Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Republicans’

Breaking: ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Survives Key Sunday Night Vote, Set to Advance This Week


By: Karen Givens | May 19, 2029

Read more at https://libertyonenews.com/breaking-big-beautiful-bill-survives-key-sunday-night-vote-set-to-advance-this-week/

Donald Trump and House Republicans have been hard at work crafting a bill that aligns with many of the former president’s priorities. They’ve faced plenty of hurdles along the way, with negotiations proving to be quite challenging. On Sunday night, however, the bill passed a critical House vote, giving it a new lease on life.

The vote was quite close, following a disruption caused by four conservative members of the House. These lawmakers had thrown a wrench in the works on Friday morning, but by Sunday night, the bill managed to clear the House Budget Committee. Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana made an unexpected appearance just before the vote, expressing optimism that the night would end on a positive note.

The bill passed the committee with a vote of 17 to 16, with four Republicans opting to vote “present.” This move allowed the bill to advance, but it still faces further negotiation. The four conservatives who had issues with the bill’s details were Reps. Chip Roy, Ralph Norman, Josh Brecheen, and Andrew Clyde. They did not block the bill’s progress on Sunday night, however.

Their “present” votes were part of a strategy to keep discussions moving forward. As the bill advances through the House Budget Committee, it remains largely a procedural step. Lawmakers have indicated that changes will likely be introduced as amendments when the bill reaches the House Rules Committee.

Interestingly, two of the fiscal hawks on the Budget Committee, Reps. Chip Roy and Ralph Norman, also serve on the Rules Committee. Norman expressed enthusiasm about the bill’s progress, stating, “In an effort to move this bill forward, I’m excited about the changes we’ve made. And I will vote present.”

Trump’s vision for the bill includes enacting his campaign promises, focusing on tax cuts, immigration, energy, defense, and addressing the debt limit. While there’s still work to be done, Sunday night marked a significant win for Johnson. House Republicans are working tirelessly to pass what they call the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

This legislation represents what some see as a once-in-a-generation chance to provide tangible relief for Americans. The proposed changes include historic tax relief, significant investments in border security, and substantial spending cuts. Additionally, the bill aims to restore American energy dominance and strengthen Medicaid and SNAP for those who need them.

Speaker Johnson celebrated the progress with a tweet highlighting these key points. RedState has vowed to continue covering this story as it develops, emphasizing the successes of the Trump administration. The outlet encourages readers to support their efforts in sharing what they consider the truth about these accomplishments.

In an era where political discourse can be divisive, the passage of this bill represents a significant moment for Republicans. As the negotiations continue, there’s a sense of cautious optimism among its supporters. The bill’s fate will ultimately be decided in the coming weeks as it moves through the legislative process.

The journey to this point has been anything but smooth, but the commitment of those involved remains unwavering. With many eyes on the House Rules Committee, the next steps are crucial. The outcome will have implications for the broader political landscape and the future of Trump’s policy goals.

As discussions continue, the focus remains on delivering what supporters believe to be concrete improvements for the American public. The stakes are high, and the path forward is uncertain, but the resolve among proponents is strong. Each step forward brings the bill closer to a potential vote on the House floor.

Critics may question the bill’s provisions, but for its backers, the proposed changes are necessary. The emphasis on fiscal responsibility and national security resonates with many conservatives. As the legislative process unfolds, it’s clear that the bill’s supporters are committed to seeing it through.

This ongoing saga is a reminder of the complexities inherent in the political process. While the future of the bill remains uncertain, the determination of those championing it is evident. The coming days will be critical as lawmakers work to address remaining concerns.

For now, the focus is on refining the bill and garnering the necessary support. The goal is to ensure that it aligns with the values and priorities of its backers. As the debate continues, the political landscape remains dynamic and ever evolving.

As developments unfold, the bill serves as a focal point for discussions on policy and governance. Its progress reflects broader themes in American politics, including the push for fiscal conservatism and national security. The coming weeks will be telling in terms of the bill’s ultimate fate.

Train Wreck to Triumph will take you on a healing journey that will change your life, purchase now.

The legislative process is inherently challenging, but the commitment of those involved remains steadfast. With each development, the bill’s supporters are focused on achieving their objectives. The next steps will be crucial in determining the bill’s success or failure.

For now, the focus remains on collaboration and negotiation. Lawmakers are working to address outstanding issues while maintaining the bill’s core principles. The path forward is uncertain, but the determination to see it through is unwavering.

As the story continues to develop, the political landscape may shift. The bill’s progress is a testament to the dedication of those involved. As negotiations continue, the focus remains on delivering results for the American people.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Karen Givens

Karen Givens

Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Belly of The Beast

A.F. Branco | on March 21, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-belly-of-the-beast/

Elon Musk Finds Corruption
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Elon Musk is under attack for finding waste, fraud, and abuse in our government by Democrats and radical leftists, going so far as to attack Tesla owners and dealerships.

BRANCO TOON STORE

Elon Musk Rips into Democrats as Their Violence Escalates Across the Country: “There’s Some Mental Illness Going on Here Because This Doesn’t Make Any Sense” (VIDEO)

Bu Jim Hoft – The Gateway Pundit – March 19, 2025

Elon Musk joined Sean Hannity on FOX News last night after his company rescued two astronauts stranded on the space station by Joe Biden for nine months.
Only Elon Musk could make this happen.
Elon explained to Sean Hannity why he joined with President Trump to clean up Washington DC.
READ MORE

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Timmy’s Sad Existence

A.F. Branco | on March 23, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-timmys-sad-existence/

Governor Walz Hates On Elon Musk
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Governor Walz’s rhetoric is designed to bring down Tesla stock because of his hatred for Elon Musk and his connection to DOGE, uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse.

BRANCO TOON STORE

White House slams Walz’s ‘sad existence’ after he cheers Tesla stock drop

By Jenna Gloeb – AlphaNews.com – March 19, 2025

As of Dec. 31, 2024, the Minnesota State Board of Investment (SBI) had invested in Tesla through both its U.S. Stock Actively Managed Fund and U.S. Stock Index Fund.
Gov. Tim Walz appeared to relish the declining stock price of Tesla, Inc. during a recent town hall event—held not in Minnesota, but in another state.
Speaking to a Wisconsin audience, Walz referenced Tesla’s stock price in real time.
“On the iPhone they’ve got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day. 225 and dropping!” he said, appearing pleased by the company’s declining market value on that day.
READ MORE

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

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


Elbridge Colby Is the Right Man to Carry Out Trump’s America First Mandate

By: Charlie Kirk | February 18, 2025

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/18/elbridge-colby-is-the-right-man-to-carry-out-trumps-america-first-mandate/

Elbridge Colby speaking on stage
Elbridge Colby will actually do what Americans have given Trump a clear mandate to do, and for that reason, the D.C. blob is desperate to stop him.

Author Charlie Kirk profile

Charlie Kirk

More Articles

President Trump was elected with a mandate — a mandate to rethink the core assumptions of Washington, D.C., that have led this country to disaster after disaster. A mandate to put America first instead of last. To fulfill his mandate, the president needs to be able to make the appointments of his choosing without being sabotaged by the members of his own party that he carried to victory in November.

Yet right now, a fight has broken out over the nomination of Elbridge Colby to be undersecretary of defense for policy, the top strategy official at the Pentagon. Make no mistake: This is a make-or-break moment for whether Donald Trump’s America First foreign policy will succeed — or even happen. Colby is being attacked precisely because his opponents recognize he is the most effective and able person to put Trump’s America First approach into effect. He must be confirmed and empowered. 

Who is Colby? Colby has an establishment background. But don’t be fooled: He has been arguing against the disastrous Bush-Cheney foreign policy regime since he was in college. Colby instead embraces a foreign policy of genuine peace through strength, one that avoids wars while protecting our authentic interests, gets our allies to do their part, and focuses on the top threats to Americans rather than irrelevant distractions. 

Look back over Colby’s written record, and you will see that he was arguing for Trump’s America First approach long before it was popular — in fact, before Trump himself even arrived on the political scene. Colby paid the price for his advocacy, repeatedly losing out on high-powered jobs he could have easily received if he’d been willing to play along with the D.C. consensus.

Colby served Trump loyally and ably at the Pentagon during his first term, producing the landmark defense strategy shift that refocused the Defense Department on China, a central Trump goal. As great America First conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Jim Banks point out, Colby’s acclaimed book The Strategy of Denial is a guidebook for how to put an America First foreign policy into practice. Indeed, a Politico profile of him in 2023 was literally titled, “Elbridge Colby Wants to Finish What Donald Trump Started.” Even when almost every other foreign policy expert lambasted President Trump, Colby never did, enthusiastically and publicly supporting Trump in his historic 2024 campaign. 

So why is Colby being attacked? The fact is, despite what they say in public, many Republican politicians want to frustrate President Trump’s attempt to change American foreign policy. They want to revive the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Mitch McConnell. These America Last Republicans think they can manipulate President Trump and his top officials the same way they tried to do in his first term.

They don’t even deny it. For instance, one anonymous senator recently said: “I think Tulsi Gabbard is flawed, but [is] she going to be harmful? No, because I think that there are going to [be] enough strong intelligence people around her.” GOP senators openly plan to tout Trump’s goals in public, then sabotage them in private. That same anonymous senator also said: “When it comes to those nominees below the Cabinet who may be less on people’s radar, who will be able to facilitate things, that’s where I think it can be dangerous.”

And that’s precisely why they see Colby as such a threat. He is so effective, so knowledgeable, and so genuine in his conviction for an America First foreign policy that he cannot be manipulated or controlled. Colby will actually do what the American people have given President Trump a clear mandate to do, and for that reason, the D.C. blob must stop him.

Colby’s nomination is a fork in the road not just for President Trump and his administration but for the country. If Colby is scalped by the secret cabal of bitter-ender neoconservatives, it will cut the legs out from under President Trump’s America First foreign policy, and it will chill any other nominees who follow in Colby’s wake.

People are watching to see whether President Trump’s administration will deliver real change, putting Americans first and ending the endless wars. If committed and loyal stalwarts like Colby are allowed to be taken down by those who want to return to the era of Dick Cheney, then it would be a disaster for the country — and supporters of the president will remember who was responsible.


Charlie Kirk is the founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, and host of The Charlie Kirk Show, a nationally syndicated radio show and one of the most listened to conservative podcasts in the country.

The SAVE Act Could Hit Filibuster Wall In New Republican-Led Senate


By: M.D. Kittle | November 19, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/19/the-save-act-could-hit-filibuster-wall-in-new-republican-led-senate/

View of the U.S. Capitol Building in November.
‘The Democrats are not into compromising on issues that will cost them power,’ Rep. Glenn Grothman said of the election integrity bill.

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. Kittle

More Articles

Having clinched the federal government trifecta, Republicans have the opportunity in the next Congress to move through legislation they could only have dreamed of over the past six years. Will they squander this golden opportunity to pass conservative reforms?

In particular, can the SAVE Act, a key election integrity measure, be saved from the Senate filibuster? Perhaps, but there’s disagreement even among members of Wisconsin’s GOP congressional delegation on the fate of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act in the upcoming session. The bill requires individuals to show documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in federal elections, as it directs states to remove noncitizens from their voter rolls. The measure passed the Republican-controlled House in July along party lines, with a scant five Democrats voting for it. Dems insisted that the protections are unnecessary because it’s already illegal for foreign nationals to vote in elections. But current law is nothing more than an honor system without the ability to require proof of citizenship at the point of registration. 

As The Federalist has reported, thousands of illegal immigrants and other foreign nationals have shown up on voter lists across the country. 

The SAVE Act has languished in a Senate that had no interest in ensuring only U.S. citizens vote in elections.  Attached to a stopgap government spending proposal in September, the bill died a miserable death in the House. 

But Nov. 5, 2024, delivered a red wave, a sea change election that will put former President Donald Trump back in the White House, place Republicans back in control of the Senate, and allow the Grand Old Party to keep its majority in the House. Expectations are high — as they were in 2017 and 2018 when Republicans also held the trifecta with Trump in charge of the executive branch — that conservatives will be able to push through an array of government reforms. 

Not so fast, some say. 

‘Tool to Defend’

“Any election law is going to be tough in the Senate,” Rep. Glenn Grothman, told me Monday on the “Vicki McKenna Show” in Milwaukee. Grothman, who represents Wisconsin’s 6th Congressional District, said the filibuster, requiring 60 votes in the Senate to pass most legislation, will make it nearly impossible to get the SAVE Act, border security, and other bills through the august upper house. 

It would seem there isn’t much appetite for ditching the filibuster, especially in a Senate run by newly elected Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., a longtime protege of Senate Republican Leader and 60-vote threshold defender Mitch McConnell. Fellow McConnell stooge Texas Sen. John Cornyn recently told NBC News that there’s “unanimity” among Senate Republicans on preserving the filibuster — even if President-elect Trump again calls for senators to dump it. 

“Senators have a tendency to defend their power, just like everybody else does. I don’t know a lot of wimps in the United States Senate,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., told the news outlet. “I think we’ve all lived through the possibility of losing the filibuster as a tool to defend. And I would be surprised if there were enough Republicans who thought that we should change it now.”

‘On the Other Foot’

When Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, they pushed to bypass the filibuster to pass an election integrity nightmare “voting rights act,” but couldn’t quite get the 60 votes needed to suspend the rule. That was in January 2022, just days before Dems turned over control of the House to Republicans and saw their majority in the Senate diminished to a slim 51 seats. McConnell congratulated renegade Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, for their “courage” to resist the pressure to loosen the rule. McConnell warned Democrats “that in the very near future the shoe might be on the other foot.”  Nearly three years later, Manchin and Sinema are on their way out of the Senate and the “shoe” is definitely about to be on the other foot. 

‘We Can Get There’

Grothman agrees the filibuster has “prevented a lot of horrible things from passing” under Democrat control, from packing the Supreme Court to statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. “So, I can’t say it’s horrible when the Republican senators say we’re going to require 60 votes for all policy changes, but it sure is going to be frustrating because I don’t think we can save the country unless we make changes in immigration law, and I don’t think we can save the country unless we make changes to election law.” 

The Wisconsin congressman said there is no compromising with Democrats on either issue. 

“I don’t think they’ll ever give us the SAVE act,” Grothman said. “The Democrats are not into compromising on issues that will cost them power. They just aren’t.”

Grothman’s colleague, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, said the SAVE Act is a priority and can pass both houses, but it will take negotiations to get there. Fitzgerald, who represents Wisconsin’s 5th Congressional District, said he’d like to see the legislation move from the Senate to the House this time around. 

“Even though [Republicans] are going to have the majority over there, there are going to be some specific senators that probably are going to need to get some of the things that were in the SAVE Act to agree to it,” the lawmaker told me last week on the “Vicki McKenna Show.“That could become the negotiations between the houses to sign off from.” 

Rep. Bryan Steil, Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District congressman, said Republicans have an opportunity to take election security and integrity bills previously passed in the House and get them to Trump’s desk. Steil, chairman of the House Administration Committee, acknowledges the filibuster may well be a challenge, but he sees the potential for some Senate Democrats to cross the aisle on bills that have the backing of the majority of voters. 

“Obviously, President Biden had no interest in putting forward common-sense election integrity provisions,” Steil told me. “With a Republican Senate and a Republican House and President Trump in the White House, I’m of a view we can get there.” 


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

Democrat ‘Election Deniers’ in Pennsylvania and Iowa Refuse to Concede Races


By: M.D. Kittle | November 18, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/18/democrat-election-deniers-in-pennsylvania-and-iowa-refuse-to-concede-races/

Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey on the campaign trail.
Democrat campaigns and their allies have no compunction about breaking election law to grab and keep power.

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. Kittle

More Articles

Funny how the times change. 

Four years ago, Democrats and their pals in corporate media began painting then-President Donald Trump and Republicans who questioned the results of the troubled 2020 election as “election deniers.” Now, Democrats are doing all they can — including breaking election law — to challenge GOP victories in Iowa and Pennsylvania despite “insurmountable” odds. Even The Washington Post, part of the left’s corporate media public-relations team, sees the writing on the wall for Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn. The entrenched incumbent lost to Republican challenger Dave McCormick by some 24,000 votes in a swing state election that helped Republicans take back the Senate with a comfortable majority. The Associated Press and other news outlets called the race for McCormick. But Casey and his party of election integrity deniers, led by Democrat political ambulance chaser Marc Elias (Hillary Clinton’s Russian dossier peddler), refuse to concede. Instead, Casey’s campaign has sought an expensive recount, and has no compunction about grinding election law under foot to tally enough votes to hold the seat.

‘Tipping the Scales’  

“Sen. Casey just refuses to accept the fact that he’s lost this election, so he is costing taxpayers well over a million dollars” for a statewide recount, Linda Kerns, 2024 Pennsylvania Election Integrity Counsel for the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign, told The Federalist late last week on the “Simon Conway Show” in Des Moines.

The Democrat senator and his attorneys are pushing for invalid provisional and mail-in ballots not correctly signed or properly dated to be counted, contrary to a Pennsylvania court ruling.  Democrats on some county boards dismissed the law and the court ruling in agreeing to accept suspect and invalid ballots. 

“I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country,” Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia, a Democrat, said Thursday.

“People violate laws anytime they want,” she added. “So, for me, if I violate this law, it’s because I want a court to pay attention. There’s nothing more important than counting votes.” It was a troubling statement from a public official, and another in countless examples of why Democrats got their clocks cleaned in this month’s election. Voters have had more than enough of leftist-led lawlessness over the past four years. 

Even the Dem-friendly Washington Post editorial board can smell the desperation. The election lawlessness, too, now seems a bridge too far for the left-leaning WaPo board.   

“Democrats would surely protest if a Republican commissioner made the same statement [as Ellis-Marseglia] to justify tipping the scales for their party’s Senate nominee — and they would be right,” the editorial board wrote in a piece headlined, “Democrats thumb their nose at the rule of law in Pennsylvania.” “Elections need rules, established in advance of the voting, and those rules must be applied equally and consistently.”

The same newspaper, of course, joined a chorus of accomplice media outlets chiding swing state Republican Senate candidates, Eric Hovde in Wisconsin and Kari Lake in Arizona, for not conceding closely contested elections. The conservatives have raised election integrity questions, but neither has asked election officials and courts to break the law to reverse their opponents’ election leads.  

“Four years ago, many Republicans embraced Trump’s brand of denialism when he stoked far-fetched theories to try to undo his loss of the presidency. Now, they are largely staying silent amid scattered false claims of rigged elections in downballot races — and they’re calling on Sen. Bob Casey (D) to concede that he narrowly lost in Pennsylvania,” a team of leftist Washington Post reporters concluded in the piece — published a day before the editorial — that served as a defense of Casey’s recount call and a knock-on Republicans mulling their own legal options. 

In Pennsylvania the math doesn’t look good for Casey, but he’s counting on the recount and a stack of invalid votes. 

“But even if Sen. Casey wins on these, there’s still not enough for him to win this election so he’s just desperately hanging on,” Kerns said. 

‘The Election Deniers are the Democrats’

It’s a similar situation in Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, where Democrat Christina Bohannan’s campaign on Thursday sought a recount of the votes in an election in which incumbent Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks won by less than 1,000 votes. The purple district saw Miller-Meeks win her first term in 2020 by a final recount tally of just six votes. 

Bohannan’s path to victory appears unlikely, too, but the campaign said in a statement that a recount will ensure “that every voter is heard” and that they have “full trust in this process and will accept the results regardless of the outcome.” The Associated Press has yet to call the race. 

Miller-Meeks said the vote count, as it stands, is “insurmountable” and that the districtwide recount is an unnecessary expense to taxpayers. 

“In Iowa, all of the legal ballots have been counted, all of the provisional ballots and the military ballots have been counted. The counties have certified their election results, and we remain ahead. We gained votes on election night,” the congresswoman told The Federalist Friday on the “Simon Conway Show” on NewsRadio 1040 WHO in Des Moines. “So, it’s an insurmountable lead. But, yes, my concern is after the recount when we’re still ahead, which we will be, I’m very confident of that, they’re going to continue to deny the election and they may go on to do a contest and try to get ballots admitted that were illegal ballots.” 

Republicans have already secured enough victories to hold the House, but Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to stave off defeat and a wider GOP majority in a handful of races yet to be called. Those include Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, two House races in California, and one each in Alaska and Ohio.  

Miller-Meeks said the tables have turned in the “election denier” narrative. 

“We’ve heard for four years how Republicans were a threat to democracy; they were going to overturn democracy. But really what is happening is that the election deniers, the people who are trying to thwart the rule of law, trying to thwart what a state constitution allows when it comes to elections, are the Democrats,” the Republican congresswoman said. 

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


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

Thousands Of Noncitizens on U.S. Voter Rolls Assure Americans the Next Election Will Be Unsafe and Unfair


By: Ben Weingarten | August 15, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/08/15/thousands-of-noncitizens-on-u-s-voter-rolls-assure-americans-the-next-election-will-be-unsafe-and-unfair/

Vote sign

Author Ben Weingarten profile

Ben Weingarten

Visit on Twitter@bhweingarten

More Articles

More than a dozen jurisdictions run by Democrats — including Washington, D.C., and several adjacent Maryland municipalities — allow noncitizens to vote in some local elections. San Francisco not only permits noncitizens to vote but appointed one to serve on its elections commission.

Such developments, against a backdrop of millions of illegal migrants streaming into the United States under the Biden-Harris administration, bring new urgency to debates over election integrity. Many Republicans fear that a widespread effort is afoot to give noncitizens the full benefits of citizenship, including the right to vote in all elections, on top of benefits already available to illegal aliens in some places, notably driver’s licenses, food stamps, government health care, and work visas.

Although Democrats note that noncitizens may not participate in federal elections and claim there is little evidence noncitizens are voting unlawfully, critics are unmollified.

A RealClearInvestigations analysis of proposed and enacted state and federal laws, along with other reporting and research, suggests that the fight over noncitizen voting is only likely to intensify this year — both in the immediate wake of an expected closely contested presidential election and in its aftermath.

States across the country report that thousands of noncitizens have been discovered on voter rolls in the past decade, with unknown numbers already having voted: 

  • Pennsylvania found 11,000 registrants suspected of being noncitizens after becoming aware of a decades-old “glitch” in the state’s “motor voter” registration system in 2017. It removed 2,500 individuals from the rolls, and it could not verify the citizenship status of the other 8,700 registrants.
  • Virginia has removed over 11,000 registrants from its rolls between 2014 and 2023 — and more than 6,300 from January 2022 to July 2024 alone — upon learning that they had declared themselves noncitizens in other interactions with government, typically in transactions with the state’s department of motor vehicles. House Republicans cited a study showing that of nearly 1,500 noncitizens the Commonwealth removed from rolls from May 2023 to February 2024, 23 percent had cast ballots since February 2019.
  • New Jersey had some 616 self-reported noncitizens in 11 counties “engaged on some level with the statewide registration system,” 9 percent of whom cast ballots, according to a 2017 survey conducted by the Public Interest Legal Foundation.
  • Boston, Massachusetts, officials revealed this year that the city had removed 70 noncitizens from the rolls, some 22 of whom had voted, the removals coming in response to disclosure requests from the Public Interest Legal Foundation.
  • Ohio recently ordered the removal of 499 noncitizens from its voter rolls after removing some 137 other registrants back in May.
  • North Carolina identified more than 1,400 registrants on state voter rolls who did not appear to be naturalized, in an audit conducted prior to the 2014 midterm election. Eighty-nine flagged individuals appeared at the polls to vote, and 24 had their registration challenged; 11 challenges were sustained or justified.
  • Arizona classifies some 42,000 people on its rolls as “federal-only” registrants as of July 1, 2024 — after they had failed to provide the proof of citizenship necessary to vote in state and local races. The state’s bifurcated voter rolls are the result of a 2013 Supreme Court ruling in which a 7-2 majority led by the late Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that federal voter registration requirements — of which documentary proof of citizenship is not one — preempted the state’s standards. 

Other evidence of noncitizen voting has been found in states from California to Illinois

Republicans argue that such examples expose weaknesses in the voter registration and administration process — including that registrants need not provide proof of citizenship to get on the voter rolls. These and other loopholes in state-run systems make elections vulnerable to ineligible noncitizen voters today.

Each side has its own research to support its claims. Democrats cite a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, finding that local election officials overseeing the tabulation of 23.5 million ballots during the 2016 presidential election identified only 30 potential incidents of noncitizen voting.

Republicans highlight a recent study estimating that 10 percent to 27 percent of noncitizens are illegally registered to vote, and 5 percent to 13 percent will illegally vote in 2024 — a potentially massive number given the illegal alien portion of the noncitizen population alone numbers well over 10 million. Election integrity advocates argue that states have not found many incidents of noncitizen voting for the simple reason that authorities, including the Department of Justice, do not look for it.

“DOJ investigations of illegal voting are all but nonexistent,” Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, said in a recent floor debate concerning the SAVE (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility) Act, a bill Lee and House colleague Chip Roy, R-Texas, introduced to combat noncitizen voting. After the House passed the measure in July, Democrats blocked the legislation in the upper chamber, where it remains stalled.

“[T]oo many prosecutors refuse to enforce the law even when such illegal behavior is discovered by election officials or others,” Hans von Spakovsky, a former Department of Justice official who now works at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Congress in May.

Should election officials fail to prevent noncitizens from casting ballots on the front end, J. Christian Adams, a fellow former DOJ official and president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, told RCI, there is “almost nothing” the public or political parties can do on the back end to identify, challenge, and invalidate noncitizen votes prior to election certification.

Adams’ group has documented myriad electoral races decided by one vote or tied over the last two decades — something he and others argue indicates just how critical it is to combat illegal voting, given the potential impact to tight races up and down ballots.

States generally seem unfazed by the prospect of noncitizen voting. For this article, RealClearInvestigations contacted authorities in the seven states comprising RealClearPolitics’ top battlegrounds: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Two states, Michigan and Pennsylvania, did not respond to RCI’s inquiries. Election authorities in the five responsive states maintained that current law is a sufficient deterrent to noncitizen voting, emphasizing that casting a ballot as a foreigner would constitute a criminal offense with grave penalties.

“Someone would have to knowingly and intentionally commit a class 6 Felony if they did vote as a noncitizen, and it would result in the revocation of their legal status in the USA, and they would likely face deportation,” a spokesman for Arizona’s Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said in a statement. The spokesman said he hoped his statement, which pointed to the state’s voter challenge process and noted other procedures pertaining to citizenship, would “compel” RealClearInvestigations to “clear up [RCI’s] notions and erroneous assumptions.”

Georgia touted its 2022 citizenship audit in correspondence with RCI, the first such review of the voter rolls for citizenship in state history, in which it found that 1,634 people who attempted to register to vote were not verified by the SAVE program. All were in “pending citizenship” status within Georgia’s internal systems, and thus none had been allowed to vote. “Due to the effective processes Georgia has in place to verify U.S citizenship at the time of registration … we are confident noncitizens are not voting in Georgia, and if one ever does, they will be punished to the full extent of the law,” Mike Hassinger, a spokesman for Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, told RCI.

North Carolina elections board Public Information Director Patrick Gannon told RCI: “We have little evidence of noncitizens voting in elections, and get very few complaints alleging voting by noncitizens.”

He pointed to a 2016 state audit report and the handful of cases alleging noncitizen voting that the bipartisan State Board of Elections has referred to prosecutors since 2017.

Similarly, Wisconsin Elections Commission Public Information Officer Riley Vetterkind told RCI, “There is no evidence to support the idea that noncitizens are voting in Wisconsin in significant numbers.” The spokesperson for the state’s bipartisan commission cited the few instances of suspected election fraud, irregularities, or violations referred to district attorneys by municipal clerks that the state’s elections commission “has been made aware of.”

These messages of reassurance, however, at times come with notes of caution that underpin election integrity advocates’ concerns.

States each have their own independent processes to maintain voter lists. Those processes vary widely in vigor, tempo, and transparency. They are often based on different degrees of access to sources of citizenship status with which to identify ineligible voters. “No state or federal law requires the WEC [Wisconsin Elections Commission] or clerks to verify a voter’s citizenship status beyond requiring the voter to certify that they are a U.S. citizen as a qualification for voter eligibility,” said Vetterkind.

Pennsylvania has asserted that “the Commonwealth has no systematic program to identify and remove non-citizens from the voting rolls.” 

The Public Interest Legal Foundation has litigated against the Keystone State and other jurisdictions just to get a peek into their registration list maintenance processes. As for how states identify potential noncitizens, Gannon said of North Carolina’s audit that “relying on state databases was wildly inaccurate for determining citizenship status.” 

The state passed a law in 2023 requiring that the election board regularly reconcile its registration list with lists provided by state courts of those excused from jury duty due to lack of citizenship — an ad hoc approach commonly used by other states.

Georgia emphasized its use of the Department of Homeland Security’s more robust SAVE tool, which provides “point in time immigration status” for those who have been issued a unique immigration identifier. (This Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements tool is distinct from the GOP-sponsored legislation with the same acronym.)

Most state officials who responded to RCI’s query emphasized that there are laws on the books permitting third-party challenges to voter eligibility. But this is a measure requiring time, money, and effort. The two former Justice Department officials — Spakovsky and Adams — recently took issue with the view that state audits and scrubs of voter rolls ought to inspire confidence, writing in the Daily Signal:

Because almost no state even attempts to verify that individuals registering to vote are U.S. citizens — and because the federal government, including both the courts and the executive branch, have put up significant barriers to such verification — we don’t really know how many aliens, whether here legally or illegally, are registering and voting.

Rougher Weather Ahead

Whatever the extent of noncitizen registration and voting today, Election Integrity Network leader Cleta Mitchell says conditions are building for a “perfect storm.” Two factors are about to produce it: “the invasion of our country by millions of illegals” and a series of largely Democrat Party-driven efforts to ease voter registration and participation.

