were identified as close contacts would be required to quarantine for 14 days, while vaccinated students would not.
The device is called TraceTag and is manufactured by a company called Triax, according to the Post Millennial.
“Being able to properly comply with social distancing guidelines is critical to containing and slowing the spread of COVID-19,” the company says in its description of the product.
“Additionally, having a log of all worker interactions for contact tracing, in the event that a worker is diagnosed with COVID-19, will help to accelerate the process for further containment and isolation.”
See, it’s no big deal. Why would you even have an issue with being forced to wear a tracking device? It’s for your own good.
The device also emits “a visual and audible alarm, so individuals know when to adjust their current distance to a proper social distance.” In other words, don’t get too close to someone if you don’t want your ankle monitor to sound the alarm.
Forcing students to wear these devices is a ludicrous idea on its face. Ankle monitors are meant for prisoners, not minors just trying to play school sports.
To make matters worse, the mother said she was never contacted about the program. The school’s head football coach told her forms were provided at the aforementioned meeting for those who wanted to opt out of the program, but the mother said she was never even informed that the meeting was taking place.
According to the Post Millennial, the school’s athletic director “acknowledged the error and apologized for the ‘slip up’ of not getting her consent.”
This was not just an innocent “slip-up.” It’s a symptom of the growing assumption that people should be forced to give up any number of basic rights in the name of “public health.”
For months, the establishment media has been telling people they essentially have no right to choose whether they want certain substances injected into their bodies. If public and private employers are allowed to tell their workers what to put in their bodies, why wouldn’t school administrators be allowed to tell students what to attach to them?
The reality is that students in Washington state are being forced to wear ankle monitors. That is not a conspiracy theory — it’s real life. If we don’t stop this kind of invasive behavior now, there is no telling how far it will go.
Grant is a graduate of Virginia Tech with a bachelor’s degree in journalism. He has five years of writing experience with various outlets and enjoys covering politics and sports.
Donations/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!
Donations/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!
Donations/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 the 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 shared by President Donald Trump.
The idea of mask orders went national this past week when Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said he would “do everything possible” to force all Americans to wear face coverings while out in public.
“The one thing we do know, these masks make a gigantic difference. I would insist that everybody out in public be wearing that mask. Anyone to reopen — would have to make sure that they walked into a business that had masks,”Biden told KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh.
Asked if he would use the power of the federal government to enforce this, the former vice president replied: “Yes, I would from an executive standpoint, yes, I would.”
“I would do everything possible to make it required that people had to wear masks in public,”he said, when asked if he would “in effect”make make wearing a mask mandatory.
That wouldn’t even happen before next January at the very earliest. By that one time, one prays (rather against the odds) that the whole thing will be redundant. Until then, we’ll still be seeing plenty of similar orders from state and local officials.
One of them is Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, who issued an executive order on masks effective Friday: “As necessary economic activity increases and more people are out in their communities, it is imperative that we adopt further measures to protect all of us,” Inslee said Tuesday, according to a news release.
“Until a vaccine or cure is developed, this is going to be one of our best defenses.”
Advertisement – story continues below
The order states that “[n]o individual may appear in a public place without wearing a face covering,” that “[n]o business may operate, allow a customer to enter a business, or conduct business with a customer inside any building that is open to public or outdoors in a public place unless the customer is wearing a face covering” and that “[n]o individual may enter a place of business, whether the business is operating indoors or outdoors, without first donning a face covering, unless the individual does so under circumstances expressly exempted from this requirement under Order of the Secretary of Health 20-03.”
It’s probably not the most unpopular thing to do, given the recent spike in COVID-19 cases nationwide. However, Inslee is governor of a big state, not all of which is urban, experiencing a major increase in cases or particularly liberal. It all becomes more problematic when you parse Inslee’s language and realize he’s essentially signing the state up for mandatory mask-wearing until a vaccine is ready, which could be a year or longer.
It’s this environment and set of conditions that turned Lewis County Sheriff Robert Snaza into a viral superstar.
In a video taken by The Daily Chronicle in Centralia, Washington, Snaza — not wearing a mask — spoke to a mostly maskless crowd outside a church on the same day Inslee issued his order, according to The Washington Post.
Advertisement – story continues below
“In case you guys didn’t hear, Governor Inslee in his infinite wisdom has decided after over a hundred and some odd days that we should all wear face masks — inside and out,” Snaza said through a megaphone in the clip.
“Here’s what I say — don’t be a sheep.”
The video had over 265,000 views as of Sunday morning, which is certainly more than you’d expect for a short clip of a sheriff of a sparsely populated county giving his opinion on Jay Inslee’s mask order.
Media in the region took note, as well. In an interview with Oregon Public Broadcasting the next day, Snaza expressed frustration with Inslee and skepticism that the new policy would actually work.