Mitchell and others, including The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, have suggested that significant numbers of noncitizens could wind up on the voting rolls under Biden administration Executive Order 14019, which directs every federal agency to register and mobilize voters. 

Officials in Alabama and Mississippi say that under the executive order, which RCI has previously examined, authorities are already attempting to register noncitizens to vote. The Biden administration initiative calls on federal agencies to coordinate with third-party groups in pursuit of its objectives as well. Adams, testifying alongside Spakovsky for the Republican majority before the House Administration Committee in May, said that “most often noncitizens are getting on the rolls through the motor voter registration process or third-party registration drives.” 

Regarding motor-voter registration, the Only Citizens Vote Coalition warns that “many states are now automatically registering people to vote at the time of coming into contact with the DMV unless the person ‘opts out’ of registration.” 

Advocates are also concerned that practices like same-day voter registration and allowing the use of student IDs to vote — IDs that can be issued to foreigners — could lead to noncitizens ending up on voter rolls and potentially voting. 

These issues likely only exacerbate concerns election integrity advocates already have around practices like mail-in voting and ballot harvesting that have become widespread since the 2020 election. A more robust “level of citizenship tracking and verification would almost certainly require legislative change to accomplish,” Wisconsin’s Riley Vetterkind told RCI.

Congressional Republicans have sought to do just that with the SAVE Act, which passed the House on July 10 in a largely party-line vote. Under the existing registration system, applicants attest to their citizenship simply by checking a box, under penalty of perjury. House Speaker Mike Johnson calls this nothing more than an “honor system” that leaves “people who have already proven they have no regard or respect for our laws” undeterred. 

The SAVE Act would close this loophole by requiring that applicants provide proof of citizenship in person when registering to vote in federal elections. Adams has argued that under the less stringent status quo, noncitizens often end up on the voter rolls through no fault of their own — subjecting aliens who often can’t speak English to severe legal liability.

Critics of the SAVE Act, echoing some states, believe those liabilities — including the threat of deportation, jail time, and other punishments — sufficiently curb noncitizen registration and voting.

New York University Brennan Center for Justice President Michael Waldman emphasized in the May congressional hearing, as the Democrat minority’s witness opposite Adams and Spakovsky, that “under current law, noncitizen voting in federal elections is illegal four times over: it is both a state and federal crime to register to vote, and it is both a state and federal crime to vote in federal elections.” 

The liberal think tank did not respond to RCI’s inquiries in connection with this story. Democrat Party leaders from President Biden on down also dismiss evidence of noncitizen voting, claiming it is virtually non-existent.

“Even the conservative CATO Institute has said that ‘noncitizens don’t illegally vote in detectable numbers,’” California Democrat Sen. Alex Padilla noted in a floor speech in response to Mike Lee, referencing a 2020 blog post from the libertarian think tank. 

Democrats also claim the bill’s documentary proof of citizenship requirements disenfranchise potential voters. They point to past evidence indicating that similar state laws in places like Kansas ended up preventing eligible registrants from voting. They also highlight surveys showing millions of Americans lack commonly used documents to prove citizenship, like a passport or birth certificate — two of a number of forms one could present to satisfy the SAVE Act’s requirements.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries branded the SAVE Act an “extreme MAGA Republican voter suppression bill.”

DHS’s ‘Slow-Walking’

Registration requirements and voter ID laws, which vary by state, do not necessarily prevent ineligible individuals from voting since noncitizens — and, in some cases, illegal aliens — can obtain relevant forms of identification. As Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin highlighted in a recent executive order, only three states — his included — require even a full Social Security number to register to vote.

Thus, the SAVE Act would also mandate that states bolster their registration list maintenance practices explicitly to identify and remove noncitizens from voter rolls — including through cross-referencing their lists with more comprehensive data sources.

Only five states currently have access to one resource referenced in the bill, the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE tool. A House Administration Committee report indicates that DHS is not granting the same level of access to all states and may be “slow-walking” requests to use it. 

‘Significant Inaccuracies’ in the Federal Database

When asked about this allegation, a spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service told RCI, “There is an established process agencies must undergo and eligibility criteria agencies must meet to complete SAVE registration.”

“USCIS is committed to working with agencies seeking access to SAVE and processing registration requests as efficiently as possible,” the spokesman added while referring a reporter to several resources on the USCIS website.

Still, these databases are not seen by all as a panacea. “Even using the federal SAVE database, which can only be used to determine current citizenship status for one person at a time, and only when that person has been involved in the federal immigration system, our agency found significant inaccuracies in the data we received,” North Carolina’s Patrick Gannon told RCI in an email. “There is no comprehensive, accurate, or up-to-date database of U.S. citizens that election administrators could use for verification purposes.”

Democrats argue that the more robust voter registration list maintenance demanded by Republicans could leave eligible voters purged. Calling the SAVE Act “nothing other than a solution in search of a problem,” Sen. Padilla blocked the bill in the upper chamber.

With a September spending fight looming in Congress, the House Freedom Caucus is seeking to force the issue by calling on leadership to attach the SAVE Act to any stopgap spending solution — a plan Sen. Lee has also endorsed.

Meanwhile, election integrity advocates like the Only Citizens Vote Coalition are calling for state-level model legislation to combat noncitizen voting. The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has been working to identify vulnerabilities in extant voter registration systems and potential legal violations, publicize them, and press lawmakers to enforce relevant laws to combat noncitizen voting.

The conservative public interest law organization America First Legal recently sent letters to all 50 states instructing them that under existing law, states can and should send requests to the DHS soliciting the citizenship status of registered voters.

America First Legal has also sent demand letters to all 15 Arizona county recorders, compelling them to verify the citizenship of all “federal-only” voters, including through making citizenship requests of DHS — or face legal action.

On Aug. 5, America First Legal filed suit against the Maricopa County Recorder for his alleged failure to act in response to the group’s demand letter. Three days later, the Republican National Committee filed an emergency application at the Supreme Court in a bid to compel Arizona to enforce its proof of citizenship requirements for the 2024 presidential election.

Warning: Extended Lawfare Ahead

These forces on the right are likely to find themselves locked in battle with the left for years to come. 

House Democrats, today in the slim minority, have voted to continue apportioning congressional seats based on total population rather than total citizens in a given jurisdiction; to protect noncitizen voting rights in Washington, D.C.; and, in legislation aimed at providing certain aliens with a path to permanent resident status, to permit authorities to waive unlawful voting as grounds for deeming noncitizens inadmissible. Leftist witnesses were unable or unwilling to affirm that only citizens should be permitted to vote in federal elections during a March Senate Judiciary Committee hearing concerning elections.

As a presidential candidate in 2020, Vice President Kamala Harris signaled her support for providing government health care to illegal aliens. Her presumed running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, signed legislation providing benefits for illegal aliens, including state-funded health care, driver’s licenses, and free college tuition.

Those on the left see voting rights, like the expansion of other benefits to noncitizens, as a matter of fairness.

“Immigrants pay taxes, they use city services, their kids go to our public schools. They are part of our community. And they deserve a say in local government,” New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson said in defending a bill that has been ruled unconstitutional that would have allowed an estimated 800,000 noncitizens to vote in local elections.

The Trump-Vance campaign, by contrast, has called for mass deportation of the illegal alien population (to which Democrats increasingly wish to extend rights and benefits), among other immigration measures the Republicans say aim to protect and support Americans. In contrast to the growing coterie of blue-state jurisdictions embracing noncitizen voting, red states are increasingly passing amendments prohibiting local governments from allowing noncitizens to vote, with Louisiana and Ohio approving such constitutional changes in 2022. Eight more states have citizenship-related ballot measures in the 2024 election.

This article is republished from RealClearInvestigations, with permission.


Ben Weingarten is editor at large for RealClearInvestigations. He is a senior contributor to The Federalist, columnist at Newsweek, and a contributor to the New York Post and Epoch Times, among other publications. Subscribe to his newsletter at weingarten.substack.com, and follow him on Twitter: @bhweingarten.

There’s Only One Reason Democrats Oppose Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote


BY: M.D. KITTLE | JULY 10, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/10/theres-only-one-reason-democrats-oppose-requiring-proof-of-citizenship-to-vote/

Sign instructing voters where to vote.

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. KITTLE

MORE ARTICLES

As the Republican-controlled House is expected to take up a bill Wednesday aimed at making sure only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections, President Joe Biden is signaling he would kill the measure should it miraculously survive the Democrat-led Senate. Biden isn’t likely to need the veto pen. Democrats will, however, be forced to explain why they oppose the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which requires documentary proof of citizenship to vote for president and members of Congress. 

And while they have gotten plenty of cover from corporate media in asserting that foreign nationals — including illegal aliens — are rarely ever caught voting in federal elections, such explanations may not sit well with U.S. voters who overwhelmingly support prohibitions on noncitizens voting in federal elections. Most Americans, too, according to polls, are deeply concerned about the tsunami of illegal immigrants that has swamped U.S. communities on Biden’s watch. Exactly why the Biden administration has kept the border door wide open isn’t lost on anyone who has been paying attention for the past three and a half years. 

“Democrats say it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. That’s true. It’s also illegal for someone to illegally enter our country, but that hasn’t stopped millions and millions of people,” U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., told me Tuesday during an interview on the “The Vicki McKenna Show” in Milwaukee and Madison. 

‘Petri Dish’ for Noncitizen Voting

Steil, the chairman of the House Committee on Administration, which passed H.R. 8281 in May, wants to remind anyone who will listen that Democrats already support foreign nationals voting in local elections, as they are allowed to do in Washington, D.C. Most House Democrats earlier this year voted against a measure that would have barred illegal immigrants and other noncitizens from voting in local elections in the nation’s capital. The bill is deemed dead on arrival in the Senate. 

Not surprisingly, just 28 of the 500-plus foreign nationals voting in last month’s D.C. primary elections registered as Republicans, according to The Washington Post. 

Steil said Democrats want to use noncitizen voting in local elections, currently allowed in a handful of states, as a “Petri dish” to test on the American people. 

“In a period of time that we know that millions of legal and illegal immigrants in the country are not eligible to vote in federal elections, it’s important to enforce the laws on the books,” the congressman said. 

Honor System

As it stands under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the “motor voter law,” voters may simply check a box on the federal form affirming they are U.S. citizens and meet other eligibility requirements. Democrats prefer the honor system. In opposing the SAVE Act, they have noted the tough penalties for foreign nationals who lie about their citizenship status in registering to vote: a fine, up to five years in prison, or both, according to federal code. 

But Democrats know it is difficult to track false claims of citizenship, a longtime problem. A 2014 story by WHYY, a Philadelphia public radio station, reported on a fact that remains a significant issue in the Biden presidency a decade later: “Illegal immigrants lie to get asylum status in U.S.” 

But they certainly wouldn’t lie to vote in federal elections, Democrats insist. 

“We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections. But it’s not been something that is easily provable,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at the May 8 press conference in introducing the SAVE Act. 

‘The Only Reason’

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has introduced a similar measure in the Senate. He cut to the chase in a post Tuesday on his X account. 

“The SAVE Act would prevent non-Americans from illegally voting, protecting the votes of American citizens. The only reason to oppose it is because you want non-Americans illegally voting,” Lee wrote. 

Biden, meanwhile, is pushing Democrat legislation loosening voter integrity laws.  

“The President has been clear: he will continue fighting to protect Americans’ sacred right to vote in free, fair, and secure elections,” the White House said in its opposition statement to the SAVE Act. 

But how “free, fair, and secure” are U.S. elections without documented proof of citizenship? 

Biden and his fellow Democrats in D.C. appear to be backing a losing issue. A national poll conducted last year for Americans for Citizen Voting by RMG Research Inc. found that 75 percent of respondents opposed allowing foreign nationals to vote in their local elections. A recent poll found 68 percent of North Carolina voters supported a state constitutional amendment barring foreign nationals from voting in elections. North Carolina voters will vote on the citizens-only question on November’s general election ballot. 

“This is a moment in time that we should all realize that we should maintain U.S. elections for U.S. citizens and requiring documentary proof of that citizenship is how you actually enforce the law,” Steil said. 


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

Yes, Democrats Want Aliens to Vote in U.S. Elections. Take Jamie Raskin’s Word for It


BY: M.D. KITTLE | MAY 24, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/24/yes-democrats-want-aliens-to-vote-in-u-s-elections-take-jamie-raskins-word-for-it/

Jamie raskin speaking

Author M.D. Kittle profile

M.D. KITTLE

MORE ARTICLES

As the House voted Thursday to bar foreign nationals from voting in local Washington, D.C. elections, Democrats and their public-relations team in the corporate media have rolled out the big guns in attacking such election integrity efforts. They’re painting the legislation that ensures noncitizens cannot vote in elections as the next so-called “Big Lie,” sticking to their well-worn narrative that noncitizens already are prohibited from voting in U.S. elections and that such violations “don’t exist.” 

But one of the fiercest opponents of the election integrity legislation has said the quiet part out loud, as Democrats are wont to do. 

‘Alien Suffrage’

As Fox News reported, U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., wrote a full-throated defense of “Alien Suffrage” in a 1993 paper for the American University Washington College of Law, where he serves as Professor of Law Emeritus. Raskin is ranking member of the House’s Oversight Committee, which, among other things, has constitutional oversight of the District of Columbia. 

“In this Article, I will argue that the current blanket exclusion of noncitizens from the ballot is neither constitutionally required nor historically normal,” Raskin wrote. “Moreover, the disenfranchisement of aliens at the local level is vulnerable to deep theoretical objections since resident aliens — who are governed, taxed, and often drafted just like citizens — have a strong democratic claim to being considered members, indeed citizens, of their local communities.”

Not surprisingly, Raskin was among 143 Democrats voting against the Republican-led bill blocking illegal immigrants and other foreign nationals from voting in elections in the district, over which Congress has ultimate authority. Interestingly, 52 Democrats joined Republicans in passing the measure — because the vast majority of Americans believe only U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in local and U.S. elections. Taking the opposing view is not a smart reelection strategy for politically vulnerable liberals. 

Several cities in Raskin’s home state have allowed foreign nationals to vote in local elections for years. Takoma Park, Maryland in November celebrated its 30th anniversary “of the first non-US. Residents” voting in the Washington, D.C. suburb. 

“Even if it’s only a handful voting in elections—and it’s more than that—it’s a huge step forward for democracy,” said Seth Grimes, a leftist community organizer, in an official city press release. “Non-citizens have a stake in civic affairs, and everyone should have a voice in who governs them.” 

Polling shows an overwhelming number of Americans don’t share Grimes’ point of view, or the one expressed in Raskin’s law school report. A national poll conducted last year for Americans for Citizen Voting by RMG Research, Inc., found 75 percent of respondents were opposed to allowing foreign nationals to vote in their local elections. 

In his 1993 paper, Raskin argued that the “emergence of a global market and the corresponding dilution of national boundaries, would invite us to treat local governments as ‘polities of presence’ in which all community inhabitants, not just those who are citizens of the superordinate nation-state, form the electorate.” 

“Alien suffrage would thus become part of a basic human right to democracy,” the now-congressman wrote.

Does Raskin still feel that way? His office did not return The Federalist’s request for comment. 

Media: Alien Voting Doesn’t Happen and It’s Fine When It Does

After Thursday’s vote, it’s not a leap to suspect many of Raskin’s fellow Democrats support foreign nationals voting in local elections. If they were against it, they would have voted for the D.C. election integrity measure. 

Corporate media, of course, have been running interference for Democrats in the weeks since former President Donald Trump, the GOP’s presumed presidential nominee, and Speaker Mike Johnson announced the rollout of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. The SAVE Act is aimed at shoring up glaring holes in the 30-year-old National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) passed during a simpler time, when politicians believed in borders. The bill would amend the 1993 “Motor Voter” law to require individuals to provide proof of citizenship before they are automatically registered to vote at state departments of motor vehicles and other agencies. It also requires states to remove foreign nationals from their voting rolls, something too many state election officials have been loath to do. The NVRA does not require direct proof of citizenship for voter registration. 

Republicans say the legislation is crucial in the wake of the millions of illegal immigrants that have poured through the U.S. southwest border since Joe Biden took the presidential oath of office in January 2021. 

“There is currently an unprecedented and a clear and present danger to the integrity of our election system, and that is the threat of noncitizens and illegal aliens voting in our elections,” Johnson said at a Capitol press conference earlier this month announcing the bill.

But the accomplice media, while conceding foreign nationals have been caught voting in federal elections, assert the act is extremely rare. Besides, the left’s messengers contend, what illegal alien in his right mind would risk committing a felony just to vote in a federal election? The New York Times accused Republicans of “Sowing [a] False Narrative.” The Associated Press asserts “Noncitizen voting isn’t an issue in federal elections,” while it acknowledges that it does happen. 

“To be clear, there have been cases of noncitizens casting ballots, but they are extremely rare. Those who have looked into these cases say they often involve legal immigrants who mistakenly believe they have the right to vote,” AP admits

So much for the idea that any illegal vote dilutes the validity of an election. Again, the corporate media like to put qualifiers on fraud, forced by the facts to acknowledge its existence but insisting it isn’t “widespread.” 

“They’ve used ‘widespread’ for years as a way of downplaying any concern about it,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission and Senior Legal Fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “We don’t have ‘widespread’ bank robberies but we have enough of them that we take very detailed security precautions to prevent them. Election fraud is exactly the same.”

Where Democrats Stand

Raskin isn’t the only Democrat who has defended foreign nationals voting in elections. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat, has been very vocal in his support for aliens voting in New York local elections. His New York congressional colleague, leftist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has suggested the Republican-controlled House’s bill to bar foreign nationals from voting in D.C. is reminiscent of the days of slavery. 

“They’re singling out the residents of the District of Columbia and expanding in the history of disenfranchisement that goes all the way back to the legacy of slavery,” she said last year. 

James Comer, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, said the bill aims to rectify the D.C. City Council’s decision to “recklessly allowed non-citizens to participate in elections in our nation’s capital.”

“This move by the Council was irresponsible and subverts the voices of American citizens,” Comer said in a statement. “Today, Congress took action and I applaud the passage of legislation that will now prohibit non-citizens from voting in District of Columbia elections.”

The House bill pertaining to D.C. elections and the SAVE Act aren’t going anywhere this year with a Democrat-controlled Senate and a president who appears to be running a Democrat Party future recruitment drive. But Americans, many of whom don’t support illegal aliens and other foreign nationals voting in U.S. elections, know where the party stands heading into the November election. 

“Rep. Raskin is okay with the ‘dilution of national boundaries.’ I am not. And neither are the majority of United States citizens,” said Jack Tomczak, national field director for Americans for Citizen Voting, which is leading a growing national effort to amend state constitutions to include citizen-only voting language. 


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

Senate Republicans Oppose Border Security Bill


By Sam Barron    |   Wednesday, 22 May 2024 01:13 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/us/republicans-border-security-immigration/2024/05/22/id/1165741/

Senate Republicans have united to block a bipartisan border security deal that many previously supported.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., plans to hold a vote on the bill Thursday but no Republican senators have expressed support, according to The Hill. The bill was endorsed by the National Border Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Schumer’s plan was a gimmick and he told President Joe Biden the GOP would not vote for it. McConnell previously called the bill a “huge success,” according to the report.

“I said to him,” McConnell told The Hill, “‘Mr. President, you caused this problem. There’s no legislation that allows the problem to be fixed. Why don’t you just allow what the previous administration was doing.'”

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., who negotiated the bill and voted for it in February, said the vote was political theater designed to protect vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection.

“This is not trying to accomplish something,” Lankford said. “This is about messaging now. This is trying to poke Republicans rather than try to actually solve a problem.”

The legislation would reform the nation’s asylum laws and give the president power to shut down the border if migrant crossings average 4,000 per day.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mitt Romney, R-Utah — who supported the bill in February — told The Hill they were undecided on how they would vote.

Schumer blamed Republicans of caving to former President Donald Trump, who opposed the bill, because Schumer claims Trump wants to make the border an issue going into the presidential election.

“This is the same bipartisan bill Republicans pushed for, then backed away when they got orders from President Trump [and] made an about-face turn and then voted no,” Schumer told The Hill.

Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif. said he would oppose the bill. Padilla also opposed the bill in February, because it did not offer any assistance to migrants.

Sam Barron 

Sam Barron has almost two decades of experience covering a wide range of topics including politics, crime and business.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Election Rig

A.F. BRANCO | on April 14, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-election-rig/

Zucker Bucks
A Political Cartoon by A. F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Democrats in the Minnesota House of Representatives voted down an amendment that would have banned so-called “Zuckerbucks” from Minnesota elections. In Minnesota, many county election departments across the state received “Zuckerbucks” in the form of grants.

Democrats vote down amendment to ban ‘Zuckerbucks’ from Minnesota elections

By Luke Sprinkel – April 10, 2024

Democrats in the Minnesota House of Representatives voted down an amendment that would have banned so-called “Zuckerbucks” from Minnesota elections.

In 2020, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, and his wife donated $250 million to a nonprofit called the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). CTCL proceeded to hand out those millions of dollars to election departments across the country in the form of grants… CTCL’s grants went to these jurisdictions for the purpose of providing additional election administration funding during the COVID-19 pandemic. Local election departments used the grants during the 2020 election to pay for supplies, staffing, COVID-related “personal protection equipment,” and other expenses. READ MORE

A.F. Branco Cartoon – LGBTQ For Palestine

A.F. BRANCO | on April 15, 2024 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-lgbtq-for-palestine/

LGBTQ For Palestine
A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2024

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

A.F. Branco Cartoon – The LGBTQ community boasts support for Palestine, who ruthlessly murdered over 1000 innocent Jews in Israel. Obviously, they’re clueless to the fact they would be killed if in Gaza for their lifestyles.

Rutgers Professor Claims it is ‘Homophobic’ to Point Out How Hamas Brutalizes LGBTQ People

By Margaret Flavin – April 6, 2024

Maya Mikdashi, an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and a lecturer in the Program for Middle East Studies at Rutgers University, participated in a recent discussion where she claims accurately describing Hamas’ brutalization of LGBTQ Palestinians should be labeled “homophobic violence.”

Mikdashi participated in a discussion titled “Palestine is a Feminist and Queer Anti-Imperialist Abolition Struggle,” where she pushed back on the complaint that Palestinians and Hamas mistreat LGBTQ citizens. READ MORE…

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

take our poll – story continues below

  • Will You Be Voting In Person November 3rd?  

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

By ‘Protecting Election Workers,’ Democrats Mean Protecting Control Over Election Administration


BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | JANUARY 22, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/22/by-protecting-election-workers-democrats-mean-protecting-control-over-election-administration/

Poll worker cleaning a voting booth.

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

MORE ARTICLES

When regime-approved “journalists” aren’t pretending election illegalities don’t exist, they’re fomenting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Republican voters.

In the months leading up to and following the 2022 midterms, legacy media have run story after story decrying the avalanche of alleged “threats” levied against election workers by GOP voters, whom they cast as extremists seeking to disrupt “democracy.” Predictions of such widespread interference in the 2022 contests have (unsurprisingly) never materialized and numbers from President Biden’s own Justice Department have undermined such a narrative. But nevertheless, the scaremongering from the “Democracy Dies in Darkness” crowd persists.

This seemingly coordinated effort has prompted Democrats in state legislatures throughout the country to base legislation on such election falsehoods. In Virginia, for example, a Democrat state senator filed a bill this month that would classify threatening an individual because of his roles as a current or former election official as a “hate crime.” The bill could also “result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment” for Virginians charged with crimes related to threatening election officials.

And, of course, the bill is written so loosely that any accusation fits their narrative. MORE SOCIALISM.

Threatening election workers is already explicitly prohibited under both Virginia and federal law. SB 364 is currently awaiting action from the Senate Courts of Justice Committee. Despite Democrats’ insistence, evidence does not support the notion that election workers everywhere are facing constant threats from conservatives.

During his August 2022 testimony before the U.S. Senate, Kenneth A. Polite Jr., the assistant attorney general for the criminal division of the DOJ, claimed the agency’s Election Threats Task Force — which was launched in July 2021 to address this alleged “rise in threats” against election workers — had reviewed and assessed roughly 1,000 allegedly “threatening and harassing” communications directed toward election officials. But two days before Polite’s testimony, the DOJ issued a press release disclosing that only about 11 percent of those 1,000 communications “met the threshold for a federal criminal investigation” and that the “remaining reported contacts did not provide a predication” for further investigation. According to an agency press release a year later, the Justice Department’s Election Threats Task Force had “charged 14 cases involving threats against the election community and secured nine convictions” as of Aug. 31, 2023.

Got that? In a country with a population of more than 335 million people, only about 100 individuals were investigated by the DOJ for supposedly threatening election workers, and only 14 of them were officially charged.

The Conspiracy Spreads

Virginia isn’t the only state where Democrats are pushing legislation based upon the media’s phony “election workers are under siege!” narrative. Leftist legislators in FloridaMissouri, and Washington introduced bills in recent weeks seeking to increase penalties for those convicted of threatening election officials.

Even worse, some elected Republicans have lent credence to this baseless talking point by prioritizing Democrat proposals. GOP legislators in New Jersey and Nebraska joined their respective Democrat colleagues in cosponsoring legislation cracking down on threats towards election workers this year. In South Dakota, Secretary of State Monae Johnson, a Republican, is spearheading a bill that would deem “Any person who, directly or indirectly, utters or addresses any threat or intimidation to an election official or election worker with the intent to improperly influence an election … guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

The measure unanimously passed the Senate State Affairs Committee (8-0) on Wednesday, even after Deputy Secretary of State Tom Deadrick told senators that South Dakota “hasn’t yet experienced threats against poll workers.”

Meanwhile, GOP governors such as Joe Lombardo of Nevada and Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma signed respective bills last year into law that similarly increased penalties for threatening election officials. The Oklahoma bill was sponsored by three Republicans.

Other states that have passed laws inspired by Democrats’ election lies include CaliforniaColoradoMaineNew MexicoOregon, and Vermont.

Republicans Must Fight Democrat Lies

Much like Democrats’ war against basic election security measures like voter ID, their lying about widespread threats against election officials is a strategy aimed at bringing less — not more — integrity to U.S. elections.

Their strategy of using anecdotal incidents to cast a broader narrative about Republicans isn’t just crafted to scare away independents and moderate voters from the GOP. It’s also designed to dissuade conservatives from partaking in legitimate forms of election oversight, such as poll watching.

Ahead of the 2022 midterms, for example, the Republican National Committee recruited more than 70,000 new poll watchers and workers ahead of Election Day to “help deliver the election transparency that voters deserve.” And of course, Democrats went berserk, parroting the same “threat to democracy” talking point.

Federal law already prohibits individuals from threatening and harassing election workers. Performative proposals to enhance state charges against such crimes are less about protecting people and more about furthering Democrats’ unsubstantiated talking points and scaring away conservatives engaged in the elections process.


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

14 House Democrats join Republicans to rebuke Biden over border crisis


By Elizabeth Elkind Fox News | Published January 17, 2024 5:19pm EST | Updated January 17, 2024 5:34pm EST

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-passes-resolution-condemning-biden-border-crisis

More than a dozen Democrats in the House of Representatives formally rebuked President Biden over his border and immigration policies on Wednesday.

Lawmakers passed a Republican-led resolution “denouncing the Biden administration’s open-borders policies, condemning the national security and public safety crisis along the southwest border, and urging President Biden to end his administration’s open-borders policies.”

Fourteen Democratic lawmakers voted with the GOP, including Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas; Jared Golden, D-Maine; Mary Peltola, D-Alaska; Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash.; and Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla.

It’s a largely symbolic move, but a pointed message from the House GOP Conference as talks are underway between the Senate and White House on a border security compromise in exchange for Republican support for sending Ukraine more aid.

Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, who spearheaded the resolution in the House, told Fox News Digital that it sent a clear message of unity to those negotiators.

ICE LAUNCHES 60-DAY EVALUATION OF CALIFORNIA DETENTION FACILITY AMID GOP DEMANDS TO FULLY REOPEN 

Biden and migrants
President Biden’s border policies were targeted in a House GOP-led resolution of disapproval (Photo by Katie McTiernan/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images  |   Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images )

“It shows that we’re in lockstep together to make sure that the president has a clear, unified message from the House Republicans and the Senate has a clear, unified message from the House Republicans, that says border security is of utmost consequence for this nation and its national security,” Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital.

The vote comes just after the top four Congressional leaders — Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. — met with Biden at the White House to discuss the status of supplemental aid talks.

ICE DETENTION CENTER HOUSES HANDFUL OF INMATES DESPITE HAVING THOUSANDS OF BEDS: LAWMAKER 

Mike Johnson, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., met with Biden on Wednesday (Getty Images)

Democrats are trying to pass a mammoth $110 billion supplemental aid bill that includes money for Ukraine, Israel, and humanitarian causes like aid to Gaza. 

Johnson has fixed the House GOP’s position on H.R.2, the comprehensive border security and immigration bill his conference passed back in May. Democratic leaders have called H.R.2 a nonstarter.

TEXAS BEGINS FLYING MIGRANTS TO SANCTUARY CITIES WITH FIRST FLIGHT TO CHICAGO

“Last May, we passed H.R.2, which provides a lot of the substantive solution that’s necessary to close our borders,” Moran told Fox News Digital. “What we’ve seen since then though, is stonewalling from the Democrats.”

Immigrants from Venezuela walk towards a U.S. Border Patrol transit center after crossing the Rio Grande into the United States on January 08, 2024 in Eagle Pass, Texas. (John Moore/Getty Images)

“This resolution is trying to re-sound that alarm to the Democrats and the American public to say we really do have a crisis.”

More than 300,000 migrants were encountered at the U.S.-Mexico border in December, an all-time record.