“My frustration is we continue to listen to the governor’s requests without asking questions, without saying: ‘Well wait a minute, there’s the other side to this’ and in particular wearing the mask,” Snaza said.
He’s also not convinced the masks would be efficacious: “Yet we’re telling people now to wear it and if you don’t wear it, we’re going to cite you for that,” he said.
Snaza’s remarks got enough attention that Inslee addressed them in a news conference on Wednesday.
“I think we have to be disappointed in any law enforcement officer who would encourage illegal behavior,” Inslee said.
He added that wearing a mask“is about demonstrating our respect and care for the other people around us.” And if you don’t care, the government might punish you with up to 90 days of jail time and a $100 fine.
Yet, Sheriff Snaza says he’s not calling for mass lawbreaking: “Just because I said ‘don’t be sheep’ does not mean that I’m outwardly saying I want you to violate the orders,” he said.
Inslee called this clarification “very helpful.”
Less helpful, at least by Inslee’s rubric, was Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer, who called the governor was an “idiot” and said he was “overstepping his bounds, violating people’s constitutional rights.”
Sheriffs in two other counties said they planned to “educate” people about mask usage without enforcing Inslee’s order.
Advertisement – story continues below
This is the invariable problem with blanket orders like this, which sound great on paper but are wholly unenforceablein reality — particularly given the optics of the government forcing you to wear something. Masks, while potentially efficacious, aren’t the be-all-end-all. After all, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control were previously at odds over whether they’re even necessary for healthy people.
In the end, personal responsibility is going to play a larger part in this than executive orders.
Even if Joe Biden is in a position (heaven forfend) to issue an executive order mandating mask-wearing, good luck enforcing it.
He’s not going to be able to do what Jay Inslee apparently can’t. Treating people as if they’re sheep won’t solve anything.
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal for four years.
A gory illustration of someone slitting the throat of President Trump currently decorates the window of an art gallery in Portland, OR, with the caption “FUCK TRUMP.”
This picture taken on the street outside the One Grand Gallery has been making the rounds on Twitter.
Breitbart News was able to verify this is real via the gallery’s Facebook page (archived here). Also, photos of the gallery on its website reveal the windows facing the street are the same. This means that anyone driving or walking by, including small children, will be exposed, not only to a grisly photo depicting the assassination of a sitting president, but the “FUCK TRUMP”caption.
The event surrounding this particular gallery showing opened on July 13 and is called“Fuck you Mr. President.”
In the era of Trump, this kind of wishful thinking surrounding the grisly assassination of the president is nothing new, unfortunately. As Breitbart News has documented, the same establishment media that spent a week hounding a rodeo clown for wearing an Obama mask has devolved into open apologists — if not advocates — for violence against Trump and his supporters.
Last summer, CNN’s parent company, Time-Warner, was a sponsor of a play depicting the bloody assassination of the president. CNN’s Chris Cillizza has tweeted out video of Trump in crosshairs, and in the lead up to Trump’s inauguration, CNN openly fantasized about Trump’s assassination.
If the establishment media are eagerly shattering every norm regarding the safety of the president, we should not be surprised by the appalling behavior of a local art gallery.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez told progressive radio host Bill Press Tuesday that Democratic-socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is “the future of our party.”
Transcript as follows:
PRESS:“There was a primary in several states — your state, home state of Maryland — and also up in New York, where the fourth most powerful Democrat in the United States Congress — Congressman Joe Crowley — was knocked out by a young woman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Twenty-eight years old, never ran for office before. Big progressive — calls herself a Democratic Socialist, actually. Sort of like Bernie Sanders did. She was a Bernie Sanders supporter. And in Maryland, Ben Jealous — another strong progressive wins the nomination of governor. What’s this tell you about where the Democratic Party is going today?”
PEREZ:“Well, my daughters —I have three kids — two of whom — one just graduated college, one is in college and they were both texting me about their excitement over Alexandria. She represents the future of our party. She ran a spirited campaign. I have great respect for Joe Crowley. Joe Crowley is a good Democrat — one of the sponsors of the Medicare for all bill.”
Ocasio-Cortez is a dues-paying member of Democratic Socialists of America’s New York City chapter, which recently called to “abolish prisons” and “abolish profit.”
The candidate has not endorsed or disavowed on those far-left goals, but her campaign platform does call for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), establishing universal guaranteed employment, and single-payer healthcare — i.e., “Medicare for all.”
A Hilliard, Ohio, senior was suspended for refusing to leave the classroom while the March 14 gun control walkout occurred. The student, Jacob Shoemaker, wanted to remain in class at Hilliard Davidson High School as a way to keep from being ensnared in the political debate surrounding gun ownership.