Elizabeth Elkind is a reporter for Fox News Digital focused on Congress as well as the intersection of Artificial Intelligence and politics. Previous digital bylines seen at Daily Mail and CBS News.

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

Leftists Want Direct Democracy Because It’s Easy to Manipulate the Masses


BY: CASEY CHALK | JANUARY 03, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/03/leftists-want-direct-democracy-because-its-easy-to-manipulate-the-masses/

US Capitol Building

Author Casey Chalk profile

CASEY CHALK

MORE ARTICLES

“American democracy is cracking,” warns Washington Post Chief Correspondent Dan Balz in a recent column that presents some ideas to repair it. His suggestions include, among other things, proportional representation, diminishing the power of the Senate, and eliminating the Electoral College. What these three suggestions have in common is a desire to remove any intermediary institutions between the will of the people and government action — otherwise known as “direct” democracy. 

These proposals are not new. Indeed, even the framers of the Constitution were familiar with them. But the reasons why such suggestions would significantly erode the republican government envisioned by our Founding Fathers are not new either. 

Given Biden’s low approval ratings — especially in important swing states with critical Electoral College votes — as well as broader Democrat fears of a Republican takeover of the Senate, we will likely hear a renewed chorus of voices calling for direct democracy. After all, masses of individuals are much easier to manipulate than smaller families, communities, or even states. Conservatives would do well to arm themselves with the best arguments against such initiatives.

Founders Worked to Curb Direct Democracy

The framers of our Constitution felt quite strongly that direct democracy was something to avoid. In Federalist 10, for example, the Father of the Constitution James Madison warned of “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority” on a government, or what has come to be called the “tyranny of the majority,” in which a majority of the population exerts great coercive power over minority factions.

Again in Federalist 51, Madison wrote: “[I]n the federal republic of the United States … all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.” 

Our second president, John Adams, called a unicameral legislative body — in which each member is accountable to his constituents — a “tyranny of the majority.” Adams, reflecting the opinion of that founding generation, argued for “a mixed government, consisting of three branches.” The framers took various steps to disburse power among the federal government, dividing it into three competing branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. 

But the founders’ dispersion of governing power also goes beyond the three branches. The 10th Amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, unless the Constitution expressly grants certain powers to the federal government, those powers exist in the states or, even more decentralized, in local communities of Americans. 

Later Generations Understood the Threat

A generation after that founding generation, visiting French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville authored an extended survey of American politics and culture, Democracy in America. Tocqueville perceived that the American political system was created to resist the tyranny of the majority, “which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence.” Thus, Tocqueville writes:

When a man or a party suffers from an injustice in the United States, to whom do you want them to appeal? To public opinion? That is what forms the majority. To the legislative body? It represents the majority and blindly obeys it. To the executive power? It is named by the majority and serves it as a passive instrument. 

In other words, the executive branch, even with its disbursed powers, can be influenced by this tyrannical tendency to reflect the opinions of the majority of the people against minority interests at the state or community level. It was thus only through the states and local bases of power and voluntary associations that this tyrannical tendency could be avoided. 

A century after Tocqueville’s warnings, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis discussed another way to understand our nation’s default desire to resist direct democracy. Brandeis was one of the first to describe the states as “laboratories of democracy.” In his New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann opinion, he explained how “a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”  

State and local autonomy served as a means of testing laws and policies to evaluate their effectiveness before implementing across a diverse nation of states, localities, and subcultures. If something works at the micro level, other localities or states — and even potentially the federal government — can appreciate and adopt it. 

Constant Temptation of Direct Democracy

Yet such a deliberative process of testing is slow and uneven. And we Americans are often eager for speedy solutions. Political theorists, journalists, and ordinary citizens throughout American history have been frustrated by the Constitution’s manifold methods of distributing power to deter the tyranny of the majority. If a majority of the nation’s populace wants something, they posit, why shouldn’t they be able to get it? After all, as the journalist H.L. Mencken wryly commented, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” 

Such demands especially increase at times of heightened political gridlock in which the country obviously has a particular problem or set of problems but constitutionally mandated laws and procedures thwart attempts to resolve them. When we are all vexed with our politicians for failing to act in what we believe to be the interests of the nation (and its voters), it’s easy to be sympathetic to that line of thinking. 

Yet we must beware of this temptation, which reflects what conservative political theorist Russell Kirk calls a manifestation of vox populi, vox dei — the voice of the people is the voice of God. In other words, as long as they constitute a majority, whatever the people want becomes the law of the land. 

Direct democracy thus not only represents a threat to freedom, but it is a political order that rejects hierarchies both natural and spiritual. Although these hierarchies are sometimes abused, they serve as a cautionary brake upon the whims of the masses, which — as many revolutions have demonstrated — can be quite violent and destructive. Just look at the French or Russian Revolutions, which ended up terrorizing those they claimed to represent. Millions of dead across the world reveal the problem with direct democracy.

This is the reason for state representation rather than proportional representation in the lower House, a Senate consisting of equal representation by state, the filibuster, the Electoral College, and powers relegated to the states vis-a-vis the 10th Amendment. All of it is an attempt to slow the destructive force of vox populi, vox dei

As that great French observer of American politics Alexis de Tocqueville observed: “If ever freedom is lost in America, that will be due to the … majority driving minorities to desperation…” 

Let’s do everything we can to avoid that scenario.


Casey Chalk is a senior contributor at The Federalist and an editor and columnist at The New Oxford Review. He has a bachelor’s in history and master’s in teaching from the University of Virginia and a master’s in theology from Christendom College. He is the author of The Persecuted: True Stories of Courageous Christians Living Their Faith in Muslim Lands.

Speaker Johnson, GOP Members Visit Southern Border


By Charlie McCarthy    |   Wednesday, 03 January 2024 09:09 AM EST

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/speaker-mike-johnson-republicans/2024/01/03/id/1148040/

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and more than 60 House Republicans are visiting the U.S.-Mexico border Wednesday in an attempt to raise awareness of the ongoing migrant crisis under President Joe Biden. Johnson and his fellow conference members will visit Eagle Pass, Texas, and are expected to demand that Biden and the Democrats agree to strict new immigration policies to stop the flow of migrants into the country, The New York Times reported.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistics show that in November there were 242,418 migrant encounters. That’s the third-highest official number since the crisis began in late January 2021. A CBP source told Newsmax on Monday that in December there were about 302,000 encounters at the southern border, surpassing the monthly record of 269,735 set in September.

The lawmakers’ visit to the border comes as Senate Republicans and Democrats struggle to reach an agreement on an emergency spending bill that would send more than $50 billion in military assistance to Ukraine.

House Republicans and some GOP Senate members have demanded sweeping immigration changes in exchange for their support of the supplemental legislation.

“This situation requires significant policy changes and House Republicans will continue advocating for real solutions that actually secure our border,” Johnson said Tuesday in a post on X.

A spokesperson for the speaker said Biden has been “derelict in his duty to protect” the border.

“While the president requests more funds — not to stop illegal immigration — but to process more illegal immigrants through their ‘catch and release’ policy, he has undermined security at every turn,” spokesperson Raj Shah said, Politico reported.

“From his decision to rescind the Remain in Mexico policy to the widespread abuse of the parole and asylum systems, there is a direct line between this administration’s reckless policies and the record 300,000 illegal immigrants encountered at the Southern border last month.”

The White House, meanwhile, is placing blame for the migrant surge on the GOP. Biden’s team has argued that Republicans have rejected a supplemental funding package that included money to hire new border agents, asylum officers, and immigration judges, as well as technology to combat the flow of fentanyl, Politico reported.

“On Day One, President Biden proposed a comprehensive immigration reform plan and followed up by delivering record border security funding every single year of his term,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a statement.

“House Republicans have obstructed his reform proposal and consistently voted against his unprecedented border security funding year after year, hamstringing our border security in the name of extreme, partisan demands.”

However, a Pew Research Center survey late last year found that only 32% of U.S. adults were confident in the president’s ability to make “wise decisions about immigration policy.”

Charlie McCarthy | editorial.mccarthy@newsmax.com

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

Related Stories:

© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Rep. Spartz to Newsmax: GOP ‘Will Hold the Ground on Border Security’


By Theodore Bunker    |   Friday, 15 December 2023 02:33 PM EST

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/victoria-spartz-newsmax-republicans/2023/12/15/id/1146110/

Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., told Newsmax on Friday that Republicans must make it clear that they “will hold the ground on border security” when it comes to passing additional aid for Ukraine. Spartz, the first native Ukrainian to serve in U.S. Congress, told “Newsline” in an interview that there’s “no doubt” that negotiations on a deal on border security and Ukraine aid haven’t progressed as far as some would hope.

She said that Republicans must ensure that “Democrats understand … that we will hold the ground on border security because if we don’t protect our country there is no hope for anyone else in the world.”

Spartz went on to accuse President Joe Biden of “slow-walking aid to Ukraine” and allowing Russian President Vladimir Putin “to advance that far and fortify … which costs a lot of money and a lot of lives for Ukrainians.”

She continued, “I think we need to be tougher, but we have to have … [an] agreement on border security and [Biden] needs to understand we will hold the ground.”

The congresswoman said Biden is “getting better” when it comes to policies for asylum seekers, “but he’s not willing to … tighten the parole that he’s been abusing.”
 

About NEWSMAX TV:

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

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

Theodore Bunker | editorial.bunker@newsmax.com

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

Mollie Hemingway Op-ed: To Win, Republicans Have To Be Smarter And Tougher Than Sen. James Lankford


BY: MOLLIE HEMINGWAY | DECEMBER 04, 2023

Read https://thefederalist.com/2023/12/04/to-win-republicans-have-to-be-smarter-and-tougher-than-sen-james-lankford/more at

James Lankford and George Stephanopoulos

Author Mollie Hemingway profile

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY

VISIT ON TWITTER@MZHEMINGWAY

MORE ARTICLES

Career Democrat and ABC host George Stephanopoulos completely emasculated Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma this weekend on his Sunday show. Right at the beginning of the interview, Stephanopoulos advanced a flurry of disinformation and lies, to which Lankford, who purports to be a conservative senator of the burgundy-red state of Oklahoma, bowed down in complete supplication:

Stephanopoulos: Your party’s leading candidate for president was on the stump yesterday repeating lies about the 2020 election. He’s called those convicted in the Jan. 6 insurrection hostages. He faces 91 separate felony counts himself. He’s raised the prospect of executing the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and terminating parts of the Constitution. In the face of all that and more, are you prepared to support Donald Trump if he’s your party’s nominee?  

Oh, for crying out loud. What an absolutely preposterous line of questioning. Any Republican elected official with a room-temperature IQ and even a modicum of self-respect would be livid at the propaganda and lies and immediately push back. But not Lankford. Here’s how he responded:

Lankford: Yes, we haven’t had a single vote yet, George. This is still weeks and weeks away from our first votes that are happening actually in Iowa, then New Hampshire and South Carolina. And there are a lot of people that are going to make that decision. That’s not going to be me making that decision, that’s going to be the American people that actually make that decision.  

Stephanopoulos pressed him, and Lankford remained impotent in the face of the questioning. In fact, he was so bad throughout the interview, he even quoted Alejandro Mayorkas, Biden’s controversial homeland security secretary, as a role model on immigration enforcement. The entire state of Oklahoma looked worse as it went on.

Now, Lankford is more than welcome to stay out of the Republican primary or endorse whomever he thinks is the best candidate, but what he should not feel free to do is allow the corrupt media and other Democrats to destroy the country through propaganda and lies. Americans are absolutely desperate for even the tiniest bit of Republican backbone and leadership, not mealy-mouthed kowtowing to the press.

When you claim to be a conservative senator of a state so Republican that two out of every three voters in 2020 voted for Trump, and a lifelong Democrat operative in the media asks you a completely loaded agitprop question, you should hit it out of the park. Like so:

“First off, George, your audience should know that you just regurgitated back a diatribe of lies, mistruths, and Democrat propaganda. I’m not surprised, given your professional background and track record of maliciously pushing the false and dangerous Russia-collusion scam for so many years during and after the 2016 election, but I can’t allow your lies to go uncorrected.

“The public knows full well there were major issues in how the 2020 election was conducted — from Mark Zuckerberg’s more than $400 million on partisan get-out-the-vote efforts in key swing states, to the deliberate Hunter Biden laptop suppression that the major news and tech companies along with 51 intel officials participated in, to the tens of millions of mail-in-ballots and voting changes that did not follow state laws. So drop the dishonest, holier-than-thou nonsense about 2020 being the cleanest, most perfect election with nothing allowed to be scrutinized or discussed.

“Second, the public is also wising up to the fact that what the corporate media have spun to them about Jan. 6 hasn’t exactly been the complete truth. Yes, we know your line that this was the worst moment in the history of the world, requiring our FBI to do nothing other than arrest people who were anywhere near the event. Well, that, and arrest pro-lifers who are praying and parents who are attending school board meetings.

“But most Americans know that we have not gotten good answers about why Nancy Pelosi turned down security provisions ahead of what intelligence suggested would be a very contentious day, or what exactly was being done by the federal informants and federal agents who were present for the day’s events. They’re extremely worried about how left-wing rioters and criminals seem to be able to do whatever they want with very few repercussions, even when they’re attacking the Supreme Court, federal courthouses, the White House, churches, homes, and police precincts. And now with the release of some of the videotapes from that day, we see that most of the activity that day was not in any way what was hyped up and presented by the Democrats’ Jan. 6 show trial.

“Finally, the Biden administration is at this moment doing everything in its power to put their leading political opponent in prison. They raided Mar-a-Lago, George. When other countries do things like this, when Putin does stuff like this, we say that means they don’t have free and fair elections. It seems the Democrats’ main strategy this election cycle is to attempt to put effective Republicans in prison, to bankrupt them, and to prevent them from speaking out about what is being done to destroy this country. I’ll note this isn’t working with the American people, as Trump now leads widely in almost all polls against Biden, a strong renunciation of what’s going on.

“So I ask you, George, are you prepared to start focusing on the major policy issues facing the country, or will you continue to push lies and propaganda to help put your political opponents in prison?”

You know, something like that.

To state the obvious here, using small words so that even the absolutely feckless and embarrassingly lame Senate Republicans can understand, praising Mayorkas, failing to correct lies about Republicans, and mumbling about how you’ll vote Republican if you are forced to is not a way to win elections. Yes, I’m sure it’s what Mitch McConnell told Lankford to go out and do, but it yields nothing but failure. The people of Oklahoma deserve an actual man to represent them, not whatever it is they’re getting in Lankford.

You win elections by saying truthful things, not being sad and scared like Lankford and most other Republican senators are. He should be lambasting Stephanopoulos for not covering the major issues facing the country in an even remotely evenhanded or honest way.

That’s how you go from being a party full of absolute losers who are on their back heels constantly to one that makes people want to vote for you.


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

Court: Democrats Have No Evidence To Challenge New Hampshire’s Voter ID Law


BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | NOVEMBER 06, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/11/06/court-democrats-have-no-evidence-to-challenge-new-hampshires-voter-id-law/

A citizen on their way to vote in Minneapolis, MN

A New Hampshire court dismissed Democrat-backed lawsuits contesting the legality of the state’s voter ID law on Wednesday, marking a major win for Republicans and election integrity advocates.

Writing for the Hillsborough Superior Court, Justice Charles Temple ruled that a series of challenges filed against New Hampshire’s voter ID law lacks legal standing because plaintiffs failed to provide evidence showing their ability to vote was impeded by the law in question. In their original lawsuit against New Hampshire’s Republican secretary of state and attorney general, several state voters, along with 603 Forward and Open Democracy Action (two leftist organizations), claimed SB 418 violated provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution.

The Republican National Committee, New Hampshire Republican State Committee, and Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) PAC were intervenor-defendants in the case.

Signed into law by GOP Gov. Chris Sununu last year, SB 418 altered the process by which voters verify their identity when casting their ballot. Under the law, voters who fail to present an approved form of ID would be instructed to fill out an “affidavit ballot,” at which point he or she must then fill out and submit a series of documents proving he or she is eligible to vote. If a voter does not return a copy of the required information within seven days of the election, that voter’s ballot will not be certified.

In his Wednesday ruling, Temple noted how plaintiffs were unable to document any evidence proving their rights were, “or will be,” violated by the law.

“In sum, it seems abundantly clear to the Court that the ‘rights’ at issue in this litigation are the constitutional rights of New Hampshire’s voters, which the organizational plaintiffs maintain have been (or will be) violated by SB 418,” Temple wrote. “However, under long-standing case law, the organizational plaintiffs may only challenge the constitutionality of SB 418 based on an invasion of their own rights. … For the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs have failed to identify the necessary ‘present legal or equitable right’ belonging to them ‘to which the [defendants] [are] asserting an adverse claim.’”

Temple furthermore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ requests that SB 418 be declared unlawful and an injunction prohibiting its enactment and enforcement.

“Voter ID laws do not harm eligible voters, instead, they identify those people ineligible to vote, including non-citizens,” RITE President Derek Lyons said in a statement celebrating Wednesday’s ruling. “Every case rejecting activists’ attempts to upend state election law helps restore voters’ confidence in the ballot box.”


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

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

MORE ARTICLES

Black voters in Milwaukee list complaints on Biden, Democratic Party ahead of 2024: ‘We’re damned anyways’


By Jeffrey Clark Fox News | Published November 3, 2023 10:46am EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-voters-milwaukee-list-complaints-biden-democratic-party-ahead-2024-were-damned-anyways

Black voters and activists in Milwaukee are feeling uninspired to vote for President Biden with one year to go before the election, according to a CNN report. Black voters in Milwaukee are feeling uninspired and potentially not motivated to vote for President Biden in advance of 2024, according to a CNN report Friday. 

Joanna Brooks, who owns a yoga studio in Glendale, said that the Democratic Party has taken Black voters for granted.

“Black people in general, I think, tend to be pretty loyal to the Democratic Party,” Brooks said. “Sometimes I wonder, just based on how that party has performed thus far for people so far, if they should continue to be.” 

DEMOCRATS ‘FAILING EPICALLY’ TO REACH BLACK MALE VOTERS HEADING INTO 2024, ACTIVIST WARNS

Black Milwaukee voters, President Biden
Black voters in Milwaukee are feeling uninspired and potentially not motivated to vote for President Biden in advance of 2024, according to a CNN report.  (CNN screenshot | Getty Images)

“I hear people saying [that] they’re not gonna vote,” Milwaukee voter Eric Jones said of the 2024 presidential election. “That’s my fear. They see [Biden and former President Donald Trump], and they’re gonna say, ‘Screw it. We’re damned anyways.'” 

“When the factories and the manufacturing left, jobs left,” he told CNN. “When jobs leave and opportunities leave, then you have certain things that are domino effects.” 

Jones said that the recipe for popularity as a political candidate was simple: “You bring opportunities, you bring jobs, you get votes. Plain and simple.” 

When asked who he would choose between Trump and Biden, Devonta Johnson, a canvasser with Black Leaders Organizing for Communities (BLOC), admitted that would be a difficult choice to make. 

“That’s a tough one,” he said, smiling. 

LONG-SHOT BIDEN CHALLENGER DEAN PHILLIPS SCOLDS DEM LEADERS CALLING HIS CAMPAIGN DISRESPECTFUL TO BLACK VOTERS

Donald Trump and Joe Biden
When asked who he would choose between former President Donald Trump and President Biden, Devonta Johnson, a canvasser with Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, admitted that would be a difficult choice to make.  (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Other community and statewide organizers said that the stakes were high for winning the Black vote in Wisconsin. 

“There’s no way to win a statewide election that doesn’t run through the Black community,” BLOC executive director Angela Lang said. “What happens in Milwaukee can impact the rest of the state, which ultimately can impact the rest of the country.” 

Some Democrats are worried about Black male voter turnout as they campaign for 2024 and argue the party is “failing” to reach Black males and younger Black voters, The Washington Post reported.

Internal party analysis reportedly showed that Black male turnout and younger Black voter turnout were much lower in certain states in the 2022 midterms. 

“The Democratic Party has been failing epically at reaching this demographic of Black men — and that’s sad to say,” W. Mondale Robinson, founder of the Black Male Voter Project, told the Post. “Black men are your second-most stable base overwhelmingly, and yet you can’t reach them in a way that makes your work easier.”

Robinson told the outlet that Black men are “sporadic or non-voters” in multiple battleground states. 

Black voters in Milwaukee told CNN they weren’t sure about supporting President Biden in 2024. (Raymond Boyd/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

For more Culture, Media, Education, Opinion and channel coverage, visit foxnews.com/media

Fox News’ Hanna Panreck contributed to this report.

Jeffrey Clark is an associate editor for Fox News Digital. He has previously served as a speechwriter for a cabinet secretary and as a Fulbright teacher in South Korea. Jeffrey graduated from the University of Iowa in 2019 with a degree in English and History. 

Story tips can be sent to jeffrey.clark@fox.com.

45 Republicans call for House rules overhaul after McCarthy ouster: ‘Ashamed and embarrassed’


By Elizabeth Elkind Fox News | Published October 6, 2023 11:43am EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/45-republicans-call-house-rules-overhaul-mccarthy-ouster-ashamed-embarrassed

A group of nearly four dozen House Republicans is demanding a dramatic overhaul to the chamber rules after former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s historic ouster.

“The injustice we all witnessed cannot go unaddressed — lest we bear responsibility for the consequences that follow. Our Conference must address fundamental changes to the structure of our majority to ensure success for the American people,” 45 House GOP lawmakers said in a letter to colleagues on Thursday.

McCarthy, R-Calif., had the speaker’s gavel taken away on Tuesday after Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., called for a procedure known as a motion to vacate the chair on Monday night. Under terms McCarthy hashed out to secure the speakership in January, just one lawmaker can call for the motion to vacate, setting up a mandatory vote within 48 hours.

McCarthy and Gaetz split image

Republican Reps. Kevin McCarthy, left, and Matt Gaetz. (Win McNamee/Getty Images | Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

‘SHELL SHOCKED’ KEVIN MCCARTHY WILL NOT RUN FOR HOUSE SPEAKER AGAIN FOLLOWING REMOVAL

The lawmakers said they were “ashamed and embarrassed” by the episode, according to the letter obtained by Fox News Digital.

“Earlier this week, eight Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives joined in an alliance with 208 Democrats to adopt a motion to vacate the Speaker of the House,” they wrote.

U.S. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., speaks to reporters as he arrives at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on May 25, 2023. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

HERE ARE 4 OF THE LIKELY CONTENDERS TO REPLACE MCCARTHY AS SPEAKER

“That translates to less than 4 percent of our Republican Conference joining with all Democrats to override the will of the remaining 96 percent of House Republicans on one of the most consequential votes the House has taken in over a century.”

They lauded McCarthy as “one of the most accomplished speakers in modern history.” 

Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., is seen after a meeting of the House Republican Conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

“Ashamed and embarrassed by what happened on the Floor this week, we refuse to allow the eight members who abandoned and undermined our Conference to dictate every outcome in policy and personnel for the remainder of this Congress, including the upcoming selection of the Speaker of the House,” the letter said.

HOUSE VOTES TO REMOVE KEVIN MCCARTHY AS SPEAKER IN HISTORIC FIRST

Intraparty tensions have boiled over in the wake of McCarthy’s ouster. It has made the motion to vacate rule a lightning rod in the current speakership race, with some GOP hardliners insisting it remain, while a majority of the conference have called for its threshold to be hiked above just one member — and others have floated scrapping it altogether.

“It is our responsibility to identify the right person at this moment to lead us into the future to achieve the conservative policy objectives that we and the American people all share,” the letter said.

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/10/Letter-to-GOP-Conference-10.5.2023.pdf

“We cannot allow our majority to be dictated to by the alliance between the chaos caucus and the minority party that will do nothing more than guarantee the failure of our next Speaker,” it continued.

Signatories include Reps. Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D.; Jen Kiggans, R-Va.; Anthony D’Esposito, R-N.Y.; and Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., as well as Main Street Caucus leaders Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., and Stephanie Bice, R-Okla.

Elizabeth Elkind is a reporter for Fox News Digital focused on Congress as well as the intersection of Artificial Intelligence and politics. Previous digital bylines seen at Daily Mail and CBS News.

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

Republicans Deserve a Senate Leader Willing to Defend Their Interests Over Democrats’


BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE | AUGUST 01, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/01/republicans-deserve-a-senate-leader-willing-to-defend-their-interests-over-democrats/

Mitch McConnell

While the Biden administration faces escalating calls for impeachment, either of the homeland security secretary, the attorney general, or even the president himself as evidence mounts over myriad scandals, Republicans’ top Senate lawmaker is distracted.

Instead of directing his ire at President Joe Biden for his influence-peddling schemes with corrupt overseas actors, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell piled onto the media onslaught against a freshman representative from Wisconsin who cussed out some teenagers at the Capitol. GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden stirred up controversy last week when he went on a tirade against some interns with the Senate page program who were lying in the Capitol rotunda, which the congressman says he considered disrespectful.

“Wake the fuck up you little sh-ts. … What the f-ck are you all doing? Get the f-ck out of here,” Van Orden said, telling the group they were “defiling the space,” according to one page’s recollection of the incident. The Wisconsin lawmaker was defiant, explaining on a local radio show, “The people who have brought this up are not serious people.”

Nor are the Republicans who have remained silent on the administration’s series of scandals but have been quick to get behind the Democrats’ latest outrage circus.

The Van Orden outburst drew swift condemnation from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. “I was shocked when I heard about it, and I am further shocked at his refusal to apologize to these young people,” Schumer said.

McConnell didn’t hesitate to make the outrage bipartisan. According to Politico, McConnell was clear to “associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader.”

“Everybody on this side of the aisle feels exactly the same way,” McConnell added.

If only Republicans had a leader in the upper chamber who dared stand up for Republicans. The problem is not that Van Orden’s eruption at a couple of teenagers is excusable. The problem is McConnell’s regular participation in Democrats’ smear campaigns against other Republicans while the GOP Senate leader remains silent on the administration’s corruption scandals. Last week, McConnell declined to comment at all on House Republicans’ impeachment push.

It’s far from the first time the Republican Senate leader has peddled the Democrats’ latest political narratives. In March, McConnell condemned Fox News for the network airing the Jan. 6 tapes presented by Tucker Carlson. The tapes undermined the Democrats’ narratives of a “deadly insurrection,” the basis for their snap impeachment of outgoing President Donald Trump.

“With regard to the presentation on Fox News last night, I want to associate myself entirely with the opinion of the chief of the Capitol Police about what happened on Jan. 6,” McConnell told reporters on Capitol Hill following Carlson’s first installment of the J6 tapes. Hours earlier, Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger had sent a memo to his department that called Carlson’s coverage “filled with offensive and misleading conclusions.”

The comments led even Elon Musk to begin to question whether McConnell was actually a Republican. “I keep forgetting which party he belongs to,” Musk wrote on Twitter.

After the FBI raid of former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence at Mar-a-Lago, McConnell didn’t condemn the weaponization of federal law enforcement. Instead, the Republican Senate leader endorsed more funding for the federal bureau. This followed the octogenarian lawmaker sabotaging Republicans’ midterm efforts to reclaim the Senate. McConnell was more interested in maintaining an establishment minority he could control than in achieving a GOP majority that aligned more with Trump’s vision for the party.

Republicans have a right to expect far better from their No. 1 leader in the Senate. Considering McConnell’s recent health problems, new leadership could come sooner rather than later. His successor would be wise to adopt a new approach that puts voters first.


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

Author Tristan Justice profile

TRISTAN JUSTICE

VISIT ON TWITTER@JUSTICETRISTAN

MORE ARTICLES

Dennis Prager Op-ed: Pew Research: Democrats Value Free Speech Far Less Than Republicans


Dennis Prager @DennisPrager / July 25, 2023

Read more at https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07/25/pew-research-democrats-value-free-speech-far-less-than-republicans/

Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic artist and website designer in Colorado, center in pink, speaks to supporters outside the Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY Dennis Prager@DennisPrager

Dennis Prager is a columnist for The Daily Signal, nationally syndicated radio host, and creator of PragerU.

In case you were in doubt—and if you were in doubt, that means you aren’t following what is happening in America to the most important freedom of all—Pew Research has confirmed that Democrats value free speech far less than Republicans do.

Read the following statistics and conclusions and weep for our country:

  • “The share of U.S. adults who say the federal government should restrict false information has risen from 39% in 2018 to 55% in 2023.”
  • “Just over half of Americans (55%) support the U.S. government taking steps to restrict false information online, even if it limits people from freely publishing or accessing information.”
  • “Support for government intervention has steadily risen since the first time we asked this question in 2018. In fact, the balance of opinion has tilted: Five years ago, Americans were more inclined to prioritize freedom of information over restricting false information (58% vs. 39%).”
  • “The partisan gap in support for restricting false information has grown substantially since 2018.”
  • “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are much more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to support the U.S. government taking steps to restrict false information online (70% vs. 39%). There was virtually no difference between the parties in 2018, but the share of Democrats who support government intervention has grown from 40% in 2018 to 70% in 2023.”
  • “A large majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners (81%) support technology companies taking such steps, while about half of Republicans (48%) say the same.”

But, no one is asking, “Who is the main arbiter of what is, or is NOT, misinformation? There’s the rub.

Here are 10 conclusions:

No. 1: The most important human freedom is freedom of speech. Free speech is what

makes the pursuit of truth possible. It is what makes the advancement of science possible. It constitutes the very definition of a free society. And free speech is what makes human dignity possible. People who cannot say what they believe are dehumanized. They ultimately become robotic beings exemplified by North Koreans.

No. 2: America has been the freest country in the world for all of its history. That is why the French gave America the Statue of Liberty. It is rapidly relinquishing that title.

No. 3: Free speech is seriously threatened for the first time in American history.

No. 4: The threat to free speech comes entirely from the Left.

No. 5: There is no example in history of the Left attaining power and allowing free speech. From the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution to the Maoist takeover of China to almost any university in America today, wherever the Left comes to power, it suppresses speech.

No. 6: The Left must suppress speech in order to retain power. If it were to allow dissent, it would lose its hold on power.

No. 7: That is why conservative speakers are rarely allowed to speak on college campuses. Left-wing professors, deans, and administrators know—consciously or subconsciously—that an effective conservative speaker can undo years of left-wing indoctrination in just 90 minutes.

No. 8: Given that “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are much more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to support the U.S. government taking steps to restrict false information online (70% vs. 39%),” the often-stated claim that “there is little difference between the two parties” is false.

No. 9: All tyrannies label dissent “misinformation.” That is what Vladimir Putin’s government labels all dissent in Russia today.

The communist regime in the Soviet Union named its official newspaper “Pravda”—the Russian word for “truth”—because in a left-wing tyranny, the left-wing regime determines truth. Anything else is “misinformation” or “disinformation.”

That Western societies are moving toward Soviet-like suppression of speech is obvious in America and was made particularly clear in 2020, when the then-prime minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, told her country: “We will continue to be your single source of truth” and “If you do not hear it from the government, it is not true.”

Fittingly, Ardern was awarded with two teaching fellowships at Harvard University—one of them at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, based at Harvard Law School, where she “will study ways to improve content standards and platform accountability for extremist content online.”

No. 10: Liberals are abandoning liberal values—in particular, their storied commitment to free speech. There are far more liberals than leftists, but over the past few years the liberals’ unswerving commitment to the Democratic Party, unswerving commitment to The New York Times, The Washington Post, or virtually any other mainstream news source, and their unswerving opposition to conservatives and the Republican Party has led them to embrace and unswervingly vote for left-wing values.

As for the future, this is what Pew reported regarding young Americans: “The shares of younger adults who say they support tech companies and the government restricting false information online have increased substantially since 2018 (by 14 and 19 percentage points, respectively).”

But there is a better reaction than to weep.

Fight.

COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS

Republicans erupt over 2015 email exposing ‘ultimate purpose’ of Hunter’s involvement with Burisma


By Jessica Chasmar , Brooke Singman , Cameron Cawthorne | Fox News | Published July 12, 2023 12:07pm EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-erupt-2015-email-exposing-ultimate-purpose-hunters-involvement-burisma

FIRST ON FOX: Republican lawmakers erupted Tuesday after learning about a 2015 email chain that predated President Biden’s infamous 2015 trip to Ukraine, when a Burisma Holdings executive revealed the “ultimate purpose” of Hunter Biden’s involvement with the Ukrainian energy company.

One month before then-Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine, where he threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid if Ukrainian leaders did not fire their top prosecutor, Hunter Biden and Burisma executives were discussing executing a contract for counter-messaging against any federal investigations into Burisma’s founder and then-president, Mykola Zlochevsky.

“The sequence of events that led to the firing of Viktor Shokin, and the subsequent comments by then-Vice President Biden, raise serious concerns as to what machinations were really at play — and were purposefully concealed from the American people,” Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., who sits on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, told Fox News Digital. “No matter how you slice Hunter Biden’s involvement, it screams public corruption at the highest levels and must be fully investigated.”

“The calm, judicious, steady reveal of incredibly condemning evidence that clearly incriminates the Biden crime family will eventually alarm even the most ardent supporters of this WH occupier,” said Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., also a committee member. “Our President is compromised, he should resign and be forever condemned, and the Democrat Party should begin rebuilding itself.” 

Armstrong, Joe and Hunter Biden and Comer split image

From left to right, Rep. Kelly Armstrong, President Biden and his son Hunter Biden, and Rep. James Comer, R-Ky. (Fox News)

On Nov. 2, 2015, Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi emailed Hunter Biden, who was serving as a Burisma board member, his associates Devon Archer, a fellow board member, and Rosemont Seneca Partners president Eric Schwerin about a “revised proposal, contract and initial invoice for Burisma Holdings,” from lobbying firm Blue Star Strategies, according to emails from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop, which have been verified by Fox News Digital. Pozharskyi emphasized in his email that the “ultimate purpose” of the agreement with Blue Star Strategies was to shut down “any cases/pursuits against Nikolay in Ukraine,” referring to Zlochevsky, who also went by Nikolay.

OBAMA-ERA EMAILS REVEAL HUNTER’S EXTENSIVE TIES TO NEARLY A DOZEN SENIOR-LEVEL BIDEN ADMIN AIDES

Pozharskyi emails Blue Star Strategies proposal

On Nov. 2, 2015, Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi emailed Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and Eric Schwerin about a “revised proposal, contract and initial invoice for Burisma Holdings.” (Fox News)

“My only concern is for us to be on the same page re our final goals,” Pozharskyi wrote. “With this in mind, I would like us to formulate a list of deliverables, including, but not limited to: a concrete course of actions, incl. meetings/communications resulting in high-ranking US officials in Ukraine (US Ambassador) and in US publicly or in private communication/comment expressing their ‘positive opinion’ and support of Nikolay/Burisma to the highest level of decision makers here in Ukraine :President of Ukraine, president Chief of staff, Prosecutor General, etc.”

“The scope of work should also include organization of a visit of a number of widely recognized and influential current and/or former US policy-makers to Ukraine in November aiming to conduct meetings with and bring positive signal/message and support on Nikolay’s issue to the Ukrainian top officials above with the ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay in Ukraine,” Pozharskyi continued.

HUNTER BIDEN GUSHED OVER ‘EXTRAVAGANT’ GIFTS FROM BURISMA EXEC WHO WAS FOCUS OF CORRUPTION PROBE

Upon joining Burisma, Hunter Biden reportedly connected the company with Blue Star Strategies to help the firm fight corruption charges levied against Zlochevsky. The firm reportedly came under federal investigation from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware in 2021 for its lobbying practices. The same office, led by U.S. Attorney David Weiss, is leading the federal investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings.

“I would tell Vadym that this is definitely done deliberately to the be on the safe and cautious side and that Sally and company understand the scope and deliverables,” Schwerin wrote to Hunter Biden and Archer the same day, forwarding Pozharskyi’s message. “And that we will be having regular (daily, weekly, monthly) opportunities be in through conference calls or memos to be continually refining and updating the scope.”

Schwerin emails Rosemont Seneca Partners

Eric Schwerin said the contract was deliberately vague “to the be on the safe and cautious side.” (Fox News)

Hunter Biden responded to Pozharskyi, saying he wanted to “have one last conversation” with Blue Star, but later said he was “comfortable” with Blue Star. “You should go ahead and sign,” he wrote on Nov. 5, 2015.

“Looking forward to getting started on this,” Hunter Biden added.

Biden emails Pozharskyi

Hunter Biden emailed Vadym Pozharskyi in November 2015. (Fox News)

The email exchange came one month before then Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine’s capital of Kiev, where he gave a speech about rooting out corruption in politics. 

Ahead of the trip, an associate at Blue Star Strategies emailed Blue Star executives, Hunter Biden, Archer and Pozharskyi about a White House conference call that “outlined the trip’s agenda and addressed several questions regarding U.S. policy toward Ukraine.”

Biden addresses the Ukrainian Parliament

Vice President Joe Biden gestures next to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, right, after addressing the Ukrainian Parliament in Kiev on Dec. 8, 2015. (Sergei Supinsky/AFP via Getty Images)

During the trip, Biden pressured Ukrainian officials to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor investigating Zlochevsky at the time. Shokin was fired less than four months later in March 2016. 

In February 2016, roughly two months after Biden’s trip and two months before Shokin’s firing, Hunter Biden thanked Zlochevsky in an email for “the beautiful birthday gifts,” which he described as “far too extravagant.” It is unclear what he received from the Ukrainian tycoon.

Petro Poroshenko (R) and Joe Biden

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Vice President Joe Biden arrive to deliver a statement on the results of talks in Kyev on Dec. 7, 2015. (Sergei Supinsky/AFP via Getty Images)

Biden would later boast on camera in 2018 that when he was vice president, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin. The White House has repeatedly said Biden put pressure on Ukraine to fire Shokin because he was too lax on prosecuting corruption. However, Oversight Committee Republicans told Fox News Digital the timing of events is more than just a coincidence.

“I don’t think Biden had Shokin fired because he was too lax on corruption,” said Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn. “I think Biden had him fired to cover his own tail when it comes to the Biden family’s shady business dealings in Ukraine and because Shokin was looking into Zlochevsky very seriously. It’s not a coincidence that this email came a month before his visit to Kyiv. Our work on the Oversight Committee isn’t finished.”

Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden

Hunter Biden arrives at Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington, D.C., on July 4, 2023. (Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Evidence makes it clear that Hunter Biden was only appointed to Burisma’s board of directors because of his last name and family’s network,” said Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the committee’s chairman. “Additionally, the FBI’s Biden bribery record detailing an alleged extortion and bribery scheme between then-Vice President Biden and a Burisma executive in exchange for certain actions mirrors the purpose of Hunter Biden’s appointment. The Department of Justice has been sitting on a mountain of evidence pointing to the Bidens’ corruption for years but has been engaged in a coverup. We need to root out this politicization and misconduct at the Department of Justice and deliver answers, transparency, and accountability to the American people.”

“The timeline in these emails further supports the conclusion that Burisma hired Hunter Biden to gain access to his father,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D. “They wanted a U.S. policymaker to take their side, and they got Vice President Joe Biden, who was in charge of Ukraine policy for the Obama administration. These emails raise even more questions that need answers.”

“Additional emails heighten concerns about the question of whether then-Vice President Biden was aware of his son Hunter’s engagements,” added Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wisc. “Whether in Ukraine or China, it’s difficult for Congress to rely on information from the Executive Branch with so many questions about whether our President and his family are compromised by foreign entities. The House Oversight Committee will continue conducting thorough investigations into the Biden family to determine the degree to which the Biden administration may be making decisions for reasons other than to best serve the American public.”

Joe Biden departs Dublin Airport

President Biden departs Dublin Airport on Air Force One with his sister Valerie and son Hunter on April 14, 2023. (Julien Behal/Irish Government via Getty Images)

“It seems like every day there is a new headline on another revelation of the corruption within the Biden Crime Syndicate,” said Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz. “The emails further establish bribery and corruption between Ukraine officials and the Bidens. In short, they are evidence of potential criminal activity by Joe, the Big Man, Biden and his son, Hunter.”

“Putting personal interests ahead of American interests is not just a dishonor of the office, but treasonous,” he continued. “It is a major scandal unprecedented in the annals of our history and the House Oversight and Accountability Committee will investigate and expose as much of the ugly truth as possible.”

“Yet again, it seems all roads lead to Hunter Biden’s ‘business deals’ being directly tied to his father’s position of power and influence,” said Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C. “This adds to the long list of red flags surrounding Hunter and the Biden family that the Oversight Committee has been working to uncover for the past six months.”

“Everything we are uncovering points to Hunter Biden using his name and his father’s position to get rich,” said Rep. William Timmons, R-S.C. “It’s bribery – and it is both wrong and illegal. House Democrats, the legacy media, and even top brass at the FBI and DOJ failed to do their job and investigate all the literal and figurative smoke that clouds Hunter Biden. House Republicans will do our job and uncover the truth.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley speaks into mircrophone during hearing

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley told Fox News Digital that “there can be no doubt about Burisma’s motives for paying Hunter Biden millions despite his lack of industry expertise.” (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who both sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital that the uncovered emails further point to the Bidens being tied to a foreign bribery scheme.

“There can be no doubt about Burisma’s motives for paying Hunter Biden millions despite his lack of industry expertise, it’s right there in black and white,” Grassley said. “This was always about enlisting the Biden name to influence U.S. policy and public perception of a Ukrainian company mired in corruption investigations. The Justice Department forced Burisma’s lobbying firm to register as foreign agents. Why wasn’t Hunter Biden?”

Sen. Josh Hawley speaks from the podium in a Senate hearing.

Sen. Josh Hawley slammed President Biden in a quote to Fox News Digital, saying he “should cooperate fully with investigators and stop stonewalling.” (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

“Practically every day brings new revelations that appear to tie Joe Biden to foreign bribery schemes,” said Hawley. “If Biden has nothing to hide, he should cooperate fully with investigators and stop stonewalling.”

The White House did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Top Republicans Demand Federal Investigation Into Retaliation Against IRS Whistleblowers


BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE | JULY 06, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/06/top-republicans-demand-federal-investigation-into-retaliation-against-irs-whistleblowers/

Chuck Grassley

A coalition of top Republicans on Capitol Hill is demanding a federal investigation into allegations of retaliation against Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers who revealed misconduct related to the Hunter Biden investigation.

In June, the House Ways and Means Committee published the transcripts of interviews with a pair of IRS whistleblowers detailing improper interference from the Justice Department surrounding the federal tax probe of the first family. According to the whistleblowers, federal prosecutors concealed critical documents from tax investigators while officials from the Justice Department sought to undermine IRS efforts altogether.

[READ: IRS Whistleblower Docs Show DOJ Obstructed Hunter Biden Probe To Protect President]

On Wednesday, Republican House and Senate lawmakers led by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley sent a letter to the Office of Special Counsel urging the agency to open a probe into retaliatory conduct against the IRS whistleblowers.

“The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have reportedly engaged in unlawful whistleblower retaliation against veteran IRS employees,” lawmakers wrote. “Multiple news reports indicate that the whistleblower and investigative team were removed from the Hunter Biden investigation by the IRS at DOJ’s request as retaliation for making protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress.”

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson signed the letter with Missouri Rep. Jason Smith, who chairs the Ways and Means Committee; Kentucky Rep. James Comer, who chairs the Oversight Committee; and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs the Judiciary Committee.

“The importance of protecting whistleblowers from unlawful retaliation and informing whistleblowers about their rights under the law cannot be understated,” they wrote, without naming the whistleblowers. “After all, it is the law. Accordingly, we request that you immediately investigate all allegations of retaliation against these IRS whistleblowers…”

Transcripts of interviews between two IRS whistleblowers and Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee were made public last month after Hunter Biden struck a light plea deal with federal prosecutors. Hunter Biden pled guilty to two misdemeanor tax crimes and a felony firearm violation. The latter charge will be forgiven following two years of sobriety and a forfeiture of gun ownership.

The former chief of the DOJ’s tax division published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal recommending the judge presiding over the agreement reject the deal.

According to whistleblower Gary Shapley, a veteran agent with the IRS who served on the case, “the most substantive felony charges were left off the table.”

“We weren’t allowed to ask questions about ‘dad,’” Shapley said in an interview with Fox News. “We weren’t allowed to ask about ‘the big guy.’”

Hunter Biden did not pay taxes on $1.2 million between 2017 and 2018, Shapley told Bret Baier.


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

Author Tristan Justice profile

TRISTAN JUSTICE

VISIT ON TWITTER@JUSTICETRISTAN

MORE ARTICLES

GOP Leaders Wary of Threats to Shut Down House Again


By Brian Freeman    |   Monday, 19 June 2023 12:58 PM EDT

Read more at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/house-shutdown-republicans/2023/06/19/id/1124076/

House Republican leaders return to Capitol Hill this week, struggling to control anger within the party that might derail their legislative agenda over the summer, The Hill reported on Monday.

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., the former head of the Freedom Caucus, said talks with Speaker Kevin McCarthy were initiated by the anger of his handling of the debt ceiling negotiations, that “I haven’t been overly pleased or participatory … but I’ll just say that I don’t think we’re moving in the right direction as far as solving this massive growth in national debt.”

Biggs continued that “my biggest concern is, What’s the coalition that the speaker has built? We want to know who his coalition partners are. Is it the Democrats, or is it going to be the conservative voices and the other Republicans in the conference?”

When Biggs was asked if the conservatives would resort to their successful strategy of blocking floor action, the representative immediately responded, “Oh, I think it’s always on the table. I’m an ‘all-tools’ guy.”

Threats such as this illustrate the delicate balancing act McCarthy and other Republican leaders face as try to cut deals with President Joe Biden in order to enact must-pass bills like raising the debt ceiling and funding the government without angering the conservative wing of the GOP that view deficits as a greater threat than a default or a shutdown.

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., voiced the concern of the conservative wing, saying: “I’m not worried about a shutdown. The country’s going to be permanently shut down if we don’t get our spending under control. And I’m tired of hearing, ‘We’ll do it tomorrow.’ “

After conservative rebels backed off of their revolt last Monday, announcing they would let legislative business resume, at least for the time being, McCarthy has sought the aid of top deputy, Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., to help in the attempt to further mitigate the concerns of the conservatives, according to those familiar with the talks.

But Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., last week suggested that if there’s no progress by the time the House is ready to vote on another rule — which could happen as soon as Wednesday — conservatives might block floor activity once again.

However, Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., another one of the Republican rebels, was more optimistic about the direction of talks with McCarthy, saying “there have continued to be constructive, healthy conversations on how we’re gonna work together this entire conference to cut spending.”

Related Stories:

© 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Here’s The Single Most Important Question 2024 GOP Presidential Candidates Must Answer


BY: BEN WEINGARTEN | JUNE 06, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/06/heres-the-single-most-important-question-2024-gop-presidential-candidates-must-answer/

Gov. Ron DeSantis

Author Ben Weingarten profile

BEN WEINGARTEN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BHWEINGARTEN

MORE ARTICLES

There is one fundamental question that any candidate vying for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in 2024 must answer — but that as of yet has gone largely unaddressed, at least publicly, as the field spars over significant but ultimately subordinate issues. The question is this: How will you win the general election under the present voting system?

An inability to answer this question clearly, compellingly, and convincingly imperils Republican odds of retaking the White House, no matter how favorable their prospects might look come next November. It is incumbent on anyone who wants to earn the Republican presidential nomination to answer this question at the outset, and to operate accordingly.

Over the last two election cycles, Republicans lost in historically aberrant if not unprecedented ways. That, or they underachieved relative to what conditions on the ground would have suggested. Political analysts have pointed to numerous factors to explain why the results broke the way they did, but perhaps the one constant in the presidential and midterm elections was that they were both held under a radically transformed voting system.

Democrats are so well-positioned to thrive under this system that even under the most favorable political circumstances, and with a “perfect” Republican presidential candidate, it is not at all clear that such a candidate would prevail. At least that is the prudent assumption under which Republicans serious about winning the presidency should be operating.

As Americans well know, we are lightyears removed from the election days of old — singular days when people voted in person, on paper ballots, after presenting identification. Now, we have mass mail-in elections, conducted over weeks, where those voting in person often do so on electronic machines, and with lax identification standards.

New Norms

Democrats largely developed and long fought for this system, willing it into existence under the cover of Covid-19. Naturally, they have successfully manipulated and exploited the voting regime they made.

Ballot harvesting is becoming an accepted norm. Candidates not only have to earn votes but figure out how to collect as many votes as they possibly can. Are Republicans overnight going to out-harvest their opponents, or figure out some new means to identify and turn out voters otherwise sitting on the sidelines in sufficient numbers to overcome Democrats’ ballot-harvesting superiority?

“Zuckerbucks” continue to loom over our contests as well, despite bans in many states. The left is doing everything it can to steer private money toward public election administration — administration done in conjunction with left-wing nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) seemingly targeting the Democrat ballots needed to win.

Prepare for Lawfare

Lawfare is also now an integral part of our election system. Republicans have started to devote significantly greater attention and resources to the litigation game, but to catch up to Democrats will require a long-term, sustained effort, backed with real money. And filing suit over election policies and practices after votes have already been cast of course has proven a losing proposition, as demonstrated by courts’ unwillingness to grapple with fundamental issues around the 2020 election largely on technical grounds.

Meanwhile, Democrats have engaged in efforts to ruin the lives of Republican election lawyers — in their own words to “make them toxic in their communities and in their firms” — seeking to kneecap their competition before it ever reaches the courtroom.

Are Republican candidates devising comprehensive election lawfare strategies right now to both aggressively target existing election chicanery and stave off that which is to come — with the courage and intellectual heft behind it needed to win in the face of an unrelenting and calculating opposition?

Daunting Challenges

These in-built challenges exist before even discussing election fraud, and the imperative for a Republican candidate to exhaust every available means to prevent it, and in the absolute worst case to detect and mitigate it — this at a time when voting happens at further remove from the election booth than ever before, making finding and proving fraud all the more difficult.

Layer on top of these issues the broader forces any such candidate will be up against, and the prospect of winning becomes even more daunting.

Among them is a concerted ruling-class effort to stymie any Republican nominee who might challenge its power and privilege, as President Donald Trump found himself up against in 2020. As Time’s Molly Ball described it in her infamous “Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election” exposé, Trump faced: a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.

They were not rigging the election,” Ball wrote, “they were fortifying it.”

This “cabal” will re-engage in 2024 and redouble its election “fortification” efforts, perhaps especially in “controlling the flow of information” — this is the working assumption Republicans must operate under. Candidates should also assume the deep state will engage in all manner of dirty tricks. The election interference has already begun in earnest. Frankly, it has been ongoing since 2016.

Given the Democrats’ advantages, it would be foolish for any Republican candidate, no matter how formidable, and against an opponent no matter how weak, to presume victory is preordained or even likely in 2024.

The two leading candidates have, to their credit, acknowledged the challenges presented by the voting system and Republicans’ failings in competing under it.

Former President Donald Trump has vowed that “we will become masters at ballot harvesting.” “We have no choice,” he has said, but to “beat Democrats at their own game.” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis also recently said, “We’re going to do ballot harvesting,” and that he won’t “fight with one hand tied behind [his] back.”

In that spirit, Republican candidates should devise and articulate a comprehensive plan to win, aimed at an electorate largely dubious of a system they see as rigged. Many are demoralized by this system, which could dampen turnout in key areas.

A Plan

In an ideal world, such a plan would begin with an effort to lobby state legislatures to pass a battery of election integrity-strengthening laws seeking to restore voting, to the greatest extent possible, to the standard of single-day, in-person, and with identification; purge voter rolls of ineligible names; provide maximum transparency and visibility into the voting process for observers, challengers, and the candidates; facilitate real-time arbitration over contested ballots and irregularities, and clear remedies for broader alleged malfeasance; empower state authorities to pursue vote fraud; and impose utterly crippling criminal penalties on anyone who engages in it.

Beyond a legislative effort to ensure end-to-end election integrity from delivery of ballot to vote-counting, candidates must lay out a realistic roadmap for success by internalizing lessons of recent election cycles and forthrightly recognizing Republicans’ strengths and weaknesses. They must determine how to optimally deploy finite resources to triumph in a bloody political war, and play on whatever advantages Republicans may have.

To prepare such a plan, candidates should seek to identify: Democrats’ most effective and decisive strategies and tactics in recent election cycles; what Democrats will do to improve upon these efforts; Republicans’ greatest strategic and tactical failures and successes in recent election cycles; Republican advantages yet to be exploited; and the most significant election integrity-eroding laws, policies, and practices on a state-by-state basis in recent election cycles.

Such an analysis would help the candidates determine which strategies and tactics to replicate, improve upon, experiment with, and totally discard. It would also help them anticipate the strategies and tactics they should combat using whatever means available, and, relatedly, discern what rules and features of the game they must relentlessly litigate over — as Democrats will no doubt be doing.

Then, candidates could develop a precinct-level plan to find and maximize turnout among voters in the most pivotal locales while building as strong and aggressive an on-the-ground poll challenging/fraud detection operation as possible to deter illegal or unethical Democrat behavior; develop a related lawfare plan; and determine how much money they must raise to implement the plans, when and where to allocate the funds, and to whom.

At minimum, this thought exercise would yield critical insights, and instill in voters and donors alike confidence there is a robust and coherent operation in place to maximize the odds for success.

The planning must begin now.

Only by competing and winning under a rotten system rewarding the kind of organizing and action historically anathema to conservatives will there ever be an opportunity to dismantle that system.


Ben Weingarten is Editor at Large for RealClearInvestigations. He is a senior contributor to The Federalist, columnist at Newsweek, and a contributor to the New York Post and Epoch Times, among other publications. Subscribe to his newsletter at weingarten.substack.com, and follow him on Twitter: @bhweingarten.

9 Questions Corporate Media Should Ask Biden About Latest Corruption Evidence But Won’t


BY: JORDAN BOYD | MAY 12, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/12/9-questions-corporate-media-should-ask-biden-about-latest-corruption-evidence-but-wont/

President Joe Biden talks to the press

Author Jordan Boyd profile

JORDAN BOYD

VISIT ON TWITTER@JORDANBOYDTX

MORE ARTICLES

Corrupt corporate media outlets love scandal but when it comes to questions about whether President Joe Biden sold out the U.S. to enrich his family, they deliberately turn a blind eye.

There are plenty of questions ripe for the asking about the Biden family’s dealings with people tied to some of the nation’s biggest foreign adversaries. Republicans have spent months searching for answers, but every piece of evidence of corruption they uncover simply raises more questions. Meanwhile, press outlets that usually busy themselves with aiding Democrat investigations of this nature either deny the evidence or remain silent altogether.

Here are nine questions the corporate media should ask POTUS about his latest scandal but likely won’t.

1. What Exactly Is the Biden Family Business?

Perhaps the biggest question the American people deserve to know an answer to is: What exactly does the Biden family do to warrant massive payments from foreign nationals? Outside of spending decades influencing U.S. domestic and foreign policy, nobody seems to know.

“We know what [Trump’s] businesses were. I’m not saying whether I agreed with what he did or not but I actually know what these businesses are. What are the Biden businesses?” Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer asked during a press conference this week.

2. Why Did Your Unqualified Grandchild Get Paid?

Joe Biden’s son Hunter receiving checks from foreign energy moguls makes some sense if you overlook his suspect rise to fame in the international energy sector. Why at least one of Biden’s grandkids, some nieces or nephews, and even an ex-daughter-in-law are all on the receiving end of funds from foreign nationals is unexplainable.

Despite having no formal experience or education that would qualify them to receive payments from foreign energy companies or “legal fees,” bank records show that at least nine people, between Biden family members and their lovers, spent decades getting rich on at least $10 million from people associated with some of the United States’ biggest foreign adversaries.

3. How Many More Bidens Received Money from Foreign Nationals?

If Hunter’s ex-wife Kathleen Buhle profited off of deals she claimed to have “my head buried in the sand” about, it’s more than fair to ask the president just how many more members of the Biden circle benefitted from these international deals.

4. Why Dilute Payments from Foreign Nationals?

Payments to the Bidens were diced up and transferred to a spread of Biden associates before hitting the family’s bank accounts. These transactions often occurred within weeks of significant political action by the then-vice president in the country of the transactions’ origins.

“It’s very hard to come up with any legitimate business reason to conduct transactions in this type of complex way,” Rep. Kelly Armstrong noted during a recent Oversight Committee presser. “Why would separate payments go to Hunter Biden’s business and to himself individually? Why would Walker transfer money from his business account to his personal account before distributing the money? Why are other Biden family members receiving any of these payments?”

These are fair questions, based not on speculation but on the pure facts outlined in the Biden family bank records. If the Bidens’ multimillion-dollar “business” is legitimate, the president shouldn’t have a problem answering basic questions about the complexity of transactions from Chinese, Romanian, and other companies.

5. How Many More Biden Bank Accounts and Shell Companies Are There?

Republican investigators say they’ve looked into four of at least 12 apparently Biden-linked bank accounts and have discovered “a web” of more than 20 companies that were “formed during Joe Biden’s vice presidency.” The question of how many more are out there has yet to be determined but could be helped with clarification from the president.

6. Why Did You Repeatedly Lie about Your Knowledge of Hunter’s Dealings?

During a presidential debate in October 2020, Biden told the nation that neither he nor any of his family members profited from overseas business deals with companies connected to communist China.

That is completely false. It’s also evident that Biden knew about his family’s dealings.

In fact, visitor logs show that Hunter’s associates visited the White House more than 80 times while the elder Biden was vice president. During some of these meetings, several of Hunter’s closest assistants and business partners met with Biden and Biden aides and even attended VP briefings. Vice President Biden also welcomed Hunter on several official trips on Air Force Two, which Hunter appeared to use to secure deals that would enrich his family.

Why would the president go to great lengths to lie over and over and over about it?

7. Should Presidents’ Families Make Money off of People Associated with Our Top Foreign Enemy?

The White House maintains Biden’s hands are clean. Yet, even if Republicans do not find a direct link between the president and the millions sustaining his family’s lavish lifestyles, as corporate media repeatedly and hypocritically demand, he is at least eligible for scrutiny just for his closeness to the alleged corruption.

Biden’s approval with Americans is already low. His proximity to the national security threat his family transactions pose only serves to further hurt that low trust.

8. Have You Instructed the DOJ to Avoid Taking Action against You and Your Family?

Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys in California and Washington, D.C. both apparently blocked the filing of criminal tax charges against Hunter Biden, according to one IRS whistleblower. The Department of Justice also gave potentially false statements about information on the Bidens’ business in China. And the FBI, which falls under the DOJ’s authority, has refused to turn over records that allegedly implicate Biden in a bribery scheme, despite a congressional subpoena. What’s stopping the DOJ from continuing to do what’s politically favorable for the president and his family by ignoring the issue at hand? Certainly not Biden.

9. How Many Media Outlets Have You Asked to Defend You amid the Investigation?

Comer asked Democrats this week “Do you want to continue covering up the Bidens’ influence-peddling schemes when the evidence is being placed right in front of you?”

The same can be asked of the corrupt corporate media which, since before the 2020 election, offered the president and his family not scrutiny but defense. From the moment House Republicans officially launched an investigation into Biden’s corruption, the press inaccurately asserted there was “no evidence of wrongdoing.” In addition to repeatedly taking the White House’s assertions of innocence at face value, the press tried to distract from the Biden family’s scandals by conflating that corruption with the Trump family’s conduct and blacked out coverage of Comer’s ongoing supply of evidence.