The Associated Press reports the school district suspended Shoemaker for staying in the classroom. The district explained the suspension by explaining that “it’s responsible for students’ safety and they can’t be unsupervised.”
Two protests occurred Wednesday—one in support of gun control and one against the gun control movement. Shoemaker did not want to get involved with either side.
IJR Red reports that a photo of Shoemaker’s suspension letter was published online by another student. The letter said, in part, “Student refused to follow instructions after being warned repeatedly by several administrators. Student not permitted on school property.”
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
An Army veteran armed with an AR-15 and a handgun stood guard outside a nearby Fort Wayne, Indiana, high school Monday.
WANE reports that Mark Cowan, a member of Oath Keepers, “found a spot off of school grounds, but close enough to keep an eye on people going in and out of the high school.” He has talked to police and the high school’s resource officer and says he plans to stand guard until the school adopts “additional safety measures.”
Fort Wayne Community Schools released a statement about Cowan’s decision to guard the school while armed:
We take the security of our schools very seriously. We understand he has a right to be out there, but we do not believe it adds to the safety of our students. At North Side, as at all of our schools, we have security procedures in place. In addition, at North Side, we have armed police officers in the building every day. ⁉⁉⁉⁉⁉⁉⁉⁉
Cowan suggests Oath Keepers may similarly guard other schools in the future.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
President Donald Trump speaks to anti-abortion supporters and participants of the annual March for Life event, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Friday, Jan. 19, 2018. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
President Donald Trump spoke live via satellite at the March for Life in Washington, DC, on Friday, thanking pro-life activists for marching against abortion.
“The March for Life is a movement born out of love,” Trump said. “You love your families, you love your neighbors, you love our nation, and you love every child, born and unborn, because you believe that every life is sacred, that every child is a precious gift from God. We know that life is the greatest miracle of all.”
The president spoke from the Rose Garden surrounded by pro-life activists and even a few parents holding their babies. His remarks were streamed live via satellite to screens on the National Mall.
Trump condemned the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision for increasing abortions in the United States.
“It is wrong. It has to change,” he said.
At one point, Trump was supposed to criticize that “the laws allow a baby to be *torn* from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month” – but, instead, he mistakenly said, “born.”
“Americans are more and more pro-life,” he continued. “You see that all the time. In fact, only 12 percent of Americans support abortion on demand at any time. Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life.”
Trump also endorsed the federal 20-week abortion ban and called for the Senate to pass it.
“I call upon the Senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing,” he said.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Friday morning that a government shutdown would have a “terrible impact” on military operations.
“Our maintenance activities will probably pretty much shut down. We will not be able to induct any more of our gear that need maintenance,” he said Friday morning at the Johns Hopkins University, where he was unveiling the National Defense Strategy.
The government is barreling towards a shutdown at 11:59 p.m. Friday night, with the Senate unable to pass a 2018 spending bill or a stop-gap measure to keep the government running. At issue is immigration reform. Democrats have refusedto pass a spending measure unless there is a fix for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which the president rescinded last year, but gave Congress until March 5 to fix.
Republicans argue Democrats are willing to put the issue ahead of the U.S. military, which has been seriously affected by budget instability.
In the event of a shutdown, troops and some civilians will continue to report to work and accrue pay, but will not receive paychecks during the shutdown.
Mattis said half of his civilian workers would be furloughed, which would impact operations from contracting to military medical facilities.
“There is any number of projects we have underway that keep me at the top of my game and our military at the top of our game that are handled by civilians,” he said.
“It’s got a huge morale impact,” he added. “I’ll just tell you — how long can you keep good people around when something like this happens, is always a question that’s got to hover around in the back of my mind.”
He said intelligence operations would also be impacted.
“I would just tell you that we do a lot of intelligence operations around the world and they cost money. Those obviously would stop,” he said.
Troops themselves would also be impacted, Mattis said. While active duty troops would continue to report for duty during a shutdown, reservists would not report for duty For example, he said, “this morning or last night young guys and gals somewhere in Wyoming were driving off to do their weekend duty.”
“Those troops will arrive there at their armories, by the way, and told go home if there’s a government shutdown, and they will then drive a couple hundred miles back home. These again are stoic men and women, they’ll suck it up and say okay,” he said.
“And I would just tell you that training for almost our entire reserve force will stop and you must understand the critical importance of our reserves,” he said.
He called reserve troops the “only shock absorber”the U.S. military has.
“It’s not like the old days where you could draft somebody in and 18 weeks later have them in combat with the skills they need.
“Today’s infantrymen, they’re called infantrymen because they’re infant solders, young soldiers. They still take a year to train in order to have them ready to use the gear they have on them and make certain they have the ethical and tactical abilities to deal with the battlefield today,” he said.
“So it’s got a terrible impact.”
Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Dana White tweeted on Friday:
“The government shutdown is destructive and puts unnecessary stress on the already stressful jobs of our service members. Time to put the money where the votes are and write the check! #FY18budget #PassTheBudget.”
186 House Democrats voted against keeping the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funded for the next six years as they opposed a stopgap spending measure in the House of Representatives Thursday that would keep the government open for the next four weeks.
Senate Democrats were likewise poised to vote against CHIP, as they declared earlier in the day that they had the votes to filibuster the spending bill and shut down the government. (Republicans have taken to calling the impending shutdown the “Schumer shutdown,” for Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), in response.)
CHIP provides funds for health insurance for children from low-income families who are not poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid. CHIP funding is the number one issue for American voters overall, according to a recent poll by Politico and the Harvard University School of Public Health.
When he won Alabama’s special election for the U.S. Senate last month, Doug Jones called on both parties to put politics aside and vote to fund the CHIP program:
“Take this election,” Jones said, “take this election where the people of Alabama said we want to get something done, we want you to find common ground, we want you to talk. Take this opportunity in light of this election and go ahead and fund that CHIP program before I get up there. Put it aside and let’s do it for those million kids and 150,000 here in Birmingham, Alabama.”
Congress did not do so, but Jones proposed a bill last week that would extend CHIP funding for five years — one year shorter than the stopgap spending bill Democrats are rejecting.
CNN political analyst Gloria Borger offered her version of Democrats’ argument Thursday: “If this is so important to you Republicans, why didn’t you take it up earlier this year when you could have, when the Democrats wanted to deal with it? I mean, children’s health insurance is something that you can bring up on the floor any time and renew it, and they’ve been screaming about it — the Democrats have been screaming about it for quite some time.”
Voters in contested House and Senate districts this year can expect to see Republican advertisements noting that Democratic incumbents voted against funding CHIP. Only six House Democrats broke ranks to vote with the GOP.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak
Tax cuts are going to grow the economy by much more than expected.
That’s the verdict of the Wall Street Journal‘s prestigious “Heard on the Street” column. Importantly, Heard on the Street is run by the news side of the WSJ, not its tax-cut loving editorial page. So there’s no particular pro-tax cut or pro-Republican bias at work here.
There were several surprises for investors when Republicans unveiled their final tax bill Friday, but the most significant is that they add up to a bigger boost to economic growth next year.
The bigger stimulus could fundamentally change how the market behaves in 2018. Sales and profits will be stronger than most investors expect. But with the unemployment rate low, wage pressures will mount faster, and inflation should pick up more. If the tax plan passes, as seems likely, it could lead the Federal Reserve to raise rates faster, putting the bond market at risk.
The tax plan was always expected to juice the economy, but the Senate version, which passed after the House approved its bill, had relatively modest short-term stimulus. While the stock market kept rising in anticipation of a cut, the bond market hardly budged. The bill unveiled Friday front-loaded more than $200 billion in stimulus for next year. Economists had been penciling in a boost of about a third of a percentage point next year. Now that is looking way low.
Some of the pro-growth changes include eliminating any delay to the corporate tax cuts, lowering of the top individual rate, lowering rates for most taxpayers, and increasing the child tax credit. The latter is particularly important because middle-class households are “more likely to spend extra income than the rich.”
The tax bill could increase GDP by 1.3 percent, Lahart writes.
That’s an additional full percentage point gain from what economists had been expecting based on earlier bills.
(Full disclosure: I used to work for Heard on the Street and consider Lahart a personal friend. He’s had me over to his apartment for fish.)
President Donald Trump used his authority under the Antiquities Act to shrink the size of two massive national monuments designated by former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Trump returned the land back to the people of Utah.
“The families and communities of Utah know and love this land the best, and you know the best how to take care of your land,” Trump said during a visit to Utah. “You know how to protect it, and you know best how to conserve this land for many, many generations to come.”
Trump took the unusual step of shrinking the amount of land protected by the Antiquities Act, despite an outcry from leftist environmental groups.
“I’ve come to Utah to take a very historic action to reverse federal overreach and restore the rights of this land to your citizens,”Trump said during the event, which included Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, Utah Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, as well as Governor Gary Herbert.
Obama designated 1.35 million acres of land to serve as the Bears Ears National Monument right before he left office in 2016. Clinton designated 1.9 million acres in Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante monument. Both monuments were reduced after Secretary Zinke conducted a study of both monuments.
The president reminded the audience that the Antiquities’ Act required a president to protect the “smallest necessary area” for conservation. He commented that previous administrations “severely abused”their powers under the Antiquities Act to lock up millions of acres of land and water under federal control.
“With the action I’m taking today, we will not only give back your voice over the use of this land, we will also restore your access and your enjoyment,” Trump said.
President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order is once again to largely go back into effect after the Supreme Court of the United States stayed two lower courts’ injunctions Monday.