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Democrats’ Far-Reaching ‘Reforms’ Are the Real Threat to Election Security, Not Violent Conservatives


BY: HAYDEN LUDWIG | MAY 09, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/09/democrats-far-reaching-reforms-are-the-real-threat-to-election-security-not-violent-conservatives/

A California poll worker sanitizes a voting booth following its use at a Voter Assistance Center in Davis, CA during the 2020 General Election.

Author Hayden Ludwig profile

HAYDEN LUDWIG

MORE ARTICLES

The left doesn’t hide its goal of running our elections in secret. After all, democracy today effectively means “rule by Democrats.” The first step in transforming a free republic into a dictatorship is to brand the party’s enemies a security threat to the regime. The objective is to establish a police state built on terror with the power to arrest its critics on the pretext of national security.

New legislation would do exactly that: empower Democrats to bar poll watchers, brand Trump voters domestic terrorists, and use the Justice Department to remake local law enforcement into tools of the security state.

Whether they succeed hinges on whether conservatives will stand against the left’s lies.

Potemkin Villages

In late April, Senate Democrats introduced the Election Worker Protection Act to direct Justice Department funds for “the identification and investigation of threats to election workers”; expand the definition of “voter intimidation” laws to include “the counting of ballots, canvassing, and certification of elections”; and encourage the removal of “poll observers who are interfering with … the administration of an election.”

These measures are designed to bar conservatives from overseeing and, when necessary, challenging election results — a fundamental element of fair and impartial elections — using “security” to mask the country’s transition to despotism.

Operatives know that the bill isn’t likely to pass the Republican-controlled House. So they’ve turned to a tried-and-true tactic: pressure campaigns designed to fool and browbeat lawmakers into believing there’s a wave of popular support for a measure ginned up by Activism Inc.

Take the bill’s endorsees.

  • There’s the American Federation of Teachers.
  • the anti-super PAC End Citizens United (itself a super PAC).
  • Issue One and Democracy 21, both fans of stifling free speech through campaign finance restrictions.
  • Voices for Progress, a front for the multibillion-dollar “dark money” Tides Nexus.
  • and the phony “faith” group NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, among others.
  • Fifteen secretaries of state — all Democrats — also back the bill.

Anatomy of a Campaign

But the lead driver is the Committee for Safe and Secure Elections (CSSE), an astroturf coalition created to bully Republican lawmakers into rolling over for activists seeking to gut our elections and even imprison those who fight back.

CSSE presents itself as a grassroots, “cross-partisan” effort by concerned citizens, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. CSSE is run by the Brennan Center, a front for election “reforms” ranging from felon voting, to banning free speech as “disinformation,” to using taxpayer funds to register new Democrats.

The committee claims one right-leaning supporter among dozens: the sometimes-libertarian R Street Institute, a think tank often employed as a gun-for-hire for the left’s election “reforms.” The rest of CSSE’s backers are gilded denizens of the swamp.

That list is topped by ex-Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, who oversaw the commonwealth’s last-minute election law changes under cover of Covid-19. Lori Augino formerly led the National Vote at Home Institute, the group responsible for making vote-by-mail an article of faith among Democrats. Edgardo Cortes, a Brennan Center adviser, previously ran Virginia’s elections under Democrat Gov. Terry McAuliffe and was an activist for the left-wing Advancement Project.

The Elections Group is a consulting firm run by ex-Chicago election chief Noah Praetz and Jennifer Morrell, who previously advised eBay founder and Democratic mega-donor Pierre Omidyar’s philanthropy, Democracy Fund.

The Protect Democracy Project was created in 2017 by ex-Obama staffers to litigate the Trump administration into oblivion. Its counsel and CSSE representative, Orion Danjuma, is a former ACLU racial justice attorney.

States United was formed to counter Trump’s election lawsuits months before the 2020 election took place, battling state audits and issuing the first legal brief explaining why Mike Pence had no authority to reject electors. It’s a front for the Voter Protection Program, which fights voter ID laws and lobbies for automatic and same-day registration policies.

The Election Officials Legal Defense Network (EOLDN) also spreads the lie that officials are under assault by angry Republicans. EOLDN is a front for the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), which used $70 million from Mark Zuckerberg in 2020 to boost Democratic get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives.

PEN America supports free speech in classrooms — so long as “free” means promoting critical race theory and hypersexualized gender ideology. The Alliance for Securing Democracy is a front for the German Marshall Fund, an international left-wing funder, and is led by Obama and Clinton cronies including John Podesta.

Despite its name, the Bipartisan Policy Center was seeded by the left-wing Hewlett Foundation and is almost entirely led by Democrats. Similarly, the Committee of Seventy is a supposed conservative watchdog group that’s actually run by Never Trumper Al Schmidt and promotes the left’s redistricting policies.

Hypocrisy on Display

None of these groups operate in the mainstream conservative movement, nor are they actually “nonpartisan.” Yet the left is masterful in lending its political groups unfounded credibility thanks to its control of the media and government.

In March, for instance, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), a federal organ meant to help states administer their elections, hosted a glowing panel discussion on CSSE featuring “cross-partisan” panelists, each hailing from activist groups.

The EAC is overseen by two Democrats and two Republicans, one of whom (Ben Hovland) is a CSSE member. Hovland, a Democratic Trump appointee, blasted the president for challenging the 2020 results. He supported the $400 million “ZuckBucks” scandal that juiced voter turnout in Democrat-heavy districts with private funding from a partisan billionaire. (Twenty-four states have since banned the practice, and the House is weighing a similar measure). Hovland’s also appeared in policy events run by leftist advocacy organizations and in chummy interviews with the Center for American Progress.

Yet it was the EAC’s other Republican commissioner, Donald Palmer, who was recently castigated by the left for attending a confidential meeting of Republican secretaries of state on election policy. If the meeting had been run by Democrats, Palmer would be a hero, not a villain.

Policing the Police

CSSE produces advisory content for law enforcement to crack down on supposed threats to election workers. Its pocket guides for Georgia and Utah, for example, remind officers of state laws protecting administrators from harassment, yet the CSSE name and logo marked prominently on the documents remind one more of propaganda than helpful cheat sheets.

CSSE’s bizarre “training videos” are like the television show “24” for leftists. One video, darkly titled “What Election Violence Could Look Like,” sets up a scenario in which a bearded white man (the Proud Boy-esque Trump supporter) makes vaguely ominous comments to a female elections official (the victimized person of color), complete with finger guns in a slow-motion drive-by. Only a strong female cop, probably equipped with her standard-issue CSSE election law guide, can put an end to his reign of terror.

The whole scenario is absurd political theater meant to establish a smokescreen for passing unpopular and extreme measures that would further federalize our elections. And perhaps that’s the point. Democrats have long played upon imaginary fears to instill unity in the ranks before launching a major policy push.

It’s much easier to repress the opposition when they’re dehumanized. Will conservatives be next?

Faced With Rainbow Mobs, Republicans Have Insurrectile Dysfunction


BY: PEACHY KEENAN | MAY 04, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/04/faced-with-rainbow-mobs-republicans-have-insurrectile-dysfunction/

rainbow and trans flags over the Constitution
Flaccid red states need to firm up — fast.

Author Peachy Keenan profile

PEACHY KEENAN

MORE ARTICLES

I recently wrote about the current wave of rainbow-flavored “insurrections” sweeping through America’s red statehouses. I called them part of a color revolution. Color revolutions, you will recall, are traditionally “popular uprisings against authoritarian regimes, such as those that took place in former Soviet countries such as Ukraine and Georgia in the early and mid-2000s.”

In our American color revolution, the script has flipped. Here, red states are the only rebels standing strong in the face of increasingly authoritarian central power — wrapped, of course, in the rainbow flag. 

Tennessee recently made a star out of State Rep. Justin Pearson, the code-switching preacher man with the afro who just a few years ago was a repp tie-wearing prep at Colgate, but this year led an invasion of screaming gun-control protesters into the Tennessee Capitol, shut it down, and got himself expelled (temporarily, of course. Plot twist: The lead characters on this show always win in the end!)

We’ve now seen color revolutionaries take to state capitols in Tennessee, Montana, Kansas, Kentucky, Florida, Oklahoma, and Missouri. This week, the color revolution came to Texas. The radicals are on top. And (if you will excuse my French), thanks to their total effete ineffectuality, red states are getting bottomed, hard.

The Best Little Statehouse in Texas

Showrunners set this week’s episode of “Transurrection” in Texas. Why? They can’t turn Texas blue, right? …Right?

Twitter soon filled up with clips of the state Capitol in Austin getting overrun by a shrieking mob of LGBT cuckoos waving transgender flags and shutting down voting on an important bill. They’ve been keeping Austin weird for years, biding their time, and it finally paid off.

A Texas Republican state delegate on the scene tweeted a video of the mob and reported, “Trans activists are losing their minds, shoving signs into [a Texas conservative’s] face, and allowing spit to spew from their mouths while they scream ‘no place for hate.’” You have to admire their shamelessness, frankly. “No place for hate!” they scream, as they bludgeon their enemies.  

The “hate” bill in question, naturally, would ban genital mutilation of children statewide. As we know by now, the idea of not being permitted to permanently sterilize and castrate kids makes sterilized and castrated adults very, very mad. How dare you not let us ritually initiate your son into our family-friendly extreme body modification cult!

local newspaper reported on the action: “More than one hundred protesters rallied at the Capitol in opposition to the bill Tuesday in anticipation of the floor debate, engaging in chants including, “Protect Trans Kids!” and holding signs reading, “Let Trans Kids Grow Up.” 

Am I the only one who notices the irony here? They want to “let trans kids grow up” — by putting them on irreversible puberty blockers that literally stop them from growing up. Logic — like charm, charisma, and good looks — is not this group’s strong suit.

But, as always, their ugly tactics work. “As protesters were removed from the House gallery, Democrats in the House on Tuesday successfully delayed debate on Senate Bill 14, which would ban certain gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors. Using a procedural tactic … the bill was sent back to the House Committee on Public Health, then voted out of the committee again Tuesday evening,” the paper reported, emphasis mine.

They may still lose in the end, but they survived the day. 

I feel like I’m watching a new streaming docudrama show on Netflix: “Game of Throngs.” “The Transmandalorian.” “Sex Reassignment in the City.”

Last week’s episode was set in Montana and guest-starred an unknown man in a dress, an impish scamp named Zooey Zephyr. Zooey is not your typical social media starlet; he’s got a strong jawline, a prominent Adam’s apple, and a deep voice. His script, however, follows the Tennessee storyline virtually line for line. Zooey led his “transurrection” over a new Montana bill that would outlaw transgender interventions for children. Just like in Tennessee, he broke the rules, caused a riot, got ejected, and then used the ejection as a battering ram to take down the Republican leadership. Here’s how Fox reported it:

‘The only thing I will say is if you vote yes on this bill and yes on these amendments, I hope the next time there’s an invocation when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands,’ Zephyr said when debating SB99. Critics demanded an apology. However, after refusing to do so, Republicans led the chamber in a 68-32 vote last week to bar Zephyr from accessing the House floor. Zephyr cannot enter the anteroom or gallery but can vote remotely. (Emphasis mine)

Even when they lose they win! 

How many times can they run this same storyline? Answer: At least 50 times, one for each state that requires it. 

I seem to remember some other event a few years back, when protesters holding flags entered a capitol to stop lawmakers from voting on something. If I recall correctly, a lot of them were sentenced to years in prison for daring to block a vote. I will pray none of the nonbinary furries in the Texas Capitol suffer the same fate! They don’t look like they could last five seconds away from their cats. 

Painting the Red Town Blue

New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie, who also moonlights as my personal fact checkeroffers us a chilling glimpse into how the left will continue to frame red states that dare to mildly reprimand the revolutionaries in their midst: 

The foundation of modern American democracy is that all Americans deserve some kind of representation in the rooms where law and policy are made. Not content to control those rooms in states where they dominate the political scene, some Republicans have said, in essence, that representation is a privilege for communities whose chosen lawmakers don’t offend their sensibilities. (Emphasis mine)

I like to picture flustered Republicans hitting the smelling salts and the fainting couch, like Scarlett’s Aunt Pittypat, when the winsome Zoey Zephyr and his merry band of rebels made a bit of noise during working hours.

Hilariously, the title of Bouie’s column is “A Sinister New Page in the Republican Playbook.” Maybe I shouldn’t say this out loud, but: The Republicans don’t have a playbook. 

wish they had a sinister playbook! How can we get them a sinister playbook and teach them how to use it? Because they absolutely do not know what to do in the face of mob rule. They are off balance. Unprepared. And it will only get worse. 

In March, even Kansas had a “transurrection.” “Defiant transgender children, filled with love and rage, march on Kansas Statehouse.”

One of these was an almost-10-year-old Cassandra Robinson, who in the photos looks like a muscular little boy with long hair dyed green, and wore “a T-shirt that read: ‘inspired by the STRONG WOMEN in my life.’” There is no 10-year-old on Earth who would dream up a sentence like that and want it on a T-shirt. Is his name a cry for help?

End Game

So, what’s the end goal? This is not just about gun control, or the “right” to castrate 8-year-olds. 

Here’s what I think it’s obviously about: performing a radical mutilation surgery on the Constitution. Neutering it, for good — irreversibly even. This is the ultimate prize. Of course, it’s incredibly hard to change the Constitution, with good reason. That’s why it’s rarely been done in our history. 

There are a few ways to rewrite the Constitution, but all the paths go through the states. You need three-fourths of states to ratify a new amendment. Insurmountable? Democrats already have 20 to 22 blue and purple states. They need 37, and that means the South is the juiciest prize, especially with its rapidly changing demographics.

Even in red states like Tennessee, they’d only need to flip 10 percent of the voters to win the state house. Age and heart disease will take care of the boomer-aged bitter clingers. College indoctrination will take care of the rest. Every four years a new crop of teenage voters arrives ready to make their “voices heard.” Time is on their side, not ours. And they’ve got all the time in the world. 

To my amazement, as I was wrapping up this article, I spotted this jaw-dropping headline in The New York Times: “It’s Time to Reacquaint Americans With the Possibility of Changing the Constitution. Here’s Where to Begin.

Well, color me reacquainted! “Our Constitution is one of the most difficult in the world to amend. … But the remoteness of the possibility of formal constitutional change today may be as much a product of constitutional culture as constitutional structure: Several generations of Americans have lost the habit and muscle memory of seeking formal constitutional change.” (Emphasis mine)

Got that? The color revolutionaries are developing new muscle memory they will get to flex again and again as they continue dominating us in their weight class. Meanwhile, hordes of radicals are greedily gnawing through the country’s aging superstructure.

The Color of Money

The “tranissaries” of the revolution are obviously well-funded and blessed with a loyal army of loudmouth fanatics willing to win by any means necessary. 

Are you?

I don’t know exactly who is directing and funding the revolutionaries. But it’s clear the country’s largest foundations and NGOs have these unsuspecting states in their sights. They have arrayed the full might of their billions squarely at “voting rights” and “defending democracy.” In other words, they are the architects behind activist mobs and the skilled ballot harvesters that have so far netted them win after win — including the White House. 

The Macarthur Foundation and Ford Foundation, which funds dozens of grassroots activist groups including something called the “Texas Civil Rights Project,” are on the case with their billions. The Carnegie Foundation is doing its part for the cause, too. And there are many others. These massive bloodless megaliths are cleverly wrapping themselves in the cozy civil rights issue of the day — poor little trans kids (or election overhauls favored by candidates who love that issue) — and winning enormous popular support. 

The wealth of America’s greatest old families is being used to systematically strip the place bare, and they’re looting it of everything that’s not nailed down. Including any stray toddlers. Viva la rainbow revoluçion!

It’s time to build a counterrevolution, fast. 


Peachy Keenan is a contributing editor and regular essayist for The American Mind, a publication of The Claremont Institute. She is the author of “Domestic Extremist: A Practical Guide to Winning the Culture War” (coming June 6th from Regnery). She also writes at peachykeenan.substack.com , and you can always find her on Twitter @keenanpeachy, at least until she is canceled.

Republicans Proved They Aren’t Holding Anyone ‘Hostage’ On Raising The Debt Limit


BY: CHRISTOPHER JACOBS | MAY 01, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/01/republicans-proved-they-arent-holding-anyone-hostage-on-raising-the-debt-limit/

Speaker McCarthy speaking behind podium on House floor
After last Wednesday’s vote, Democrats can’t claim conservatives amount to legislative nihilists who can’t get to ‘yes’ on an issue.

Author Christopher Jacobs profile

CHRISTOPHER JACOBS

VISIT ON TWITTER@CHRISJACOBSHC

MORE ARTICLES

Conventional wisdom holds that last week’s vote by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to approve a debt limit and spending reduction bill is meaningless. Democrats called the legislation dead on arrival in the Senate, making whatever the House decides to do on its own irrelevant.

As with many things in Washington, the corporate media’s conventional wisdom is wrong.

Approving a debt limit bill did more than dispel the narrative that the Republican House, and Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., will remain perpetually in disarray. By eliminating one of the major elements of Democrats’ political argument, it raised questions about their own strategic endgame.

House vs. Senate

Under the traditional, “Schoolhouse Rock” version of lawmaking, the House would pass its version of a bill, the Senate would pass its version, and the two would convene a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the measures. That outcome seems unlikely regarding this debt limit increase.

Virtually all Democrats support a so-called “clean” debt limit increase. That is, they want to extend the limit on the nation’s credit card without any accompanying spending reforms. (They claim they will discuss spending levels in separate legislation, just not as part of the debt limit.)

But most legislation requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance in the Senate, and Democrats only hold 51 Senate seats. As a result, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., must persuade nine Republicans — 10 if Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who continues to recover from a case of shingles in California, remains absent from the Senate — to approve a clean debt limit increase for the measure to clear the chamber. That scenario appears unlikely, as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would lean on his troops not to approve a Schumer-led measure.

Indeed, Schumer may not bring a debt limit bill to the Senate floor at all, rather than wasting precious days of the Senate schedule on a measure he believes will fail. But this strategy would allow members in the lower chamber to ask an obvious question: The House did its work, and approved a debt limit bill — why won’t the Senate do the same?

Republicans Get to ‘Yes’

But amid the larger debate about the debt limit and fiscal policy, a key point about last week’s events has somehow gotten lost. Democrats continue to decry supposed Republican “hostage taking,” alleging that conservative lawmakers are threatening to ruin the country’s full faith and credit unless Democrats acquiesce to their demands.

Ignore for a moment the not-insignificant question of whether the Treasury Department can prioritize government payments in the event Congress doesn’t increase the debt limit, so as to prevent a default on government bonds and protect the country’s credit rating. The Democratic argument in large part rests on the premise that Republican lawmakers would never vote to raise the debt limit.

All the talk about “hostage taking” — which the left has utilized ever since the Republican takeover of the House in 2010-11 turned the debt limit into a bigger political issue — might have merit if lawmakers under no circumstances would vote to increase the debt limit. If there is no possible way someone will vote for a debt limit increase, if a lawmaker’s vote isn’t “gettable,” to use the Beltway parlance, then yes, one might credibly accuse conservatives of wanting to sabotage the country’s credit rating, just to make a point.

That’s where last week’s vote proved revealing, and decisive. Numerous conservative members of Congress, who in the past had never supported legislation that raised the debt limit, voted last week for a bill to do just that. People like my friend and former think-tank colleague Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, probably didn’t like the idea of raising the debt limit, but they did it.

After last Wednesday’s vote, Democrats can’t claim conservatives amount to legislative nihilists who can’t get to “yes” on an issue. Instead, they don’t like the fact that Republicans said “yes” to raising the debt limit and “yes” to reforming federal spending. They can no longer attack Republicans for not approving the debt limit, so now they will try to attack Republicans for the way in which they did so.

That position amounts to an attempt to dictate both sides of the debate. It’s the legislative equivalent of a tennis player whining, “You didn’t hit the ball to me the right way.” It holds a particular irony given quotes like the following: “I cannot agree to vote for a full increase in the debt without any assurance that steps will be taken early next year to reduce the alarming increase in the deficits and the debt.”

That quote comes from none other than Joe Biden himself, circa 1984. Given the way in which he and many other Democrats previously supported the notion of linking a debt limit increase to spending reforms, this egregious flip-flop undermines the integrity of their position still further.

Now that Republicans in the House have agreed to a debt limit bill, Democrats should agree to get in a room, figure out each side’s position, and arrive at an agreement that will hopefully increase the debt limit while addressing the nation’s calamitous fiscal state. It’s called “legislating” — Congress actually doing its job.


Chris Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, and author of the book “The Case Against Single Payer.” He is on Twitter: @chrisjacobsHC.

Indiana Health Dept. Sits On Records Showing Two Babies Born Alive After Abortions, Three Women Dead


BY: JOY PULLMANN | APRIL 27, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/27/indiana-health-dept-sits-on-records-showing-two-babies-born-alive-after-abortions-three-women-dead/

girl at abortion facility
Indiana’s GOP legislature is poised to increase funding 2,000 percent for an agency that oversaw abortion businesses after whose services three women died in 2022.

Author Joy Pullmann profile

JOY PULLMANN

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOYPULLMANN

MORE ARTICLES

Indiana abortion records The Federalist obtained this week indicate that in 2022 three women died after abortion procedures and two babies were born alive after chemical abortions. They also suggest Indiana abortionists failed to report four abortions on girls aged 15 and younger, as legally required. One of the minors not referred for a state abuse investigation after her abortion, a violation of state law, was just 13 years old, the records say.

The Indiana Department of Health receives legally mandated Terminated Pregnancy Reports on each abortion committed in the state. More than 100 of these from January to November 2022 indicate that abortion facilities in the state may have committed crimes and health violations, according to recordkeeping from Voices for Life, a Hoosier pro-life organization.

IDH has shut down no abortion facilities since January 2022, however, even facilities where records show women died after abortions. As for the 22 abortionists named in these numerous recent reports indicating potential medical malfeasance, “I am not aware of any doctors who have lost their licenses,” Voices for Life Executive Director Melanie Garcia Lyon told The Federalist Wednesday.

IDH communications personnel did not respond to any questions about these records from The Federalist.

GOP to Reward Incompetent Health Agency

Indiana’s Republican governor and Republican-dominated legislature are poised to increase taxpayer funding for the health department by 2,000 percent this week, from $7 million a year to more than $150 million. IDH also pushed Indiana families into lockdown and covid testing chaos across two school years despite early-available evidence children were at low risk from Covid-19 exposure.

Gov. Eric Holcomb is now using the damage his lengthy Covid shutdowns caused, including mental distress, obesity, and academic catastrophe, to amp up funding for the shutdowns’ top enabler and enforcer in Indiana. That enforcer also happens to be low-energy in investigating abortion businesses whose services have resulted in Hoosier women’s deaths.

Voices for Life and their national partner Students for Life collect these records and file complaints about apparent violations with IDH and the state attorney general’s office, Garcia Lyon told The Federalist. Forty percent of the potential violations the group found from January to November 2022, Garcia Lyon said, were from Planned Parenthood locations.

After receiving such complaints, the office of Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita investigates, then submits a summary or a complaint to Indiana’s medical licensing board, said Rokita Press Secretary Kelly Stevenson. The board hears complaints and decides whether to sanction the investigated abortionist or facility. Indiana’s governor oversees that board and appoints its seven members.

On Saturday in Indianapolis, Students for Life and Voices for Life will highlight the state-reported health and safety violations related to an abortion facility that may move across the border to Illinois. That’s the Clinic for Women, currently in Indianapolis.

In September, Indiana banned abortions, except for very small babies who are the claimed results of rape and incest. The law is currently suspended by two injunctions pending litigation. Garcia Lyon noted that the law “still allows for abortion at hospitals. And the same people making these violations often do abortions in hospitals already. [So] code violations will still be relevant once the law goes into place, because it’s still the same people, just moving places.”

Records: 15-Year-Old Girl’s Womb Evacuated By Infamous Abortionist

One of the abortion reports, dated April 21, 2022, shows a chemical abortion on a 15-year-old girl performed by abortionist Deborah Nucatola in Bloomington, Ind. at a Planned Parenthood. Nucatola was infamously recorded on a 2015 undercover video discussing how to “crush” a child to death during an abortion to leave his organs intact for sale.

The state report suggests this abortion was not reported, as legally required, to the state Department of Child Services for investigation as the potential result of child rape. The space on the form for the date of reporting this abortion to IDH is blank. Legally, the form states, the abortion should have been disclosed to DCS within three days of the child’s death.

Debora Nucatola_PP Bloomington 4.21.22 Unreported Abortion on Minor (1) by The Federalist on Scribdhttps://www.scribd.com/embeds/640915572/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-IfmOusQhz4pGVSMM0Ko3

One of the four underage girls whose 2022 abortions weren’t reported to child services, as legally required, was 13 years old when her child was aborted, according to state records. That surgical abortion on a seven-week-old baby was performed at a Planned Parenthood branch in Indianapolis by abortionist Cassandra Cashman, the record states.

DCS also failed to answer any Federalist questions about these reports.

Records: 3 Women Died After Indiana Abortions in 2022

According to three TPRs from 2022, three women died in Indiana after abortions at facilities overseen by the Indiana Department of Health. At the Indianapolis Sidney and Lois Eskenazi Hospital, a 31-year-old married woman died after an abortion on June 25, 2022, says one TPR.

The record says she was given abortion pills when her baby was 21 weeks of gestation, an age at which babies can survive outside the womb in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The baby was diagnosed via ultrasound with a chromosomal anomaly, says the record, which IDH received on July 22, 2022. The physician committing this abortion was listed as Amy Caldwell in the report.

Caldwell was also the abortionist listed on the April 24, 2022 report of another Hoosier woman who died after an abortion at Planned Parenthood-Georgetown in Indianapolis. The 29-year-old unmarried woman was given abortion drugs to kill a 7-week-old baby, say the state records.

The third Hoosier woman to die after an abortion in 2022 undertook a surgical abortion in Bloomington, Indiana, by abortionist Rhiannon Amodeo, says another state record. The baby cut to pieces inside her was an estimated eight weeks old. His mother was 31 years old. The Indiana Department of Health received the report of this double death on November 23, 2022.

Caldwell is also listed as the physician on a January 7, 2022 report that says she delivered a baby alive during an abortion procedure. That baby was also potentially viable in a NICU: she was listed on the report as 20 weeks old when her mother and an abortionist ended her life.

Indiana Department of Health Blaming Data ‘Errors’ Since 2018

In March 2022, Hoosier pro-lifers said the Indiana Department of Health stopped releasing Terminated Pregnancy Reports for a South Bend facility after local conservative news highlighted TPRs indicating multiple illegal abortions at the Whole Women’s Health facility.

“Over the past four years, IDOH has taken zero action on reported abortions that indicate they were illegally performed,” wrote state Rep. Jake Teshka in a March 2022 letter to the agency about the incident.

More than 50 Indiana lawmakers wrote to Holcomb in 2021 complaining about the IDH’s history of alleged data errors and lackluster follow-up on abortion reports that indicate potential crimes. The letter noted that since at least 2018 the department has claimed several abortion reports that indicate criminal or health-violating activity were false, due to “computer error.”

“We submit complaints all the time about things that are reported on Terminated Pregnancy Reports, and the excuse nearly every time is, ‘Oh, it was an error. Oh, it was an error,’” Jackie Appleman, a Voices for Life board member, told a local newspaper in February after the department used the excuse again over reports of unlicensed abortions occurring in Indiana. “We’ve been getting this excuse back from the (Indiana) health department for the last, I don’t know, three or four years.”

The December 2021 letter from elected officials notes that despite multiple postabortion deaths of women and abortions performed at unlicensed facilities, Indiana abortionists have failed to lose their medical licenses and IDOH has failed to resolve investigations into such cases. The officials asked Holcomb to update them on “on all open cases relating to abortion clinics” and to investigate why complaints “are not examined and resolved.”

Holcomb responded in January 2022, providing no update on IDH investigations of abortion facilities nor announcing any investigation into why IDH fails to secure penalties for abortionists after procedures that lead to women’s deaths. One year later, he moved to reward the badly discredited IDH with hundreds of millions more taxpayer dollars. Holcomb’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Instead of demanding that IDH prove competence at stopping criminal and human rights violations under its purview before any expansion of its duties, the Indiana legislature is cooperating with Holcomb in rewarding IDH with a 2,000 percent increase in taxpayer funding.


Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her just-published ebook is “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” Her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” Mrs. Pullmann identifies as native American and gender natural. Her many books include “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books. Joy is also a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs.

The one pivot Republicans could make to start winning again


 By Liz Peek | Fox News | Published April 11, 2023 4:00am EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/one-pivot-republicans-make-winning

Republicans have an abortion problem, and there is only one Party leader who can fix it: Donald Trump.

Let me explain. Like the proverbial dog chasing the bus, the GOP spent years campaigning on the promise to appoint Supreme Court justices who would repeal Roe v. Wade but when finally successful, had no idea how to navigate the resulting political landscape. Democrats have used the reversal of Roe and Republicans’ subsequent anti-abortion initiatives to paint the party as extreme, thereby winning over women and younger voters.

The overturning of Roe handed abortion policy back to the states, where it will stay for the foreseeable future. Our country is so divided on the issue that Congress is unlikely to pass a nationwide law any time soon.

MACE CALLS TEXAS MIFEPRISTONE RULING ‘UNCONSTITUTIONAL,’ SAYS GOP ON ‘WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY’ ON ABORTION

Given that power, some red states like Texas have enacted draconian laws banning all or nearly all abortions, a position that is unpopular with the majority of Americans. Other states have had long-standing restrictions on the books that were not enforceable because of Roe; now, some of those are in play.