The orders come in response to filings by the Department of Justice Friday, asking the Supreme Court to stay the preliminary injunctions in the two main travel ban cases, Hawaii v. Trump in the Ninth Circuit and International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump in the Fourth Circuit. These cases have been proceeding up and down the federal court system for months.
The district courts, especially that of Barack Obama-appointed District of Hawaii Judge Derrick Watson, have repeatedly ruled that the bans must be blocked from going into effect or must, in the interim, be interpreted in such a way as to have little effect on the list of mostly Muslim majority countries from which travel is prohibited under the orders.
The petitions in the two cases were made to Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts respectively. Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor declined to sign on to the orders staying the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.
“This a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in statement after the orders were announced.
He continued:
We are pleased to have defended this order and heartened that a clear majority Supreme Court has allowed the President’s lawful proclamation protecting our country’s national security to go into full effect. The Constitution gives the President the responsibility and power to protect this country from all threats foreign and domestic, and this order remains vital to accomplishing those goals.
With the order, the third – permanent – version of the travel ban, promulgated in September after an interagency review of the dangers posed by the different countries included, will go back into effect while the case on the merits works its way through the court system. The Supreme Court had dismissed the earlier lawsuits based on the earlier, temporary versions of the ban because they had expired.
The government, represented by Solicitor General Noel Francisco, asked the justices to re-instate the ban based in part on the findings of the review, which provided new security-based justifications for the inclusion of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen and, he argues, turns the likelihood of success against the plaintiffs.
WASHINGTON, DC — Breitbart News executive chairman and former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon warned a room full of immigration activists on a Washington, DC, afternoon that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi lives for that “one more bullet in the chamber,”to impeach President Donald Trump if Democrats win back the House of Representatives.
Bannon called out House Speaker Paul Ryan for attempts to “slip amnesty into a spending bill,”warning also that if he continues to press for amnesty, “Republicans are going to lose the House of Representatives.”
“It’s so obvious,”said Bannon, who further alerted the crowd at the Remembrance Project conference that “if they lose the House of Representatives, you’ve already got a Wall Street billionaire in Tom Steyer up there putting what? Millions of dollars in the ads to do one thing, what? Impeach the president of the United States. That’s all Nancy Pelosi lives for.”
On Thursday New York Times politicalreporter and MSNBC Contributor Jeremy Peters told MSNBC viewers that Pelosi will impeach Trump if Democrats win back the House.He suggested that the real purpose of Trump’s negotiations with Pelosi was to “undermine” Ryan and McConnell.
Pelosi has tried to tamp down on the idea that she is for impeaching Trump after billionaire Steyer ran ads calling for Trump’s impeachment. Vanity Fairreported on the ads and fears within Democrat leaders that these calls for impeachment “could imperil the party’s chances of retaking congressional control in 2018 and winning the White House in 2020.”
“She thinks she’s got one more bullet in the chamber,”Bannon said of Pelosi, adding that she has fought back attempts to drive her out of Democratic Party leadership. “She’s not going. You know why? She knows Ryan’s going to play right into her hands.”
Pelosi knows Ryan will keep trying to “force amnesty down the throats of the Republican Party and voters of the Republican Party and break the back of the grassroots and their enthusiasm for 2018,” he said. If the House then flips to Democrat control, Bannon said the first action Democrats will take against Trump is “payback for all of this.”
“So this is a struggle, this is every day, and the first struggle, as we often have, is the Republican establishment. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan,” said Bannon, who said the fight doesn’t start in 2018, but in the next 30 to 40 days, or the next two months. He warned that the Republican establishment will try and “hide the football and they’re gonna try to tell you that they’ve got enhanced border security and they’ve got 10 times more ICE agents and they’re gonna have, this is never gonna happen again.”
“They’re lying,” warned Bannon. “And here’s the important thing, you know they’re lying. You’re on to their game now.”
“This fight is going to be so nasty,” said Bannon. “They’re gonna tell so many lies, but at the end of the day I’m glad I’m on your side of the football.”
A Maine woman says she would rather risk jail time than take down her yard signs in support of President Trump after city officials said she had to remove them.
Officials from the city of Rockland told Susan Reitman, 75, that she had to take down her signs or face fines because the signs violate a local ordinance, the Daily Mail reported.
“I was shocked,”she said. “This is my freedom of speech. People have a right to voice their opinion.”
The signs, which hang over her front gate, read “I Love Trump” and “He Won, Get Over It.”
A code enforcement officer from the city told Reitman that, under the city ordinance, residents could only display one sign attached to a structure no larger than two square feet or one free-standing sign no larger than four square feet. Reitman’s signs violate the ordinance because she has two signs that are just over three feet by two feet, according to the officer.
Officials say that if she does not remove her signs by Friday, she faces fines of $100 to $1,000 per day. The code enforcement officer added that another resident complained about the size of the signs.
Reitman, however, is not backing down. She told New England Cable News that she would neither pay the fines nor take her signs down.
“If I have to sit in jail for the rest of eternity, that’s my choice,”she said. “I guess I’m being stubborn … but I’m not going to back down from what I believe.”
Town officials say that residents can apply for permits to display signs larger than what the ordinance allows. Reitman added that she was not aware of the ordinance and thinks city officials should change it to allow for political speech.
Rockland Assistant Code Enforcement Officer William Butler argues that his directive had nothing to do with the content of the signs.
“I admire your passion for our president. Truly, I do,”Butler wrote in a Monday email to Reitman, according to the Press Herald. “However, we have received a complaint, and I have to do my due diligence, and I have determined your signs are not in compliance with the Rockland Code.”
“It is your business what you put on the signs. It is the city’s business regarding the size and number of signs,” he added.
Butler reportedly did not mention any threat of jail time in his email to Reitman.
The Herald reports that Reitman would only face jail time if she refused to follow a court order from a judge asking her to remove the signs. For that to happen, the city would have to file a land-use complaint in court.
Taking nothing away from the fine people who lost their lives in the recent hurricanes, since the 2005 hurricane season, about 200 Americans have died in hurricanes, plus 82 in Hurricane Harvey and 50 in Hurricane Irma. That’s 332 deaths from hurricanes in the past 12 years.
Even a federal government determined not to tell Americans how many illegal immigrants are committing crimes admits that — at a minimum — there are 350,000 illegal immigrants incarcerated in state prisons and jails, and 3,500 are in for murder. Considering that the average time served for murder in America is six years, that means that, in the last 12 years, hurricanes have killed 332 Americans, and illegal immigrants have killed 7,000 Americans.
Throw in the more than 30,000 Americans who die every year from heroin and fentanyl brought in by Mexicans, and illegal immigration is a problem at least 100 times more urgent than Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and every other hurricane since 2005, combined.
(If we’re including U.S. territories and Hurricane Maria ends up killing another 100 people — current estimates are zero dead — illegal immigration is still 80 times worse than the last 12 years of deadly hurricanes. Of course, if we’re including territories, then we also must note that illegal immigration is especially disastrous for Puerto Ricans living in the U.S., in terms of crime and diminishing job prospects.)
There is no question but that illegal immigration dwarfs any other issue, not only in dead Americans, but also in welfare expenditures, taxes, lost jobs, police and prison expenditures, declining neighborhoods, ruined schools, overwhelmed hospitals, facial reconstruction surgeries and rape counseling services, to name a few costs.
We thought Trump understood this. We were counting on him to fight for us on the border — not with rallies, not with hats, not with tweets, but by building a wall. And yet, as of Wednesday this week, Trump will have been in office 243 days without having begun the wall. Imagine if Hurricanes Harvey and Irma had hit 243 days ago and all we’d gotten from the president were assurances that FEMA would be coming any day now — just as soon as he got the go-ahead from Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan! (Or worse, from Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.)
The more accurate analogy would be if Trump responded to the recent hurricanes not only by sending zero federal aid, but also by demanding that we dismantle FEMA and the National Hurricane Center. That’s exactly what he’s doing by proposing we respond to the crisis of 40 million illegal aliens in our country with an amnesty that will lure another 40 million across the border.
We hoped we wouldn’t have to spell it out. We thought Trump understood that this was an emergency. We believed he was capable of getting the job done. If he did understand, then 243 days ago, he would have sent the Navy Seabees and Army Corps of Engineers to start building the wall.
For most of the nation’s history, the primary job of the military — of which President Trump is the commander in chief — was building walls and fortresses on our borders. That’s why we have an Army Corps of Engineers. It may not seem like it from recent history, but the job of our military is to protect America’s borders — not Ukraine’s borders, not Jordan’s borders.
This is our one and only chance to get this done, and we’re losing the fight. While Trump dallies, last week California became a sanctuary state. Sixteen-year-old girls are taking lessons to learn to be safe drivers, but when they’re smashed into by drunk-driving illegal aliens, the state won’t tell ICE, and taxpayers will spend $40 million to pay for their defense.
The wall has to get built, and nothing else matters.
Trump will not be able to tweet his way out of not building the wall. He will not be able to change the subject by attacking the media or Crooked Hillary. He will not be able to get away with blaming Republicans in Congress.
Obviously, it suits the rest of the traitorous GOP — which ferociously opposed him — to pretend that Trump’s election had nothing to do with immigration.