Video

Wisconsin, for instance, has a statute from 1849 that banned most abortions. That law is under review by the state’s Supreme Court. Just recently, Badger State residents voted to fill a seat on that court; a Democrat who favors abortion rights won that race by a shockingly wide margin after the contest became the most expensive such match-up in Wisconsin’s history. Because of that win, liberals now hold a majority on the state court, for the first time in decades. 

Remember that Donald Trump won Wisconsin in 2016, and then lost it in 2020 to Joe Biden, both by narrow margins; it is truly a “swing state”. In the 2022 midterm elections, Republicans actually gained seats in Wisconsin’s state legislature. So, the recent loss of the court seat, driven by the dispute over abortion, should be a wake-up call to Republicans.

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ELECTION TURNOUT BREAKS RECORD AS DEM-BACKED CANDIDATE WINS

Red states, too, have delivered warning shots to Republicans. Last year in Kansas, voters soundly defeated a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution that would have banned abortions. Even in conservative Kansas, about 60% of voters shot down the measure. As in the Wisconsin senate race, turnout was extremely high.

Polling shows very clearly that Americans want abortion to be safe, legal and also to be restricted to the early months of pregnancy. Some 61% of Americans in a Pew survey last year said abortion should be legal in all or most cases – about the same number that defeated the Kansas resolution. 

Video

Polling also shows strong support (70%) for the kind of referendum offered voters in Kansas.  There are 14 states currently that have a total or near-ban on abortions, including some swing states like Wisconsin and Georgia – states which could determine the outcome of future presidential elections. Other swing states, like Ohio and Arizona, have bans that are on hold pending court rulings.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

How can Republicans be faithful to voters who firmly oppose abortion but also appeal to the majority, and win elections? By demanding that every state put abortion laws before voters, instead of allowing governors and state legislatures to dictate policy. In some states, that would likely result in a continuation of broad restrictions; in others, it would not. That’s called democracy, with all voters having their say. The GOP needs a leader to declare this the Party’s policy. The only person able and perhaps willing to do so is Donald Trump.

First, remember that abortion was not an issue central to Trump’s 2016 campaign. Indeed, he was barely familiar with party orthodoxy when he claimed early on that women who had abortions should be “punished,” a position he quickly reversed when admonished from the right and the left. Banning abortion ranks below China’s threat, a strong military and solid economic growth for the former president, and a lot of Republicans would agree with him.

Video

Second, Donald Trump has been blamed for post-Roe election losses in the midterms and in special elections. He would relish, instead, pinning those losses on the GOP’s abortion policies. 

Third, Trump can remind voters that the Republican Party is supposed to be the party of freedom and liberty. How can the GOP claim that mantle while denying half the country one of the most personal freedoms that exists – how to manage their own bodies and their families?

Fourth, Democrats have taken an extreme position on abortion by passing offensive laws in states they dominate. In New York, abortion is allowed up to and including at nine months, if “in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” The law does not specify what the health threat might be; depression might satisfy the “health care provider” who does not even have to be a doctor. It is time the GOP turned the “extremist” weapon on Democrats. 

Video

Fifth, Republicans need to broaden their appeal if they want to win elections. In the recent Chicago mayor’s run-off race, Paul Vallas, easily the more accomplished of the two competing Democrats, was defeated partly because his opponent ran ads featuring a 2009 clip in which Vallas describes himself as “more of a Republican than a Democrat.” Imagine: the Republican brand is so tarnished that in a troubled city bleeding residents, the “R” word elects a man with virtually zero credentials.

Any Republican candidate who comes out with a balanced abortion policy, even one that channels the majority of voters, will lose support among Evangelicals and the powerful pro-life movement. On the other hand, Trump is in an extremely strong position currently, notwithstanding his many legal issues, has been a champion of religious freedom and should be uniquely able to withstand the tempest. He can remind pro-lifers that he delivered a conservative Supreme Court, without which voters would not be able to choose. And, it is worth noting that not that long ago, the GOP, including then-Governor Ronald Reagan, were leaders in liberalizing abortion policy.

By siding with the American majority, Trump could do something powerful for the GOP: make it great again.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM LIZ PEEK

Liz Peek is a Fox News contributor and former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company. A former columnist for the Fiscal Times, she writes for The Hill and contributes frequently to Fox News, the New York Sun and other publications. For more visit LizPeek.com. Follow her on Twitter @LizPeek.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race Is the Left’s Opening to Reverse Years of Conservative Victories


BY: DAVE CRAIG AND JAKE CURTIS | APRIL 03, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/03/wisconsins-supreme-court-race-is-the-lefts-chance-to-reverse-years-of-conservative-victories/

split screen of two candidates
Wisconsin’s growing leftist base sees an opportunity to overturn all of the hard-fought reforms by flipping the state’s high court.

Author Dave Craig and Jake Curtis profile

DAVE CRAIG AND JAKE CURTIS

MORE ARTICLES

On Tuesday, Wisconsinites will once again head to the polls in a race that has garnered national attention and set national spending records for a judicial race. According to the most recent Wispolitics.com tally, the two Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates and outside groups have combined for over $45 million in spending. What’s at stake? All of the reforms of the Gov. Scott Walker era, and more.

Home to Walker, former Speaker Paul Ryan, former RNC Chairman and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, and conservative star Sen. Ron Johnson, Wisconsin has enjoyed an outsized role in national politics since 2010. Instead of cautiously governing like so many administrations in purple states, Walker and his allies advanced some of the boldest reforms in the nation. Starting with the historic Act 10 that resulted in a siege of the Capitol (and over $15 billion in taxpayer savings), conservatives advanced bold reforms like Right to Work, voter ID, concealed carry, castle doctrine, and a dramatic expansion of school choice.

Now, Wisconsin’s growing leftist base sees an opportunity to overturn all of the hard-fought reforms by flipping the state’s high court. Politico recently proclaimed the race “could be the beginning of the end for GOP dominance.” This would obviously be bad news for conservatives nationally since Wisconsin will undoubtedly play a huge role in who is president in 2025.

The two candidates running to replace the former conservative Chief Justice on the current 4-3 conservative court could not be any more different, and whoever wins will determine the ideological control of the court for years. Running as the progressive is Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Janet Protasiewicz. Instead of articulating a coherent judicial philosophy, she has consistently emphasized her “values” and how they will influence her decisions. She has also troublingly declared that Wisconsin’s legislative maps are rigged –  announcing her thoughts on an issue that is likely to come before the court if liberals gain the majority. She has stated that she disagrees with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that returned abortion law to the states. She is also the candidate that the left apparently sees as showing they “are done pretending that judges are merely legal umpires.”

Contrast Protasiewicz’s activism with the originalist approach of former Justice Dan Kelly, appointed to the court by Gov. Scott Walker, who authored historic decisions during his four years on the court and consistently quotes from the Federalist Papers on the campaign trail. His lead opinion in Tetra Tech upended decades of deference to administrative agencies.

While Kelly has been supported by the Republicans and Protasiewicz by the Democrats, it is clear that Protasiewicz views the job of a judge as a super partisan legislator, supplanting the legislature’s authority with that of her own. Forecasting what a liberal majority would do Wisconsin’s duly-enacted reform regime, liberal Justice Jill Karofsky herself has declared specifically that “everything that Wisconsinites care about is on the line in this election, from abortion rights to fair maps to the 2024 election to democracy itself, all of those things are going to be on the ballot on April 4th…” These are all issues that have been settled by the democratically elected legislature but are apparently all on the table for a liberal majority of the court.

While abortion, crime, and redistricting have been the main focus of the media and outside groups during the campaign, several other cases could be brought which would fundamentally transform the landscape in Wisconsin. Even cases that have already been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court are at risk of novel interpretations under the Wisconsin constitution by a new progressive majority.

An issue impacting tens of thousands of Wisconsin families that could be dramatically affected by the balance of the state Supreme Court is school choice. In 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the choice program for religious schools in Jackson v. Benson. There, the court reversed the lower court, holding that the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program was valid under both the Establishment Clause and Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which prohibits the use of money from the public treasury to be used for the benefit of religious societies, religious schools, or seminaries. The holding was based in large part on the fact that students in the program were not compelled to attend sectarian schools nor forced to participate in religious activities. The Court further held that public funds may be given to third parties as long as the program on its face is neutral between sectarian and nonsectarian alternatives and that the transmission of funds is guided by the decisions of independent third parties.

While the decision in Jackson has been in place for a generation, a court viewing itself as a super-legislature could undo the decision in part, or in whole, based on a narrowed view of the constitutional provisions reviewed in that case, particularly relative to monies “drawn from the treasury” that are used in the choice program. A court decision holding a strict view of the provision could decimate a program that provides alternatives to families desperately looking for an alternative to failing public schools.

Another issue likely to surface in the event the ideological makeup of the court shifts, as it has recently in other states, is the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s voter ID law. In League of Women Voters v. Walker and Milwaukee Branch of NAACP v. Walker, leftist groups challenged Wisconsin’s 2011 voter ID law, claiming the legislature lacked authority to enact a voting qualification under the Wisconsin constitution and that the law was an undue burden on the right to vote. Upholding the law, the Court noted that requiring an ID was within the legislature’s authority to provide for laws relating to elector registration under Article III, Section 2, that the law was a reasonable regulation that “could improve and modernize election procedures, safeguard voter confidence in the outcome of elections and deter voter fraud,” and that the burdens of gathering the required documents, traveling, and obtaining a photograph ID were not a substantial burden.

In a challenge to the voter ID law under the state constitution’s right to vote, an activist court could hold that a record demonstrating that numerous individuals claiming to have been deterred from voting because of the burden of obtaining an ID is evidence of a “substantial burden” that outweighs the threat of voter fraud and could strike down the law. The left will undoubtedly come after this important law ahead of the 2024 election as it has recently in other states. In a state with razor-thin margins of victory for conservative super-stars like Sen. Ron Johnson, opening the gate to fraudulent votes in the absence of a voter ID law could have major consequences in 2024 and beyond.

Finally, and least covered by the media, are the ramifications the court race might have on the shift of power back to the deep state. In the 2018 case Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wis. Dep’t of Revenue, the court departed from its practice of “deferring to administrative agencies’ conclusions of law.” In a case where a citizen may be challenging an agency’s interpretation of law or administrative rule, the court would no longer review the agency’s action with a “bias” toward the agency’s own interpretation. Agency interpretation is an issue that arises in courts every day across the country, measuring the amount of authority an agency wields on virtually any issue, ranging from taxation to education to election administration – many times involving an agency seizing authority the legislature never gave it. A restoration of agency deference by an activist court could result in an immediate shift of authority from the legislative branch to the unelected officials in the executive branch.

During the final days of the race, former Justice Dan Kelly is sprinting across to the state with a final closing message: saving the court. But the race is about more than just the court. It could impact policies duly enacted by the legislature that conservatives have worked for a generation to obtain. It will make a difference in securing elections and electing strong conservatives like Ron Johnson, who has demanded Covid transparency and has taken on the deep state, or electing central planners like Tammy Baldwin who want to strip us of our freedoms. The election on Tuesday presents a fundamental choice to voters.

Do they want Wisconsin to lurch backward with a progressive court that will undo so many of the reforms the legislature and Gov. Walker worked to implement over the last decade, or are they going to vote to save the court by elevating a former justice that will ensure a conservative majority that respects the law as written by the legislature? The choice is obvious. Save the court and save the state.


Dave Craig is a Waukesha attorney and served in the Wisconsin Legislature from 2011 to 2021. Prior to his election, he worked as an aide to Congressman Paul Ryan. Jake Curtis is an Ozaukee attorney who previously served as an agency Chief Legal Counsel in the Walker Administration.

Republicans Can’t Beat Democrats’ Election-Industrial Complex By Adopting Its Strategies


BY: JOSEPH ARLINGHAUS AND WILLIAM DOYLE, PH.D. | MARCH 16, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/16/republicans-cant-beat-democrats-election-industrial-complex-by-adopting-its-strategies/

ballot box
The sudden rise of well-funded election activist nonprofits represents a paradigm shift away from persuading and motivating voters, and toward manipulating the election process to benefit Democrats.

Author Joseph Arlinghaus and William Doyle, Ph.D. profile

JOSEPH ARLINGHAUS AND WILLIAM DOYLE, PH.D.

MORE ARTICLES

Over the last several months, a growing number of Republicans, including Donald Trump himself, seem to be having a change of heart about universal mail-in voting and ballot harvesting.

While few Republicans are ready to completely abandon policies that support election integrity and transparency, more and more seem willing to follow the old adage “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em,” and suggest that Republicans become significantly more reliant on universal mail-in voting and ballot harvesting to win elections. There is no worse idea in politics today.

Conservatives do not have the institutional or financial support to match Democrats in election activism and ballot harvesting, nor are they likely to be able to any time in the near future. The advantages Democrats have accrued over the last 20 years in election manipulation and “lawfare” are nearly insurmountable.

But this is not necessarily a portent of gloom and doom. The growing number of ultra-left Democratic candidates are deeply unpopular and would be unelectable outside deep-blue areas under the election norms that prevailed prior to the Covid-19 lockdowns and the 2020 presidential election.

Democrats’ performance in 2020 and 2022 would almost certainly have been far worse under conditions that involved persuading voters to go to the polls on Election Day, rather than relying on a complex web of wealthy nonprofits and armies of election activists to churn out mountains of mail-in ballots, submitted by indifferent voters, during greatly extended early voting periods.

Raw Institutional Power

Republicans need to better understand the vast institutional power that is arrayed against them on the left in the form of lavishly funded 501(c)(3) nonprofits and charitable foundations, along with legions of election lawyers, data analysts, and election activists.

Consider the shadowy Arabella Advisors, a nonprofit consulting company that guides the strategy, advocacy, impact investing, and management for high-dollar, left-leaning nonprofits and individuals. Arabella provides these clients a number of services that enable them to enact policies focused on left-of-center issues such as election administration and “voting rights.”

Arabella Advisors also manages five nonprofits that serve as incubators and accelerators for a range of other left-of-center nonprofits: the New Venture Fund, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the Hopewell Fund, the Windward Fund, and the North Fund. The New Venture Fund was the second-largest contributor, behind Mark Zuckerberg, to the Center for Tech and Civic Life in 2020. The Sixteen Thirty Fund spent $410 million during the 2020 election cycle, which was more than the Democratic National Committee spent.

These nonprofits have collectively supported hundreds of left-wing policy and advocacy organizations since the network’s creation. In 2020, Arabella’s nonprofit network boasted total revenues exceeding $1.67 billion and total expenditures of $1.26 billion and paid out $896 million in grants largely to other left-leaning and politically active nonprofits.

There is no comparable organization with anything close to this level of financial clout in the Republican world.

Beneath philanthropic foundations and holding companies such as Arabella, there is a world of left-of-center 501(c)(3) nonprofits focused on elections. The Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute has identified at least ten 501(c)(3) nonprofits that we believe played key roles in the 2020 election on behalf of the Democrat Party.

These groups were already in place and ready to implement strategies calculated to give Democrats an electoral advantage long before state-by-state legal barnstorming transformed the norms of American voting systems in the name of Covid-19.

Some of these groups are mainly policy-oriented, focused on increasing Democrat votes by promoting vote-by-mail, ballot drop box initiatives, extended early voting periods, and the relaxation of voting standards such as voter ID. These organizations ranged from local efforts such as the New Georgia Project to national projects like Democracy Works, The Voter Project, and the National Vote at Home Institute.

Another group of nonprofits sprang into action in 2020 to finance the implementation of the Democrats’ election agenda, including hiring new personnel, voter canvassing, ballot harvesting, new election infrastructure such as ballot drop boxes, targeted public relations campaigns, and expensive ballot “curing” efforts.

These organizations, which ended up spending well more than $400 million in 2020, include the now infamous Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), the Center for Secure and Modern Elections (CSME), and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), among others. Once again, there is no similar complex of election-oriented institutions in the Republican world.

Democrats’ ‘Election-Industrial Complex’

These organizations are not arms of political campaigns nor “dark money” partisan advocacy groups, both of which are normal parts of the traditional electoral process. They have nothing to do with persuading voters or “getting out the vote” in the traditional sense, but are instead devoted to gaining an advantage for Democrat candidates by changing election laws, manipulating the election process, and promoting new voting technologies.

This complex web of lavishly funded nonprofits and foundations is not just large and extremely powerful: It is without comparison on the right.

The institutions that support the left’s election activism are so large and so powerful, one might refer to them as an “election-industrial complex.” Election activism is a multi-billion-dollar per year business in the world of Democratic Party politics.

ELECTION-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

The Democrats’ election-industrial complex burst into full view in 2020 with CTCL’s $332 million Covid-19 Response Grant Project, funded almost entirely by Facebook founder Zuckerberg, which was aimed at gaining control of election offices in areas that were critical to Democrat campaigns in 2020 through large, “strings attached” grants.

The bulk of that money was spent in a sophisticated effort to increase turnout among a specific profile of voter in order to benefit Democrat candidates. All large CTCL grant recipients were required to “encourage and increase absentee voting” mainly through providing “assistance” in absentee ballot completion and the installation of ballot drop boxes, and to “dramatically expand strategic voter education & outreach efforts, particularly to historically disenfranchised residents.”

It has yet to sink in among many Republicans that the CTCL, and the myriad other election activist nonprofits they partnered with in 2020 to carry out their plans, represent a substantively different challenge than Democrats outspending Republicans in conventional election spending. 

The sudden rise to prominence of these institutions represents a paradigm shift in the way elections are organized, away from persuading and motivating voters, and toward manipulating the election process, introducing new voting rules, and supporting voting technologies that benefit Democrats and handicap Republicans.

This is the paradigm that many Republicans now propose to embrace, with virtually no institutional or financial support.

Conservatives Must Rebuild Classic Electoral Norms

Conservatives are supposed to be involved in conserving things, and there are few things more worth conserving than the U.S. election system as it has existed throughout most of American history. U.S. elections used to be the envy of the world even 10 years ago, but since then have deteriorated to the point where a large and growing proportion of the population views election results with deep skepticism.

Viewing the grotesque Covid-19 era distortions in the present electoral landscape as an unalterable fait accompli means abandoning our election system to a vast institutional complex that seeks to make the voting booth a relic and Election Day an anachronism.

Even worse, the left’s election-industrial complex seeks to reshape voting into a private activity, to be undertaken at home at the initiative of community organizers and activists, as opposed to a public activity that takes place in a neutral public square, and which relies on the initiative of the voters. In the liberal election utopia, the sanctity of the voting booth and the secret ballot must give way to the collective intimacy of the kitchen table and the oversight of neighborhood political bosses.

For Republican activists to commit to a long-term strategy of universal mail-in voting and ballot harvesting would not only be a losing proposition from a practical standpoint, it would also contribute even further toward the transformation of our political system away from the control of civically engaged voters, and toward the consolidation of control in the hands of a small cadre of partisan activists and community organizers, as well as their numerous partners in the nonprofit world and administrative state.

There is a larger argument to be made, that universal absentee ballots and ballot harvesting must be opposed, not just from a practical standpoint, but also from a moral and philosophical point of view.  We will have much more to say in the future about how universal mail-in ballots represent an objectively disordered way of deciding elections, which must therefore be unconditionally opposed.  


Joseph Arlinghaus is the president and founder of Valor America, a conservative federal election SuperPAC founded in 2016 to use the latest social science research and randomized controlled election experiments that revolutionized the Democratic election world after 2005. He serves on the advisory board to the Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute. William Doyle, Ph.D., is research director at the Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute. He specializes in economic history and the private funding of American elections.

How Sarah Sanders Is Putting Arkansas On The Map


By: Brent Scher | March 13, 2023

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/how-sarah-sanders-is-putting-arkansas-on-the-map-2659587206.html/

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R.) / Getty Images

LITTLE ROCK, Ark.—Less than one month into her first term as Arkansas governor, Sarah Sanders was tapped to deliver the Republican response to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union, a speaking slot typically granted to rising stars in the party with the intent to elevate them onto the national stage. But stepping onto the national stage doesn’t appear to be Sanders’s goal—at least for now.

OTS

In her address, she used Arkansas as the example of what Republicans are doing across the country. “Here in Arkansas and across America, Republicans are working to end the policy of trapping kids in failing schools and sentencing them to a lifetime of poverty,” Sanders said.  ”We will educate, not indoctrinate our kids, and put students on a path to success.”

In an hour-long interview, the former White House press secretary dodged questions about the 2024 election, diverting the conversation back to what she’s doing in Arkansas.

She already has substantive accomplishments to point to. This past Tuesday, exactly one month after her State of the Union response, the state legislature passed Sanders’s signature legislation, an ambitious overhaul of Arkansas schools, and she has already signed it into law. Corey DeAngelis, a leading advocate for school choice, said Arkansas is now the “gold standard for educational freedom.”

The bill is a kitchen-sink approach to education reform—in addition to establishing universal school choice, it yanks obscene sexual materials and critical race theory from classrooms, sets stringent new learning standards, and raises the base teacher salary from $36,000 to $50,000.

“This is what bold conservative education legislation looks like,” Sanders said from the governor’s office, where she monitored the debate on the bill taking place on the other side of the Capitol.

And Sanders says Arkansas as a whole can be the “blueprint” for what conservative states could do.

Sanders joins a crowd of superstar Republican governors making headway by focusing on schools, and armed with a legislature of staunch conservatives, she’s charging ahead of other states. Florida’s Ron DeSantis is still fighting to get the sorts of reforms passed by Arkansas in Sanders’s first few weeks over hurdles in his legislature—his universal school choice bill, for example, faces even some Republican opposition. Sanders came out of her long campaign in Arkansas eager to establish herself as the “Education Governor” and thus far is doing just that.

Sanders’s growing profile has also made her a target of Democratic activists and politicians. Washington Post columnists are writing hit pieces questioning why anyone would move to Arkansas: “Good luck recruiting Californians for Arkansas, Sarah Sanders,” wrote Philip Bump. Shortly after Sanders’s national address, California Democratic governor Gavin Newsom took aim at Arkansas’s crime rate and last week was taking shots on Twitter about local Arkansas pieces of legislation.

Sanders acknowledges that she’s drawing more scrutiny to her state, but she doesn’t think that’s a bad thing. “We outkick our coverage, frankly, in a lot of places,” she said.

“When it comes to politicians on the national stage for a small state, we have some pretty big names out there,” the governor said. “I’m sure you’ll find people that will disagree, but my opinion is that it’s a good thing for our state, and I plan on using that platform to better us.”

Sanders says the critics are unavoidable. “I try to tune it out and stay focused on the objectives in front of us. There are people who wouldn’t care what’s in the bill, they’re gonna hate it simply because I’m associated with it. They don’t want to see me be successful. Certainly, that’s disappointing, but not surprising, and it’s not gonna slow us down from doing things that we feel like are the right thing to do.”

Sanders sharpened her ability to drown out the critics as White House press secretary. Not only was Sanders the longest-serving Trump administration press secretary—she was the only person to hold the job for more than a year—she was also the most successful, taking over as the daily briefing became a media feeding frenzy and adding a semblance of order to the chaos. She remains beloved by staff, some of whom followed her to Arkansas, and her former boss, to whom she still talks regularly.

Though Sanders is taking advantage of lessons learned at the White House, former colleagues say she’s also developed the ability to talk fluently about policy.

“We used to tell her, you need to get more detail,” said a former White House colleague. “Now the opposite is the case. She’s gone from somebody who was laser-focused on communications with a thin understanding of the policy to somebody who is a policy expert. It’s impressive to me.”

It’s not the first transformation of her career, Sanders says. When she first joined the Donald Trump campaign, she never foresaw that she’d become the lead spokeswoman for Trump’s administration.

“I was much more on the strategy and political operation side, and really didn’t see myself as a front person or the public-facing individual,” she explained.

Sanders joined the Trump campaign in 2016 to do coalition-building in the South, but after a few TV appearances, Trump called her to say he wanted to see her on television every day. And at the White House, after Sanders filled in for then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer while serving as his deputy, Trump tapped her to fill the job.

Her rise to the Arkansas governorship is a different story. Sanders announced her run in January 2021 and, as the prohibitive favorite from the outset, had two years to prepare for the job. It’s during that time that she decided she wanted to be the “Education Governor”—she not only became an expert on the issue but also gained confidence that she had to make it her trademark legislation.

“I went to all 75 counties,” Sanders said. “Everywhere I went as I traveled on the campaign for two years, every community wants their kids to do better. If we don’t have a good education system in place, then we are not setting our kids up for success.”

On the ground in Arkansas, Republicans say Sanders has brought a “new energy” to the legislature. “The whole atmosphere and mood of everything is different,” said Bart Hester, who leads the state’s upper chamber. “It’s such a fun energy, an exciting and new energy. It’s fun to come in everyday.”

Hester says the onslaught of opposition from teachers’ unions against the education bill was no match for Sanders.

“We have a governor now where members are more scared of her than they are their superintendents or the teacher union—we’ve never experienced that,” Hester said. “They don’t want to disappoint her—they know that she’s super popular, they don’t want to be the guy that was against their number-one priority.”

Sanders scoffs at suggestions that her education plan was a “copycat” of legislation championed by DeSantis, another high-profile Republican governor. “Hard to copy when ours is much bigger and goes much further,” Sanders said. But she has nothing negative to say about her Republican counterpart in Florida, and says there’s a “great sense of camaraderie and willingness to share best practices” between her and DeSantis, who has emerged as Trump’s chief competition in the Republican Party.

Sanders is yet to weigh in on who the Republican presidential nominee should be in 2024—her “focus is solely on Arkansas,” she says, in the same way every ambitious and upwardly mobile politician does. And Trump, her former boss, reportedly called Sanders in recent weeks to ask for her endorsement, which still hasn’t come.

But she also said she “maintains a great relationship” with Trump, and left the door open for an endorsement in the future.

“When the time comes, maybe, but right now, I don’t want to do anything that takes away from the huge agenda list that we have to get done here in Arkansas,” Sanders said. “I don’t intend on slowing down on that front at any point soon. And so I don’t want to do anything that takes away, not just my attention, but also the attention of what we’re accomplishing.”

A former White House colleague who remains close to Sanders doesn’t expect her 2024 neutrality to change any time soon. “Trump’s not her boss anymore,” the former colleague said. “Her boss is the people of Arkansas, and that’s where I assume her priorities will lie.”

Republicans in the state appreciate her focus on Arkansas and recognize she’s putting the work they’re doing in the Capitol first. “Everyone wants a minute with her—she can be Sarah the national celebrity, or Sarah the governor, and she only has so many minutes in a day,” Hester said. “She is spending those minutes as Sarah the governor.”

Republican state senator Matt McKee says Sanders has the whole legislature bullish on Arkansas.

“I know Florida’s been at the forefront, Texas has done things, but Arkansas can be the place,” McKee said.

Sanders says her appreciation for Arkansas has grown since moving her family back to her home state. After traveling to each county for her campaign, she has enhanced her ability to sell the state to visitors. The governor boasts that she can point to the best place to eat in any Arkansas town—this reporter was sent to CJ’s Butcher Boy Burgers in Russellville.

When it comes to dining, things are going more smoothly for Sanders in Arkansas. Thus far, she says she hasn’t been denied service, as she was in 2019 at the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia.

TikTok

“You know, knock on wood, I have not been asked to leave any restaurant so far,” Sanders said. “It’s amazing to be home.”

If Anybody Should Pay Reparations for Slavery, It’s The Democrat Party


BY: WINSTON BRADY | MARCH 06, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/06/if-anybody-should-pay-reparations-for-slavery-its-the-democrat-party/

Slave shackle
If anyone should pay reparations to black Americans for the injustices of slavery, it should be the institutions that preserved slavery’s legacy.

Author Winston Brady profile

WINSTON BRADY

MORE ARTICLES

The call for reparations attracts more supporters every day. Even Disney has joined the cause, weaving the issue of monetary payments to the descendants of slaves into a storyline on the “The Proud Family” series on the company’s streaming service. But what generated the most controversy was one episode in which the show’s protagonists perform a song entitled “Slaves Built This Country” after they discover the founder of their town was a slaveholder.

Setting their frustrations over racial injustice and hardship to music, the cartoon children sing that slaves “made your families rich from the southern plantation, to the northern bankers, to the New England ship owners, the Founding Fathers, former presidents, current senators.” Catchy though the song may be, the children leave out one prominent beneficiary of slavery, one in the best position to provide the reparations called for: the Democratic Party.  

One may argue for or against reparations on many different grounds. At its heart, supporters for reparations say that freed slaves never received any kind of compensation for their hardship from their owners. Thus, the descendants of slaveowners owe financial restitution to the descendants of their slaves, which would alleviate income inequality and atone for slavery, America’s “original sin.” Opponents of reparations argue one group of people, who did not commit the original wrong, should not be forced to make restitution to a group who indirectly received the wrong. From this angle, reparations seem more like “legal plunder,” a term coined by the French economist Frédéric Bastiat. Such an act “takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.”

But if the supporters of reparations are right and that some restitution must be made, it becomes obvious who should do it: the Democratic Party. Indeed, it is an objective fact that the Democratic Party is intimately tied to slavery and segregation. The Democratic Party was founded by Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, himself a slaveowner, and Martin Van Buren, a New Yorker who owned at least one slave and exploited enslaved labor. More importantly, Van Buren’s plan gained the support of southern politicians for his policies in exchange for his support of the “peculiar institution” of plantation slavery. Such politicians became so numerous they had a name: doughfaces, since their characters lacked all substance.

This pattern continued through the end of the Civil War and the early 20th century. After the Civil War, Democratic politicians in the southern U.S. supported segregationist policies that brutally infringed upon the rights and dignity of African-Americans. 

As a result of this history, the Democratic Party should provide reparations, not the descendants of one class deemed politically expendable. Still, you may say, “that was the Democratic Party of the mid-19th century. So much has changed since then that the current officeholders and politicians could not possibly bear any blame for what their forebears did.” This is true, but it is also true of the American people.

Today, the American people are not directly responsible for slavery, segregation, Indian removal (also Van Buren), and a host of other injustices for which prominent Democrats ask for reparations. Moreover, the American people are being forced to pay for more spending programs, up to and including reparations. How is it any fairer to ask the American people to accept another raise in their taxes to fix a problem the progenitors of the Democratic Party started? Shouldn’t that be at least acknowledged? 

They acknowledge institutionalized racism, but they entirely ignore the fact that they were the ones who institutionalized it. The Democratic Party, as a private institution, is in the best position to provide reparations for the evils of slavery and segregation they did so much to perpetuate. If the Democratic Party admitted its wrongdoing and offered financial compensation to the descendants of slaves, it would immediately remove reparations as a possible unwise and unreasonable expansion of government. Moreover, the Democratic Party, with its expansive network of donors and connections that includes local community and civic leaders, could far more effectively handle the distribution of reparations itself.

If the Democratic Party really wants to move the country past the legacies of slavery and segregation, it should acknowledge its role in promoting them. If there are any groups in the U.S. that should provide material assistance to black Americans to make amends for the injustices committed against them, it should be the institutions that committed those injustices. The Democrats, the self-proclaimed “party of the people,” and not the people of the United States themselves, should bear that cultural and financial responsibility.


Winston Brady is the Director of Curriculum and Thales Press at Thales Academy, a network of classical schools with campuses in North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and South Carolina. A graduate of the College of William & Mary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the Kenan-Flagler School of Business at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Winston writes on the intersection of history, politics, and culture, as seen through the lens of classical wisdom and virtue. He lives in Wake Forest with his wife Rachel of ten years and his three boys, Hunter, Jack, and Samuel, all of whom will one day learn Latin.

Biden’s New ‘Equity’ Executive Order Is Systemic Racism In Disguise


BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD | FEBRUARY 20, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/02/20/bidens-new-equity-executive-order-is-systemic-racism-in-disguise/

Biden signing bipartisan spending bill

In a newly signed executive order designed to use federal agencies to forcibly guarantee equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity for Americans, President Joe Biden tacitly admitted his administration is collaborating with a prominent leftist group to advance neo-Marxism throughout the U.S. government.

Signed on Thursday, the order, titled “Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government,” seeks to expand the administration’s so-called “equity-advancing requirements for agencies.” Equity is a term regularly employed by leftists to cover up their true goal of dismissing merit and real equality in favor of discrimination on the basis of skin color.

A prime example of “equity” in action can be seen in Virginia, where several high schools in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties admitted to withholding National Merit awards from deserving students in order to avoid hurting the feelings of those not awarded. As The Federalist reported, “Asian American students are highly represented among the recipients, and some believe withholding the awards to be an act of racially motivated biases against Asian students.”

Under Biden’s new executive order, federal departments are instructed to embrace such ideology to construct a so-called “fair” and “inclusive” economy, which would include investing in areas where the administration claims federal policies have “historically impeded equal opportunity … in ways that mitigate economic displacement.”

Buried within the order, however, is a directive for federal agencies to implement what’s called the “Justice40 Initiative.” While the document doesn’t specify what the mission of Justice40 is, a quick trip to the group’s website reveals it to be nothing more than an effort by left-wing activists to advance neo-Marxist policies under the guise of “environmental justice.”

“The Justice40 promise seeks to create an equitable recovery for Americans facing challenges created by aging infrastructure, a frayed social safety net, natural disasters, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic,” the organization’s website reads. “Justice40 must address inequities that hinder a sustainable, just society, and that disproportionately harm low-income and communities of color across America.”

Back in July 2021, Biden officially adopted Justice40’s stated goal of providing at least 40 percent of federal investments “in climate and clean energy” to these so-called “disadvantaged communities.” In other words, the administration is distributing taxpayer money to certain jurisdictions based on racial demographics.

The policy is eerily similar to Covid-related guidance the administration released in December 2021, in which health-care providers were advised to prioritize racial and ethnic minorities in the dissemination of Covid treatments such as monoclonal antibodies.

But it’s not just Justice40’s mission that’s tied to neo-Marixst ideology. Several of the group’s listed “movement leaders” have pushed policies and ideas embraced by radical leftist organizations such as Black Lives Matter. On her Twitter profile, Justice40 leader Cassia Herron proclaims she is a “lover” of “revolutions,” and has several posts calling to defund the police.

“We want to defund the police and distribution of wealth,” a July 7, 2020 tweet reads.

Also listed as a Justice40 “movement leader” is Jacqueline Patterson, who during Trump’s presidency in December 2020 seemingly compared the Covid jab rollout to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, in which the U.S. government secretly conducted experiments on black American men for decades without informing them of viable treatment options. Over a year later, when Biden was in office, Patterson tweeted she was fully vaccinated “from the black batch” and boosted, adding that the risk of Covid “seemed worse with not getting vaccinated.”

The collaboration between the administration and Justice40 represents the latest nail in the coffin of legacy media’s narrative that Biden is some sort of unifying moderate who advances centrist policies. Shortly after his inauguration, for instance, Biden signed an executive order reversing the “Mexico City Policy,” which prevented nongovernmental entities receiving U.S. taxpayer money from using such funds to promote or perform abortions.

Moreover, America’s commander-in-chief has consistently issued racially divisive statements, such as comparing Republicans opposed to his party’s proposed takeover of U.S. elections to segregationists.

“So I ask every elected official in America, how do you want to be remembered? Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace?” Biden asked during a January 2022 speech. “Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?”


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

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile

SHAWN FLEETWOOD

VISIT ON TWITTER@SHAWNFLEETWOOD

MORE ARTICLES

Pro-Family Conservatives Must First Be Pro-Men


BY: DELANO SQUIRES | JANUARY 05, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/01/05/pro-family-conservatives-must-first-be-pro-men/

father and son with a hula hoop
Republicans interested in crafting pro-family policy must focus on the well-being of America’s boys and men.

Author Delano Squires profile

DELANO SQUIRES

MORE ARTICLES

Those conservatives who want to shape the nascent pro-family movement emerging on the right must be willing to embrace a controversial — and countercultural — reality: Healthy families require strong, stable, and secure men. That means Republicans interested in crafting pro-family policy must focus on the well-being of America’s boys and men.  

Democrats have spent decades supporting policies that make men and fathers economically and socially obsolete. They’ve promoted the notion that families and societies flourish when women are empowered, even to the detriment of men. For instance, they see the fact that women outnumber men in the college-educated labor force as a win for gender equality.   

It’s not all progress, however, from the perspective of modern feminists. So-called access to abortion, a major plank in the women’s empowerment agenda, was dealt a serious blow when the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision struck down Roe v. Wade and returned the issue of abortion to the states.  

This seismic shift, combined with the economic challenges brought on by Covid-19 shutdowns and parental discontent with public schools, has opened the door for some conservatives to seek to rebrand Republicans as the party of families.   

The initial push for this political pivot came from Republicans in the U.S. Senate. The most recent iteration of Utah Sen. Mitt Romney’s proposed Family Security Act would provide between $250 and $350 a month per child, based on age. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s Provide for Life Act would expand the child tax credit, enable parental leave, expand support for pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, and fund mentoring services for low-income mothers. Conservative social commentators have also made the case that limited government and support for families are compatible policy goals. 

Whatever the merits of these efforts, the success of pro-family policies will depend on more than bipartisan support in Congress. The social and economic outcomes conservatives want to see must start with the understanding that men and women are not generic, interchangeable parts in the machinery of family life.  

Recognizing Roles 

Men have played the role of provider throughout human history, though in recent decades that role has been shared. Still, no culture teaches that it’s a woman’s responsibility to take care of an adult male and the children they have together. This is why women generally seek men who earn more than they do. One analysis of U.S. Census data found that female physicians married men in the same field. Male doctors, however, often married nurses and teachers. 

This is not an argument against women in the workplace. It’s an appeal for conservatives to recognize that disregarding the natural order in the name of “women’s empowerment,” whether through public policy or cultural norms, will make it harder for Americans to form strong, stable families.   

Conservative politicians and pundits need to become comfortable talking about what boys and men need in terms of education, economic opportunity, religion, social norms, and relationships.  

Their political speeches, op-eds, and podcast appearances need a renewed emphasis on vocational education that is aspirational, not framed in terms of a fallback option for young men who are unable — or unwilling — to attend college. Conservatives need to speak with a similar sense of clarity and concern when it comes to men, sex, and family formation.   

Every conservative bill, statute, policy, or regulation that directly affects families should include some version of the following statements:  

  1. Children have a right to the love and support of the man and woman who created them. 
  2. The ideal family structure for every child is to be raised by his or her married biological parents in a stable and loving home.  
  3. Men, not the state, are ultimately responsible for the children they father.  

These self-evident truths should function as the “iron triangle” of social conservatism. Men need something they are willing to both live and die for. The responsibilities that come with a family give them both.   

Critics on the left — as well as some on the right — will undoubtedly accuse conservatives focusing on men of promoting a regressive return to the rigid sex roles of the 1950s. What they fail to realize is that the sexual revolution and 60 years of liberal social policy did not destroy patriarchy — they distorted it by minimizing the importance of men while maximizing the influence male-dominated institutions have in every area of American family life.   

Different Forms of Patriarchy 

“Bureaucratic patriarchy” was introduced through the war on poverty’s expansion of the welfare state and policy incentives that provided aid and basic necessities for unmarried mothers. It has grown because of the symbiotic relationship between elected officials seeking votes, social service administrators overseeing the poverty economy, and single mothers who need financial support.   

Conservatives have a hard time criticizing “corporate patriarchy,” by contrast, because it promotes financial independence for women and exploits conservative deference to the private sector. A recent video from the pro-life organization Live Action satirizes an unfortunate reality brought about by the right’s allegiance to corporations: Many businesses would rather fund abortions than paid maternity leave for their female employees. Perhaps business executives are simply taking cues from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who said, “eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades.”  

The advent of “trans patriarchy” further complicates the pro-life, pro-family movement because men who believe they are women are committed to erasing biological sex altogether. In addition to attacking the foundation of human existence itself, this deformed version of patriarchy also seeks to usurp the family’s role as the primary shaper of children’s values.   

Many conservatives fail to see how the daycare-to-demisexual pipeline was built over time by politicians increasing funding for childcare and schools, corporations offering generous benefits in exchange for employee loyalty, and gender ideologues who want access to shape the next generation of children.   

The actors involved in all three deformed patriarchies are cruel taskmasters because they take a utilitarian view of women and children. A man who accepts his God-given responsibilities has a completely different orientation toward his family. His relationship with his wife is a covenant, not a contract. His children are the fruit of that union and the linchpin to multi-generational prosperity. They’re not mere “consequences” of sex and burdens to be overcome for the sake of economic productivity.   

In a sense, some form of patriarchy is inevitable. The question conservative policymakers need to answer is which form they believe produces the best outcomes for men, women, and children. This is why clear thinking about families must be preceded by honest reflection on the different natures of men and women and how they can be harnessed to fortify American households. That is why now is the perfect time for conservatives to lean into the connection between strong men and stable families.  


Delano Squires is a research fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation. Follow him on Twitter @DelanoSquires.

One Power Republicans Don’t Fully Grasp


By: Lawrence Johnson | December 22, 2022

 Read more at https://theblacksphere.net/2022/12/one-power-republicans-dont-fully-grasp/

Joy, Reid, Kevin Jackson, black, white
Image credit: NY Post 

“Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing is all one organic mechanism, from which one extracts what one needs.”

That quote from the 1992 film “White Men Can’t Jump” reminds us all that while everything is subject to interpretation, or personal exegesis, does not change its original intent or meaning.

There has been much said about the word speech. It, along with the prefixes “free” and “hate” rule most news and social media cycles, especially in recent years. More specifically, since the election of America’s 45th president. So, what exactly does it mean?

Defining Terms

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary describes speech as the following: “the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words.” Simply put, words are only words, speech is only speech, regardless of your personal issues.

According to an article in Business Standard, there has been a reported 500% rise in hate-speech cases in the last seven years; again ironically, since around 2017. Another article, this time in the American Library Association, states: “In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Courts extend this protection on the grounds that the First Amendment requires the government to strictly protect robust debate on matters of public concern even when such debate devolves into distasteful, offensive, or hateful speech that causes others to feel grief, anger, or fear.” It also offers that, “There is no legal definition of “hate speech” under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn. Generally, however, hate speech is any form of expression
through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin.”

Speech, much like crime, has been nitro-fueled by many adding their own levels of toxicity personal biases. While sticks and stones can indeed break your bones and words alone can never hurt you, in the proper context words can be very powerful. Unfortunately, many of those on the right don’t realize the power of words.

Unrecognized Powers

As talk-show host and journalist Tucker Carlson once reminded his audience, “only the Left understands the importance of language.” Unfortunately, we have arrived at a time where if something is said that you’re uncomfortable with, it need not break any laws or statutes for the ‘accused offenders’ sentence to be carried out. The only requirement to fulfill my animus- filled retribution is to add “hate” as a prefix.

The organization Rights for Peace posts this on their website:

“Upholding free speech is hugely important to open societies that respect human rights. Human Rights Treaties outlaw offensive speech when it poses a risk or threat to others. Speech that is simply offensive but poses no risk to others is generally NOT considered a human rights violation.

Hate Speech becomes a human rights violation if it incites discrimination, hostility or violence towards a person or a group defined by their race, religion, ethnicity, or other factors.”

So, who determines the line between ‘speech’ and ‘hate-speech? Good question. One of the best examples of apparent purveyors of grief is of course, former president Donald Trump, who offers a never-ending supply of this type of “speech.”

In one example of such ‘speech,’ Trump tweeted this during the George Floyd riots: “Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right. These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen.”

Were those that attempted to level and burn Minneapolis to the ground not thugs? Another example considered inciteful was the following (in the same Tweet): “Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”

Inserting Common Sense

Was that hateful or incendiary? Doesn’t the shooting usually follow the looting? Regardless of never having crossed any lines or expressed guidelines, including during in his January 6th address, his Twitter account was permanently locked.

Despite the constant barrage of hate speech claims, two things irrepressibly come to mind. First, such claims have no legally defined perimeters, because making offensive, disparaging statements- regardless of the wording, crosses no legal or ethical boundaries; only moral and/or personal ones. Secondly, anti-white, and other racially
degrading statements by Blacks (regardless of context) against ANY race including Blacks are strangely ignored on both mainstream and social media platforms.

In 2021, 22-year-old Gabby Petito’s body was found in Wyoming after she was missing for several weeks. In response to the horrific discovery, Joy Reid stated the following on her MSNBC show, “The Reid Out” concerning the missing hiker: “the way the [Petito] story has captivated the nation has many wondering why not the same media attention when people of color go missing (keep in mind that Reid, as part of the media herself ignored such stories)?

Double Standards at Play

Well, the answer actually has a name: “missing white woman syndrome,” determined by the late and great Gwen Eiffel to describe the media in public fascination with missing white women like Lacey Peterson & Natalie Holloway, while ignoring cases involving missing people of color.” On yet another episode she opined, “In America, there’s a thing about both white vigilantism and white tears,” Reid said. “Particularly male, white tears. Really white tears in general, because that’s what Karens are, right? They can Karen-out and then as soon as they get caught, bring waterworks.

Regardless of having crossed many lines and expressed guidelines, including several anti-gay statements, her
Twitter account was never locked. There are clearly double standards, especially where color and political affiliations are concerned. Truth be told, words are still merely words; speech is still merely speech- regardless of content. Like the old saying concerning “sticks and stones,” if you allow words to hurt you- it is a choice you make.

Harvesting Low-Effort Votes Is Working Great for Democrats, So They’re Going for More


BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL | DECEMBER 28, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/12/28/harvesting-low-effort-votes-is-working-great-for-democrats-so-theyre-going-for-more/

Election 2020
While some congressional Republicans might think the post-2020 election integrity fight is over, that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Author Victoria Marshall profile

VICTORIA MARSHALL

VISIT ON TWITTER@VEMRSHLL

MORE ARTICLES

The dust of the 2022 midterm contests has barely settled and Democrats — invigorated by the Red Wave that evaporated under extended lax voting policies — are out to make sweeping changes to our nation’s election laws once again.

Think back to 2020, when Democratic governors and unsuspecting Republican lawmakers made unprecedented changes to state election policies in the name of Covid that included mandating universal mail-in balloting and a month of early voting. Some states have kept these changes permanently. But Democrats are not satisfied, and why should they be? With their gubernatorial power retained (they kept all but one of the governor’s offices) and newfound control of state legislatures in both Michigan and Minnesota, Democrats are keen to ram through a whole gamut of unprecedented and unconstitutional changes. It’s working, so they’re going to keep doing it.

As The New York Times reported, Democrats’ list of policy proposals for 2023 includes expanding automatic voter registration systems, preregistering teenagers to vote, granting the franchise to felons, and criminalizing what the left thinks is election “misinformation.” Of course, all these policy prescriptions have little to do with “voting rights,” but Democrats package them as such, and slander their opponents as — you guessed it — racists. 

Make no mistake about what these proposals are meant to accomplish. Take automatic voter registration. The New York Times notes that such a system — already adopted by 20 states — “adds anyone whose information is on file with a government agency — such as a department of motor vehicles or a social services bureau — to [a state’s] voter rolls unless they opt out.”

During the 2020 election, Michigan’s Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson sent out automatic voter registration forms to all eligible Michigan residents. As a result of the mailer, 114,000 people were automatically added to Michigan’s voter rolls. Many were duplicate and otherwise inaccurate registrations. By padding state voter rolls with new unlikely voters, Democrats can target unsuspecting blocs of voters, harvest their ballots, and put their candidates over the top. Various leftist 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations are solely dedicated to this.

As I’ve previously reported regarding Democratic attempts to court high school-age kids, multiple left-wing organizations are targeting young people to effectively propagandize them into future Democratic Party voters. As two-thirds of Gen Z voters backed Democrats this past midterm election cycle, Democrats are hoping to capitalize on this emerging voting bloc while also setting their sights on even younger kids. While leftist organizations have tried to couch their outreach efforts as bipartisan, Democrat politicians admit they’re going after younger voters to benefit the left.

“[Targeting young people] is something the left’s been pushing for quite a while — along with enfranchising noncitizens and automatic restoration of felon voting rights,” executive director of the Honest Elections Project Jason Snead told me earlier this month. “They’re always looking for new people to bring into the election system and calculating the targeted groups who will be more likely to vote Democratic.”

Along with making the state a key player in their efforts to pad voter rolls in their favor, Democrats are also intent on criminalizing any information that could hurt their electoral prospects. Known Democratic Party hack and Michigan Secretary of State Joycelyn Benson told the New York Times that she wants new rules and penalties for individuals peddling “misinformation” in election mailers or language on proposed ballot amendments. 

The greatest threats to our democracy right now continue to be the intentional spread of misinformation and the threats and harassment of election officials that emerge from those efforts,” Benson said.

With Democrats’ history of using Big Tech to label the New York Post’s verified story on Hunter Biden as misinformation and its subsequent censorship during the 2020 election, as well as myriad true scientific claims that countered the bureaucracy’s Covid narrative, it’s clear Benson and fellow Democrats’ desire to censor “misinformation” is code for cracking down on any information Democrats don’t like.

What’s To Be Done

Republicans must be wary of Democratic efforts to fortify elections in 2023 and beyond. While some congressional Republicans might think the post-2020 election integrity fight is over, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Democrats have a massive ground game advantage over Republicans already, and if they pass these policy proposals — under the insufferable label of “voting rights” — in key swing states, that advantage will only grow to an insurmountable one. Republicans must realize election integrity is not a seasonal push nor a battle isolated to 2020. Rather, they must be on offense for years to come. 


Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.


Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Conservatives must finally break free from the stranglehold of fake Republicans

DANIEL HOROWITZ | December 12, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/detransitioner-says-doctors-trans-community-manipulated-her-into-irreversible-double-mastectomy-i-didn-t-want-to-be-a-woman-before-i-had-ever-even-experienced-being-a-woman

Artpuppy/Getty Images

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

The problem for conservatives headed forward is not so much mail-in ballots as it is mail-in Republicans.

If Haggai the prophet were around today, he’d likely chastise conservative voters as follows: “Consider your ways: You have sown much and you bring in little. You eat without being satiated. You drink without getting your fill. You dress, and it has no warmth. And he who profits, profits into a bundle with holes.”

No matter how much the Republican Party cheats on its base – committing sins that the eyes cannot unsee – conservatives continue to slavishly genuflect to the party’s every whim and offer to carry water for Republicans. They treat Republican politicians as the masters rather than the servants. They believe we must support them at any cost rather than understanding that they need our support to even exist, because Democrats already locked up the voters they truly desire. Conservative influencers continue to view themselves as loyal Republicans and refuse to explore any blunt force trauma to this perfidious party that would force a cathartic moment when either we finally take over the party or we have a critical mass to either start a new one or use the GOP only for ballot access but form a party within a party.

Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

The scope of the problem is not limited to a few RINOs. In fact, we are the RINOs. With the exception of a handful of Republicans who accidentally win office, almost every elected Republican is either indifferent or downright on the other side of the issues that really matter, in the way they matter, and at the time they matter. Just consider that only one senator and only one governor are fighting the issue of our time – biomedical tyranny. Or the fact that not only did a bunch of Republicans vote with Democrats to codify gay marriage as a right against religious liberty, but not a single leadership member in either party spoke out against it and none whipped against it.

In order to secure our votes, they pretend to be with us on the issues that don’t matter, or in the way and at the time they don’t matter. Then they employ a brilliant tactic to keep us on the plantation – threaten us with the prospect of the Democrat winning, the very same Democrats they work with on the issues that matter.

Cunningly, the Republicans understand that while they have no problem working with the Democrats, their base is truly revolted by and fearful of the Democrats. Hence, the argument of “but the Democrats” resonates the most precisely with those most likely to rebel against the perfidious party leadership. Thus, they have created a never-ending zero-sum game. The more the GOP commits perfidy and works with the Democrats on the issues of the time, the farther the political landscape and Overton window shift to the left. The more disquiet and fear instilled in the base about the Democrats further winning, the more the base is hoodwinked into voting Republican without doing any much-needed political surgery.

If you take this vicious cycle to its logical conclusion … it has no conclusion – other than us inexorably becoming wards of Klaus Schwab’s AI transhumanist kingdom. Because whether the issue is COVID, Ukraine, marriage, immigration, spending, global warming, no matter how much the Republicans screw us, they can always turn around and say, “Well, it’s going to be worse if the Democrats win.” In reality, it’s the GOP that acts as the forward advance guard or the getaway car for the Democrats – it’s a one-two step in which the Democrats could not succeed in what they are doing without a veneer of bipartisanship so that they won’t own the blame or fallout of their destructive policies.

Conservative talk show hosts and news influencers need to be asked: What is their plan to stop this cycle of failure and degeneration? And is there no limit to the perfidy of the GOP or particular Republicans that will finally prompt them to stop voting for them? Until conservatives are willing to shoot the hostage, they will never wield any leverage over the Republicans. McConnell and company rightly wager that Republicans will always come back to them because they have nowhere else to go. Jared Kushner said as much to Trump in advocating that he deviate from the MAGA agenda on certain issues.

As we explore multiple ways to shake up the party, particularly at the state and local levels in solid red states first, we must be willing to make it clear that at some point there is a bridge too far. Remember, the establishment torpedoes our candidates in the rare instance that they win the primaries. They not only refuse to support them but openly undermine them. We must return the favor.

The interesting thing about the Republican Party in the way it’s currently constituted is that it not only hates its base, but it increasingly does not appeal to independent voters, despite the fact that Democrats don’t really appeal to them either. Now is the perfect time to begin running respectable candidates with new ideas on an anti-elitist message but devoid of the typical divisive labels to appeal to a broad subset of the electorate who are deeply dismayed with the status quo of the duopoly. There is no silver bullet, but here is a rough outline of things that must be done concurrently:

  • A pledge against elite globalist Republicans: We don’t need perfection, but when you have Republicans openly undermining us on the key issues of the time, we need a petition of hundreds of thousands of Republican voters pledging they will never vote for them – primary or general election. A good place to start are the 12 Senate Republicans who voted to force gay marriage and its accompanying rainbow jihad against the church upon our communities. Almost all those 12 Republicans are in solid red states and undermine us on many other issues too. For example, Thom Tillis, who is a liberal pretty much on every issue, is also working on an amnesty bill with Democrats. It needs to be made clear that these people will never have our support.
  • Run independent candidates in the general election: So does this mean you just “let the Democrat win”? That should not stop us from running truly independent candidates in the general election for statewide office who have a broader message and have not been attached so much (or at all) to the Republican Party. I offered a blueprint for this in the Pennsylvania Senate race, when it became clear that Oz was both a leftist and unelectable, that we should have run someone from the medical freedom movement and strip the labels of “conservative” and “liberal.” We need to break the paradigm of the binary uniparty, and we only need one race to break this impervious monopoly. Also, unlike an official new party, it’s fairly easy to get on the ballot as an independent in most states. And nothing appeals more to swing voters these days than the label “independent,” which is something all of us who hate the status quo – from traditional conservative to populists or disenchanted classical liberal – should embrace.
  • Continue to run primaries with better focus: Where possible, we should still run in Republican primaries, but focus more on governors than on the House or Senate. The federal government is lost. We need to focus on getting more governors like Ron DeSantis in red states, yet at present we have not even a single one. Our entire primary focus should be on governors for red states like Utah, West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana, and Missouri, which are all up in 2024 but have lackluster GOP governors. There is an immediate opportunity in Kentucky, which has its election next year and is currently held by a Democrat. So far, Savannah Maddox, the most conservative member of the legislature, appears to be the best candidate. And again, when the result of the primaries is unacceptable to us, we should look for independent candidates with a broad appeal. This strategy has promise not only in solid red states but in swing states as well. As for downballot offices – from state legislature to school board and county positions – it’s hard to have a slate of independent candidates with enough money and name ID. We can probably only target this strategy of running independents initially for statewide office. So, for lower offices we will have to run Republicans; however, we need candidates who don’t consider themselves as Republicans and are merely using the party for ballot access – the same way the party uses us for our votes. For legislative bodies, we should make it clear that these candidates will form their own caucus and use their leverage against GOP leadership when needed, almost rendering it like a parliamentarian system. Once elected and having achieved notoriety, they can consider switching to independent, similar to what Kyrsten Sinema has just done after leaving the Democrat Party.
  • Switch from popular primaries to state conventions/caucuses: In swing states, the Republican brand is not only fraudulent but also toxic. In red states, the brand is still intact, but most red states are run by perfidious Republicans. I can write an entire book on how it’s nearly impossible to knock off Republicans in a primary without a scandal, and even most open seats are hard to win. They have all the money and use it to fool voters by running on our issues with no intent of fulfilling their promises. There is one way to change this cycle of failure. Rather than forcing candidates to raise millions of dollars, money only the bad guys have, they should go through a caucus or convention system whereby voters in precincts elect a representative to vote for them at a convention. The activists know who the frauds are. If you had a Utah-style convention in a state like Texas, Gregg Abbott would have lost his primary. This is the only way to get in a critical mass of non-Republican Republicans in one election cycle. Several years ago, I wrote an outline explaining how this would work.
  • Focus activism and pressure over issues, not just elections: The way to create a political environment either for primary challenges or independent runs is for conservative voters – who are busy with life, work, and family – to actually know just how bad their GOP governor and legislators are. We need a focused pressure campaign to expose the issues and personnel during legislative sessions so people realize in their deep red districts just how long their Republican representative has been faking it. Every policy opportunity in every legislative session must be exploited, and every bad policy from executive branches in red states must be pointed out and pressure brought to bear on the two-faced Republicans to “convert or die.” Getting active on the issues, especially at the state and local levels, which are less saturated with activism than Congress, is more impactful than elections.

There is a common denominator to all of these action items. They require a mindset that we are the masters of the GOP, not its servants. We must start holding Republicans’ feet to the fire, not carrying water for them. We have no obligation to them. There is a middle ground between continuing the same failed GOP game for the rest of our lives and immediately starting a new party. We make it clear that the Republican Party as it is currently constituted is dead to us, and we act in our own interests. The above ideas are just the beginning of an outline of what that practically looks like. Some of my colleagues in this business might be content to continue playing the game, but for me, I’m done. Life is too short to double down on failure.

Republican States Move To Keep Major Trump-Era Border Policy Amid Surge In Illegal Immigration


By: JENNIE TAER, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER | November 22, 2022

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/11/22/border-republicans-immigration-mayorkas/

AZ AG Mark Brnovich
Screenshot/Fox News

Over a dozen Republican states are urging a judge to keep Title 42, a major Trump-era border policy, according to court documents filed Monday. Arizona, Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming asked D.C. Judge Emmet Sullivan if they could intervene in the case in which Title 42, which has been used to expel over one million migrants to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, was overturned, according to the request. Sullivan ruled on Nov. 15 that the Biden administration must end the policy in late December, giving them time to prepare for an expected influx of illegal migrants at the southern border. (RELATED: ‘Even Worse’: Illegal Migrants Will Flood The US Border When One Major Trump-Era Policy Ends)

When Title 42 ends, that influx will directly impact the Republican states, they argued.

Because invalidation of the Title 42 Orders will directly harm the States, they now seek to intervene to offer a defense of the Title 42 policy so that its validity can be resolved on the merits, rather than through strategic surrender,” the Republican states wrote to Sullivan.

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The Republican states also argued against the Biden administration’s change of tune on the policy after it previously fought against their previous attempt to keep the police in place.