I don’t know about a lot of things. I don’t know where women let you grab them if you’re a rich celebrity. I don’t know how to play a wind instrument. But when everyone else said Trump was a joke, I said, nope, he’s going to be our next president. If anyone is telling Trump that a “virtual wall,” drones, a conga line or a “Don’t Cross!” sign are as good as a wall, he can get his stock tips from them, but not his political advice.
If Trump doesn’t get that wall built, and fast, his base will be done with him and feed him to Robert Mueller.
President Donald Trump will end an Obama-created amnesty program that gave more than 850,000 young illegal aliens protected status and work permits to remain in the United States.
According to Fox News reports, the Trump Administration is set to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) this week, days before a coalition of state attorneys general said they would sue if the program was not ended by September 5:
President Trump, as early as Friday, is expected to announce plans to end the Obama administration program that gave a deportation reprieve to hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants, a senior administration official told Fox News.
Trump promised to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, during the presidential campaign — but since taking office had left the door open to preserving parts of it.
According to the official, Trump is expected to announce the program’s end but will allow so-called “dreamers” currently in the program to stay in the U.S. until their work permits expire – which, for some, could be as long as two years.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to confirm the Fox News report on Thursday afternoon. A “final decision on this has not been made … it has not been finalized, and when it is, we will let you know,” she told the White House press conference.
As Breitbart Texas reported, a study done by Mark Zuckerberg’s pro-immigration organization found that if DACA ends, American workers can expect nearly 700,000 job openings in the U.S. workforce.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
A group of Houston bakery employees stuck at work for two days due to flood waters in their area spent their time wisely by baking hundreds of loaves of pan dulce bread to ease the hunger of fellow victims, a report says.
The owner and employees of El Bolillo Bakery in Houston shared a Facebook post to alert customers that the shop is closed due to the storm of the century. But, the post also notes that they haven’t been idle, ABC’s KSAT reported.
The owner of El Bolillo told friends that the bakery is “closed until further notice, but our bakers cooked all night long and we will be prepared to help as soon as we can with bread.”
After three days of Hurricane Harvey, the message emerging from Houston and the Texas coast is not one of chaos and destruction, but of collective strength, as Americans help each other survive through the worst of circumstances.
For once, cable news is not dominated by talking heads shouting at each other, but by images of volunteers, black and white, arriving in flat-bottomed boats to rescue neighbors from flooded buildings. Journalists are helping to direct emergency crews to save stranded drivers rather than encouraging enraged mobs to riot against the police.
And President Donald Trump, attacked for weeks for allegedly dividing the nation, is drawing attention to its unity.
At a joint press conference Monday with the president of Finland, President Trump said:
Tragic times such as these bring out the best in America’s character. Strength, charity and resilience are those characters. We see neighbor helping neighbor, friend helping friend, and stranger helping stranger. And you see that all over. If you watch on television, you just see such incredible work and love, and teamwork.
We are one American family. We hurt together, we struggle together, and, believe me, we endure together. We are one family.
Finland’s leader, too, remarked: “It has been touching to watch the TV and see how people help each other. That is what we basically are built of — helping each other.”
Remarkably, President Trump is winning praise for the federal government’s management of the crisis thus far. He is planning to visit the region on Tuesday, avoiding the mistakes made by his two predecessors. George W. Bush infamously flew over the devastation of Hurricane Katrina; Barack Obama, knowing he would never be held to the same standard, golfed on Martha’s Vineyard during massive Louisiana floods until Trump shamed him into visiting.
But the story of Hurricane Harvey is bigger than the president alone. It is also a story about the importance of state and local governments, which were so woefully negligent in Katrina, but which faced Harvey fully prepared. (In the former case, Democrats were in charge; in the latter, many — though not all — of the key officials are Republicans.)
Most of all, the story of Hurricane Harvey is about what Americans can do without government: the neighbors who are giving each other shelter from the storms; the “Cajun Navy” from Louisiana, a volunteer armada of small boats, en route to help with search and rescue efforts; the non-profit organizations organizing grass-roots relief efforts.
All of that is happening, notably, in the South — a region the left had targeted for a miniature Cultural Revolution in recent weeks, as mobs swarmed historic Confederate memorials (or anything old enough to be held in suspicion). The South was deemed by its cultural betters to be just as backward and racist as ever, a living rebuke to the nation.
Instead, the people of Texas are showing the world that beneath the mindless political rhetoric, we remain united and strong.
The political winner thus far is President Trump. The real winner is us, the United States of America.
More than 1.1 million Americans dropped off the food stamp rolls since President Trump took office in January 2017, according to the latest U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics on food stamp enrollment.
Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) dropped to 41,496,255 in May 2017, the most recent data available from the USDA, from 42,691,363 in January 2017 when Trump took office.
According to the latest data, SNAP enrollment during the first few months of Trump’s presidency decreased by 2.79 percent.