The States have sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests in controlling their borders, limiting the persons present within those borders, excluding persons carrying communicable diseases, and the enforcement of immigration law,” the filing said.

The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment.

While Election Results Drag On, Leftists Are Already Crying About Losing Total Control


BY: JORDAN BOYD | NOVEMBER 09, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/11/09/while-election-results-drag-on-leftists-are-already-crying-about-losing-total-control/

leftist meltdown
When the GOP started off strong in Florida, blue checkmarks on Twitter, Democrats, and the propaganda press predictably lost their minds.

Author Jordan Boyd profile

JORDAN BOYD

VISIT ON TWITTER@JORDANBOYDTX

MORE ARTICLES

While inefficient Democrat states take eons to report election results, the corrupt corporate media and keyboard warriors everywhere are melting down over the possibility of losing total control of the government power they’ve squandered for the last two years. When word reached Americans that the GOP started off the midterms strong with a massive Senate and gubernatorial sweep in Florida, blue checkmarks on Twitter, Democrats, and the propaganda press predictably lost their minds.

After reading exit polling suggesting that skyrocketing inflation is voters’ top concern, CNN lamented that voters are more worried about the rising cost of groceries and gas than leftists’ “threat to democracy” lies. “You know what’s missing from this one, two, three, four, five, top five issues? Democracy. It’s not even here. That’s not to say it’s not an issue for people but it doesn’t even come close,” CNN’s Dana Bash whined during her network’s election night coverage.

Around that same time, MSNBC’s Jason Johnson minimized the democratic process of voting by claiming that “we can’t say that whatever happens tonight is a fair and equitable election.”

“The level of voter suppression is beyond anything that we saw in 2018,” he asserted without evidence.

MSNBC’s Joy Reid also resorted to lying to undermine GOP victories, specifically in Florida. Not only did she falsely claim Miami-Dade County “has been trending Republican for a really long time” but she also wondered when Florida will become “a normal political state and not just a far, far, far right state.”

Convicted thief and viral purveyor of misinformation Rex Chapman, who lost his spot with CNN after less than one month on air, offered his complaints about the state of “our democracy” under the leadership of Republican powerhouses like the recently reelected Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis via Twitter.

In addition to the propaganda press’s meltdown, plenty of media personalities and Americans invoked the classic but overdone promises to move from certain states once it was clear Republicans were winning.

[W]here should i move” one Buzzfeed reporter asked.

Even before results poured in on election night, the corrupt corporate media were preparing for the worst with doomsday-style prepping lists designed to pander to emotional voters who need help coping with actual democratic processes.

“Elections and anxiety often go hand in hand,” The New York Times tweeted. “Here are some evidence-based strategies that can help you cope.”

The list featured suggestions such as “breathe like a baby” and “limit your scrolling” as a way to “soothe election stress.”

The graphic was thoroughly mocked by normal people who don’t require such audacious behaviors to cope.

One kind soul on Twitter took it upon himself to “fix” the graphic to reflect more appropriate actions such as downing “five shots of hard liquor” and enduring waterboarding disguised as a “cool down.”


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Fox News pundit says election was ‘searing indictment’ of GOP — and Republican vote margins prove it


By CHRIS ENLOE | November 09, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/thiessen-election-searing-indictment-gop/

Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox.SIGN UP

Conservative writer Marc Thiessen implored the Republican Party to engage in deep introspection after failing to deliver the promised “red wave.” In a political environment unfavorable to Democrats, how could Republicans not decisively win nationwide, especially when they are generally on the favorable side of important issues like the economy and crime?

The result, according to Thiessen, is a “searing indictment” of the Republican Party.

“We had the worst inflation in four decades, the worst collapse in real wages in 40 years, the worst crime wave since the 1990s, the worst border crisis in U.S. history. We have Joe Biden, who is the least popular president since Harry Truman — since presidential polling happened — and there wasn’t a red wave,” the Fox News contributor said late Tuesday.

“That is a searing indictment of the Republican Party,” he continued. “That is a searing indictment of the message that we have been sending to the voters. They’ve looked at all of that, and looked at Republican alternative, and said no thanks.”

Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

Given the disappointing results, Thiessen said the GOP “needs to do a really deep introspection look in the mirror right now” to understand the “absolute disaster” of an election cycle.

GOP midterm results are an ‘absolute disaster’: Bush speechwriter www.youtube.com

Although he did not mention former President Donald Trump by name, Thiessen said the Republican Party needs to look to Republicans like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp as the future of the GOP.

Election Day seems to have proven Thiessen correct.

For instance, Kemp won reelection by 7.5%. But Republican Herschel Walker, whom Trump endorsed, trails incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock by nearly 1%. In Ohio, DeWine won by more than 25%, but Trump-endorsed Republican J.D. Vance won by less than 7%.

This proves that many people — likely independent voters — supported proven Republican leaders but refused to support Trump-endorsed candidates.

Meanwhile, Florida has become a deep red state under DeSantis, who has proven yet again that he can win support from groups of voters Republicans have historically struggled with.

Poll Worker Fired For Selecting Straight Democrat Ticket On Voter’s Ballot, Calling Republicans ‘Racist’


BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL | NOVEMBER 07, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/11/07/poll-worker-fired-for-selecting-straight-democrat-ticket-on-voters-ballot-calling-republicans-racist/

polling location

A Democrat poll worker in Indiana has reportedly been fired after allegations surfaced that he had pressured voters into voting against Republican candidates and selected the “straight Democrat ticket” option when helping an individual fill out their ballot.

James Zheng, a poll worker in Carmel, Indiana, is allegedly being investigated by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office for incidents of “electioneering and election interference.”

On Thursday, as a group of pro-parental rights education activists stood outside the Carmel polling place, Zheng allegedly told two black voters that they should not vote for the pro-parent, Republican candidates because the activists outside were “racist.” After the voters submitted their ballots, they alerted the activists to what Zheng had told them. The activists then complained to election officials.

Later, a second incident was reported. According to Hamilton County election administrator Beth Sheller, when Zheng was assisting a voter with an electronic ballot, he pressed the straight Democrat ticket option when explaining to the voter how to use the voting machine. The voter was “then confused about how to change the selection” and asked another poll worker for help. That poll worker resolved the issue and alerted the polling location’s election inspector about the incident.

Zheng had been removed from his post as of Friday.

Hamilton County GOP chairman Mario Massillamany told Fox News that Zheng’s conduct raises questions as to how many voters had been confused after he had attempted a similar maneuver but did not alert election officials.

“This should serve as a cautionary reminder that those desperate to hold onto power or gain power will do anything – including breaking the law – to thwart the efforts of parents and taxpayers to replace our school boards with officials who more accurately reflect the values of our community,” he said.

The incidents come after Democrats and their allies in the corporate media launched a nonstop propaganda campaign claiming GOP poll workers represent an existential threat to democracy (despite the fact that actual threats of violence and intimidation are extremely rare). Yet when a Democrat poll worker engages in election interference, Democrats are silent.

As Republicans are expected to make massive gains on Tuesday, expect Democrats to pull out all stops including using their minions (like Zheng) to influence voters, buying votesinterfering in the administrative process, and questioning election results. (According to the corporate media narrative, after all, it’s only acceptable to question elections if they favor GOP candidates.)


Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Author Victoria Marshall profile

VICTORIA MARSHALL

VISIT ON TWITTER@VEMRSHLL

MORE ARTICLES

Here Is Everything Democrats Claim Is ‘A Threat to Democracy’


BY: THE FEDERALIST STAFF | OCTOBER 27, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/10/27/here-is-everything-democrats-claim-is-a-threat-to-democracy/

President Joe Biden at White House
Meanwhile, it’s the blue party that’s working overtime to erode and replace actual democratic processes.

Author The Federalist Staff profile

THE FEDERALIST STAFF

MORE ARTICLES

Updated on Oct. 27.

It seems like every day Democrats and their cronies in the corrupt corporate media concoct a new, bogus “threat to democracy” that they use to intimidate Americans out of voting for their political opponents.

These “threats” aren’t just overused, they are overexaggerated in an effort to cover up Democrats’ hypocrisy, mask their incompetence, and justify the targeting of their ideological enemies. Meanwhile, it’s the blue party that’s working overtime to erode and replace the actual democratic processes responsible for keeping our nation running.

Here is a list of everything Democrats claim is “a threat to democracy.”

Donald Trump

Americans think corporate media are a bigger “threat to democracy” than former President Donald Trump yet not one day goes by without a Democrat, talking head, or corporate media outlet asserting the Republican is responsible for the downfall of the nation.

The “threat to democracy” accusations began before Trump won the 2016 election, have continued throughout his presidency, and repeatedly make headlines more than a year after the end of his first term.

Republicans

What could possibly be a bigger “threat to democracy” than Democrats’ top Trumpian foe? According to President Joe Biden, it is “MAGA Republicans.”

“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” Biden said during a doom-and-gloom speech in Philadelphia earlier this year.

Whether it’s Republican voters, Republican governorsRepublican members of CongressRepublican-controlled legislatures, or even Republican grandmas, Democrats and the media say anyone associated with the GOP could destroy our nation and deserves punishment.

Ted Cruz

Brookings, a left-leaning think tank, described Republican Sen. Ted Cruz as one of many “copycat candidates who parrot Trump’s moves and endorse his anti-democratic tactics” in a piece titled, “Trump is not the only threat to democracy.”

Josh Hawley

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley earned the same judgment from Brookings as Cruz. Additionally, when he objected to certifying the 2020 presidential election results, he (along with Cruz and other GOP senators) was smeared by The Washington Post as one of “the Constitution’s most dangerous domestic enemies.”

Ron DeSantis

According to Democrats, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is a raging, extreme “threat to democracy” for simply governing as a Republican.

“Ron DeSantis Would Kill Democracy Slowly and Methodically,” one article in New York Magazine warned.

Dr. Oz

“An impaired Fetterman who does not pose a threat to our democracy is better than a polished Oz who does. Remember what’s at stake here,” a senior adviser at The Lincoln Project tweeted shortly after the political opponents’ debate.

Tudor Dixon

Tudor Dixon, the Republican woman brave enough to challenge Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, was classified as “a huge threat to our democracy” by her incumbent opponent for raising questions about election irregularities.

Ron Johnson

For the crime of being an effective Republican lawmaker, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson has also been deemed a “threat to democracy.”

Legitimately Conducted Elections

Speaking of Republicans, did you know that Americans choosing to elect GOP candidates is a threat to Democracy? That’s what several of the nation’s top propaganda publications want you to believe.

“American Democracy Can’t Survive Unless the Far Right Is Marginalized. Here’s How to Do It,” Time Magazine warned in 2021.

The push to classify GOP wins as threats especially expanded ahead of the 2022 midterms.

“Should [Republicans] win, they will certainly attempt to end democracy as we know it in their states,” MSNBC Opinion Columnist Ryan Cooper wrote three weeks before Election Day 2022. “The effort will probably look like an updated version of Jim Crow.”

Questioning Elections

Nevermind that Democrats are known for rejecting election results and objecting to every presidential Republican victory this century — anyone who dares mention that U.S. elections are not perfect is smeared with the ill-fitting term “election denier,” and considered a “threat to democracy.”

This “threat,” according to media, Democrats, and the ever-vague “experts,” is so big that it needs to be taught in schools. Less than two weeks before the 2022 midterms, The New York Times published a “Lesson Plan” titled “Explore How the Election Denial Movement Threatens Democracy.”

“What can happen in a representative democracy when politicians and a significant portion of the electorate question the legitimacy of elections?” the subtitle asks.

The Events of Jan. 6, 2021

Democrats say Americans’ actions on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021, proved to be as big a “threat to democracy” as Pearl Harbor or 9/11, both of which resulted in thousands more deaths than the Capitol riot.

Not only was the Capitol riot an existential threat, leftists claim, but New York Magazine says “Americans’ Indifference About January 6 Is the Real Threat to Democracy.”

Election Security Legislation

The New York Times is also one of the many corporate media outlets and others that have expressed concern with Republicans’ voter integrity measures following the chaotic 2020 election.

“Many top Republican Party officials and lawmakers have spent the last two years striking back, and drawn the most attention for their efforts to pass ‘voter integrity’ laws that aim to make voting more onerous under the guise of preventing fraud. … These are pernicious laws, and they undermine Americans’ hard-won rights to vote. But just as important is the matter of who counts the votes, and who decides which votes count and which do not,” The New York Times editorial board wrote last month.

“The real threat to America’s electoral system is not posed by ineligible voters trying to cast ballots. It is coming from inside the system,” the board concluded. “All those who value democracy have a role to play in strengthening and supporting the electoral system that powers it, whatever their party. This involves, first, taking the threat posed by election deniers seriously and talking to friends and neighbors about it. It means paying attention to local elections — not just national ones — and supporting candidates who reject conspiracy theories and unfounded claims of fraud. It means getting involved in elections as canvassers or poll watchers or precinct officers.”

Poll Watchers

It’s ironic that The New York Times wants voters to be poll watchers — especially since corporate media recently deemed those who sign up to monitor ballot boxes as “threats to democracy.”

As documented by The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood, the propaganda press is repeatedly “hitting the panic button over Republican poll watchers legitimately overseeing the conduction of elections, see herehereherehereherehereherehere, and here.”

Elon Musk

When Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced plans to acquire Twitter and welcome free speech back to the Big Tech platform, Twitter’s pampered employees, the corporate media, and pro-censorship politicians threw a fit.

“He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less,” The Washington Post’s Max Boot tweeted.

Not only is Musk’s purchase considered by the left a “threat to democracy,” Salon writer Matthew Rozsa said Musk’s “attempted takeover of Twitter is a threat to the free world.”

Freedom of Speech

Some of the same media personalities whose livelihoods revolve around rights granted by the First Amendment say that free speech, especially online, is “a threat to democracy.”

‘Misinformation’

The pro-censorship party and its allies say “misinformation” and “disinformation,” which means any information about hot topics like Covid, elections, and biology that they deem inconvenient or contra the narrative they are trying to sell, is a threat to democracy.

Parents at School Board Meetings

If it wasn’t already clear that the National School Boards Association and Attorney General Merrick Garland think concerned parents are “domestic terrorists” who threaten our nation and deserve to be prosecuted, it was certainly made clear by members of the media.

“Attacks on school boards are a threat to democracy,” an opinion editorial in the Mercury News said.

Pro-Lifers

Garland also considers peaceful pro-life protesters to be a threat to the nation. That’s why his Department of Justice has publicly indicted 22 people who oppose killing babies in the womb instead of prosecuting the people responsible for the destruction, vandalism, and arson of dozens of pregnancy centers.

The U.S. Supreme Court

Democrats have long insisted that the Supreme Court’s decisions are the “law of the land” but when the court overturned Roe v. Wade earlier this year, that philosophy was quickly replaced with the left’s favorite excuse for hypocrisy.

“The US supreme court poses a real threat to Americans’ democracy,” one headline in The Guardian blared.

Even before that, media, upset with the prospect of Trump exercising his presidential power to nominate yet another justice to the court, felt the need to explain “Why the Supreme Court is one of the biggest threats to American democracy.”

At one point, New York Magazine’s Eric Levitz threatened that “If the Court’s right-wing majority finds that it can continually push the boundaries of conservative judicial activism without undermining its own popular legitimacy, then the consequences for progressivism and popular democracy could be dire.”

Clarence and Ginni Thomas

The left believes that not only is the Supreme Court a “threat to democracy,” but so are Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife.

“Ginni and Clarence Thomas are the duo we wish we didn’t have to constantly talk about, but here we are. Their actions surrounding the insurrection are a threat to our democracy and the public’s trust in our courts,” Citizens for Ethics, a leftist watchdog group, tweeted.

The Electoral College

Our nation’s Electoral College was designed to best represent Americans no matter where they lived but the left says that constitutional design is a “threat to democracy.”

The left-leaning Aspen Institute blared that “The Electoral College Is a Threat to 21st Century Democracy,” adding that while “our founders felt we needed a brake against ‘mob rule,’ it is incompatible with our current national credo that every vote counts.”

Our Bicameral Legislature

According to Vox, though, the Electoral College “poses a smaller long-term threat to American democracy than the Senate,” because “the Senate undermines principles of equal democratic representation.”

“The Senate will continue to give small states, which tend to be rural and conservative, far more clout than their size deserves. That’s not just a problem for democracy in the abstract,” the Brennan Center’s Zachary Roth agrees.

Democracy Itself

As documented by The Federalist’s Elle Purnell, Democrats and the media also consider an elected majority in the U.S. Senate a threat to democracy.

This became very apparent when West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, “determined not to pass President Joe Biden’s Build Back Bankrupt plan.”

“Manchin is killing the Biden legislative agenda, and perhaps the future of American democracy too,” tweeted MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan.

Flint, Mich. Clerk Resigns After Elections Group Calls Out Lopsided Number Of Democrat Poll Watchers


BY: VICTORIA MARSHALL | SEPTEMBER 23, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/23/flint-mich-clerk-resigns-after-elections-group-calls-out-lopsided-number-of-democrat-poll-watchers/

Flint city clerk Inez Brown

Flint, Michigan’s longtime city clerk is retiring after an election integrity group sent a letter to her office demanding she balance out the number of Democrat and Republican election inspectors. 

On Sept. 6, Pure Integrity Michigan Elections (PIME) and attorney Erick Kaardal of the Thomas More Society sent a demand letter to Flint and City Clerk Inez Brown threatening legal action if they do not balance out the number of partisan poll watchers before the November general election. As previously reported, during Flint’s Aug. 2 primary, the city hired 422 Democrats compared to just 27 Republican election inspectors — in direct violation of a Michigan state statute that requires equal representation of party election inspectors. 

On Sept. 8, Brown, after serving as Flint’s city clerk for 25 years, abruptly announced her resignation effective Sept. 30 — roughly one month before the November election. Brown gave no reason for her resignation and caught city officials by surprise.

“My administrative office was taken by surprise,” Flint Mayor Sheldon Neeley told the Flint Beat. “I had no foreknowledge of this occurring this soon.” Because of Brown’s resignation, Neeley reached out to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office for help running the city’s elections. Benson is up for re-election this year, raising questions about the ethics of her involvement in Flint’s elections.

“Can her office be considered impartial in running the elections in Flint?” Patrice Johnson, chair of PIME told The Federalist. “The law states that if you are running for office, you cannot be an election inspector in the precinct in which you’re running.” 

Despite such questions, Johnson sees Brown’s resignation as a step in the right direction. Brown’s tenure as Flint city clerk has led to multiple controversies, including giving mayoral candidates the wrong filing deadline in 2015 and alleged failure to process absentee ballots

“The pressure we’ve put on the city led to this,” Johnson said. “This is a HUGE win.” 

Regardless of Brown’s resignation, Johnson expects Flint to fully comply with PIME’s demand letter and balance its number of partisan election inspectors in time for the November election.

“In a state with more than 7 million registered voters, and where an election inspector need not live in the precinct in which they work, there is no excuse for an unhealthy imbalance of workers at our township and municipal elections,” she said.


Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Author Victoria Marshall profile

VICTORIA MARSHALL

VISIT ON TWITTER@VEMRSHLL

MORE ARTICLES

House Passes Liz Cheney’s Trojan Horse Elections Bill Enabling Democrat Takeover Of The Ballot Box


BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE | SEPTEMBER 22, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/22/house-passes-liz-cheneys-trojan-horse-elections-bill-enabling-democrat-takeover-of-the-ballot-box/

Ballot Box

The House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday to overhaul the 1887 Electoral Count Act and re-write election rules to benefit Democrats in presidential contests.

The bill, proposed by GOP Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California who is under Cheney on the Jan. 6 Committee, reforms the 135-year-old law to narrow the grounds for objections to presidential electors and open the door to late-day voting.

Cheney’s “Presidential Election Reform Act” became the Democrats’ answer to their failed effort to override state election laws in H.R. 1, which Senate Republicans blocked last summer. The legislation carries some of the same provisions of the doomed election bill at the top of Democrats’ congressional agenda. Just nine Republicans supported the bill, all but one of whom supported President Donald Trump’s second impeachment and are either retiring or have lost their primaries.

New York Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney, who co-chairs the Election Integrity Caucus, condemned the bill as “the latest attempt from House Democrats to stack the democratic process in their favor” and complained that the proposal did not go through the proper legislative process. The text was only released days before the Wednesday vote and received no bipartisan hearing or markup in committee.

“It is nothing more than a partisan messaging bill intended to score cheap political points weeks before an election,” Tenney said in a press release outlining the legislation’s flaws.

“The bill broadly defines a ‘catastrophic event,’ which could be used to extend balloting for up to five days after the polls close in a presidential election,” Tenney said. “It also tramples on the core principle of state sovereignty and directly contradicts the United States Constitution. The legislation also creates broad private rights of action in a backdoor to empower Democrat election lawyers and partisan operatives.”

The congresswoman from central New York called on her colleagues to outlaw the private takeover of elections through “Zuckerbucks” and boost security at the ballot box.

Illinois Republican Rep. Rodney Davis similarly condemned the bill’s expedited passage through the lower chamber on the House floor and highlighted the hypocrisy over electoral objections.

“Democrats have objected to every single Republican presidential win in the 21st century,” Davis said.

In 2017, Democrats objected to more states certifying President Donald Trump’s win than Republicans did four years later for Joe Biden.

“I believe what the House Democrats and the Jan. 6 Committee are doing is irresponsible and wrong,” Davis said. “They have allowed their dislike for one man, President Trump, to cloud their judgment and guide their actions — no matter the consequences to this institution or the Constitution that they claim to want to uphold.”

According to Axios, similar legislation in the upper chamber has already drawn support from the 10 Republicans needed in the split Senate to circumvent a filibuster.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Author Tristan Justice profile

TRISTAN JUSTICE

VISIT ON TWITTER@JUSTICETRISTAN

MORE ARTICLES

    Youngkin’s Crusade To Get Radical Gender Theory Out Of Virginia Schools Puts Kids And Families First


    BY: CASEY CHALK | SEPTEMBER 20, 2022

    Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/20/youngkins-crusade-to-get-radical-gender-theory-out-of-virginia-schools-puts-kids-and-families-first/

    Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin

    Author Casey Chalk profile

    CASEY CHALK

    MORE ARTICLES

    Last week, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin further delivered on his gubernatorial campaign promise to give parents more control over their children’s education. The Virginia Department of Education issued new model policies specifically directed at resisting the radical gender ideology that has become commonplace even in the Commonwealth’s elementary schools.

    The New Model Policies

    Virginia’s new model policies explicitly state that students’ participation in school programming and use of school facilities such as bathrooms or locker rooms should be based on their biological sex and that modifications should be offered only to the extent required under federal law. They also assert that students who are minors must be referred to by the name and pronouns in their official records unless there is explicit parental approval for the use of something else. And they also declare that schools may not conceal information about a student’s so-called gender identity from his or her parents and that parents must be given the opportunity to object before any gender-related counseling services are offered.

    The document reads: “Parents have the right to instill in and nurture values and beliefs for their own children and make decisions concerning their children’s education and upbringing in accordance with their customs, faith, and family culture.” In a rebuke to those officials and administrators who have encouraged wrongly named gender-affirming “care,” it explains: “Parents are in the best position to work with their children and, where appropriate, their children’s health care providers.”

    The new model policies are subject to a 30-day period for public comment that begins later this month. Following that period, in accordance with a 2020 state law, school boards across the Old Dominion must adopt policies that are “consistent with” those of the state’s Department of Education. Macaulay Porter, a spokeswoman for Youngkin, noted that the updated guidance “delivers on the governor’s commitment to preserving parental rights and upholding the dignity and respect of all public school students.”

    A Personal Anecdote

    I can personally speak to how widespread the promotion of gender ideology has become, at least in Fairfax County, where I attended school for 12 years and then worked as a high-school history teacher. The very day after Virginia’s Department of Education issued this new guidance, my family attended a picnic in our neighborhood. My two eldest children (ages 9 and 7) were playing a game with other neighborhood kids, including, a bit awkwardly, a teenage girl who attends the local public high school. During the game, and when my wife and I were not nearby to overhear, this teenager told my children that she identifies as both a girl and a boy and that there are “72 genders.”

    My wife and I homeschool our children. It wasn’t something I was eager to do — my extended family has been attending county public schools since the 1960s, and I was proud of my experience in FCPS 20 years ago. But I knew things had changed very dramatically in the last two decades, and I wanted to shield my children from ideas and behaviors that are not commensurate with their maturity. Simply put, prepubescent children don’t need seminars in gender fluidity and sexual experimentation. But over this past weekend, an FCPS-educated teenager took it upon herself to impart those ideas to my children.

    As confusing as this was for my children — and as upsetting as it was to my wife and me — I do not level much blame at this teenager for taking away part of their innocence and forcing us to have conversations with our children about gender and sex we had been hoping to delay just a few more years. I blame FCPS teachers and administrators who welcomed this gender ideology in schools. And I blame smartphones and social media for proliferating these ideas with little parental oversight.

    Protecting Our Children

    Left-wing corporate media and Democratic politicians, of course, have been quick to attack Youngkin over his new policy. “Virginia has moved to restrict the rights of trans students in its public schools,” reads a mid-September headline from NPR. The Department of Education’s guidance “calls for the misgendering and outing of children in schools where they’re supposed to be safe. Absolutely shameful,” tweeted Virginia Democratic Del. Mike Mullin

    Think about the fact that in my kids’ very first interaction with a public school-educated teenager, she couldn’t help but share the confused, biologically inaccurate gender ideology she has been wrongly told is the most important part of her identity. That speaks to the pervasive nature and aggressiveness of this ideology and its adherents. Think about how many kids have had their lives thrown into chaos by adults who tell them they may be a boy in a girl’s body, “gender fluid,” or some other nonsense that may very well cause them permanent physical and emotional damage.

    Thankfully, our kids trust their parents enough and have a solid enough understanding of what makes boys different from girls that we could have a brief, open, and hopefully instructive conversation about what they experienced on a neighborhood playground. Youngkin’s edict aims to ensure those conversations happen in the home, guided by loving parents, and less influenced by the confused ideology of bureaucrats who don’t have your children’s best interests at heart.


    Casey Chalk is a senior contributor at The Federalist and an editor and columnist at The New Oxford Review. He has a bachelor’s in history and master’s in teaching from the University of Virginia and a master’s in theology from Christendom College. He is the author of The Persecuted: True Stories of Courageous Christians Living Their Faith in Muslim Lands.

    Unintended Consequences: Vaccine Mandates Are Flipping Voter Registrations And Driving Political Change


    BY: ASHLEY BATEMAN | SEPTEMBER 08, 2022

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

    lawyer testifying before council meeting

    Author Ashley Bateman profile

    ASHLEY BATEMAN

    MORE ARTICLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    “MAGA REPUBLICANS WANT TO DESTROY OUR DEMOCRACY”


    TERMINOLOGY

     noun

    ter·​mi·​nol·​o·​gy | \ ˌtər-mə-ˈnä-lə-jē  \

    plural terminologies

    Definition of terminology

    1: the technical or special terms used in a business, art, science, or special subject

    2: nomenclature as a field of study

    Synonyms for terminology

    Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary Web Site

    PROPAGANDA

     noun

    pro·​pa·​gan·​da | \ ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də  , ˌprō- \

    Definition of propaganda

    1capitalized a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions

    2the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

    3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing causealso a public action having such an effect

    The History of Propaganda

    Propaganda is today most often used in reference to political statements, but the word comes to our language through its use in a religious context. The Congregatio de propaganda fide (“Congregation for propagating the faith”) was an organization established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV as a means of furthering Catholic missionary activity. The word propaganda is from the ablative singular feminine of propogandus, which is the gerundive of the Latin propagare, meaning “to propagate.” The first use of the word propaganda (without the rest of the Latin title) in English was in reference to this Catholic organization. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that it began to be used as a term denoting ideas or information that are of questionable accuracy as a means of advancing a cause.

    Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary Web Site

    In the hands of gifted people, terminology can be used for good purposes, as well as deceptive purposes. Of course, you already knew that. It’s part of the bases for propaganda.

    Public Office speech writers are expert in these areas. The command of the English Language seems to be found more with professional speech writers that America’s general population. Sad commentary.

    Left alone, the rhetoric produced by political parties begin to create a populace that believe more lies than truth. In political terms, we are called “low information voters.” More accurately, we have become deluded citizens. Deluded to what is truth. Left unchecked, tyrannical slavery is just around the corner.

    These facts make what prompted this article. The terminology in question is heard daily on any news program, especially cable news. That terminology is, “MAGA Republicans want to destroy (or tear down) our democracy.”

    It began around the 2016 general election, and has been amplified to overwhelming proportions. This terminology is as dangerous as it is deliberately deceiving.

    First of all, we are not now, nor have we ever been, a DEMOCRACY. The framers of our Constitution were deliberate in that decision. A democracy is mob rule. 51% of the population controlling/oppressing the 49%. That is why our Forefathers gave us a REPUBLIC, more accurately, a Representative Republic in order to ensure Americans are never oppressed by anyone, any political party or force. To further enhance, and guarantee the success of the REPUBLIC, they gave us the “Electoral College” in our national elections that ensures all states, regardless of size, has equal say, insuring every vote counts and matters.

    President Biden’s speech writers use the term a lot. You heard it multiple times last night in the speech. In fact, we who have a differing set of opinions, are a threat to the democracy President Biden and the Left want in America: Totalitarian rule by mob. (Reference summer of 2020 leading up to November 8th. Multiple mobs of violent people burning down portions of America and threatening every American who disagreed with them).

    I want to maintain our REPUBLIC. I want to do whatever I can, legally and morally correct, to stop all efforts to turn America into RULE BY MOB DEMOCRACY. How about you?

    Tag Cloud