Food stamp participation on average in 2017 has dropped to its lowest level since 2010, and the latest numbers show that this trend is continuing.
Trump proposed cuts to SNAP in his 2018 budget proposal, suggesting that states match up to 20 percent of federal money allotted for the food stamp program and expand work requirements for able-bodied adults receiving food stamps.
Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration has also prompted many immigrants, both legal and illegal, to cancel their food stamps over concerns that they might be denied citizenship or deported.
Federal lawmakers are also working on legislation that would seek to expand food stamp work requirements and put time limits on how long those enrolled in the food stamp program can receive benefits.
At the state level, food stamp enrollment dropped significantly in places such as Georgia and Alabama once they instituted work requirements for able-bodied adults to receive food stamps. Both states fully implemented work requirements for food stamp recipients in 2016-2017.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. President Donald Trump, unimpressed by the Afghanistan war options presented to him during a White House meeting with his full national security team Wednesday, suggested they may have to go back to the drawing board to craft a strategy that does not mirror the failed ones employed by his predecessors, said an administration official.
The meeting came as the Pentagon briefed lawmakers about plans to increase the U.S. military footprint in the country.
Contrary to mainstream media claims that the president has taken a completely hands-off approach to the 16-year-old conflict in Afghanistan, Trump presided over Wednesday’s meeting primarily aimed at discussing the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, a Trump administration official familiar with the deliberations told Breitbart News on condition of anonymity.
President Trump indicated that he is not satisfied with the strategy as it currently stands.
The Pentagon and White House National Security Council (NSC) declined to provide specifics about the developing plan.
President Trump demanded that his team go back to square one if necessary and create a realistic plan that ensures Afghanistan is ultimately able to stand on its own as a country, said the administration official, noting that the meeting served as a sort of wake up call for those involved in developing the strategy.
It appears that besides the Pentagon, the NSC has at least some authority in setting the strategy.
Asked about the meeting, the Pentagon did not confirm nor deny that the President asked officials to go back to the drawing board.
“We’re not going to discuss White House meetings or direction,”said Adam Stump, a U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) spokesman, when Breitbart News asked whether or not it has been forced to start developing the Afghanistan war strategy from scratch and when it expects to present the plan to Trump.
The NSC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters last Friday a decision on the new plan would be unveiled around “mid-July” or “somewhere around there. We are driven by the maturity of the discussion, and where we’re at, we are not going to meet some timeline if we are not ready, but we are pretty close.”
Trump has granted the Pentagon the authority to decide how many additional troops to deploy to the war-ravaged country. Currently, Mattis may increase that number of troops by between 3,000 and 5,000, from the 8,400 already there. Mattis noted on Friday that the number of additional troops has not been “finalized yet,” adding that the Pentagon is waiting from input from the U.S. State Department.
Citing unnamed U.S. officials, CNN reports that as it currently stands, the strategy:
Encompasses a way ahead in Afghanistan, including the possibility of sending more troops, but also a look at new ideas for dealing with Pakistan, which the US believes is supporting or turning a blind eye to a number of terror groups operating inside the country.
The president made it clear he is not interested in any approach that resembles the strategies used by his predecessors and will not accept anything less than a dramatic overhaul, the official told Breitbart News.
Directly dealing with Pakistan’s support for terrorists fighting the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan would mark a significant departure from what America has done in the past.
Most of the 2,255 U.S. military fatalities and 20,245 injury incidents have taken place in provinces that border Pakistan.
The Pentagon spokesman defined what victory in Afghanistan means for the Trump administration, saying it ultimately involves a settlement with the Taliban and terrorists laying down their arms.
Stump told Breitbart News:
The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan remains centered on working with NATO allies, operational partners, and the international community to defeat the remnants of core al Qaeda and to defeat other violent extremist organizations and terrorist groups, such as ISIS-K [Islamic State], to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a safe-haven for groups to plan and execute attacks against the United States, U.S. persons overseas, or allies and partners; and continuing efforts to provide financial and advisory support to the Afghan Government and to enable a well-trained, equipped, and sustainable ANDSF [Afghan National Defense and Security Force] that provides security in Afghanistan.
The U.S. and Afghan Governments agree that the best way to ensure lasting peace and security in Afghanistan is through reconciliation and a political settlement with the Taliban. The United States supports an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned reconciliation process and supports any process that includes violent extremist groups laying down their arms.
Citing unnamed U.S. officials, the Washington Post (WaPo)reports that the current U.S.-Afghan war is framed around a four-year plan to degrade the Taliban this is unlikely to “yield significant results until its later stages.”
In recently issued reports, the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon have accused Pakistan of willingly serving as a safe-haven for the Taliban and its affiliates, including the deadly Haqqani Network.
The Taliban affirmed its relationship with al-Qaeda in December 2016.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.