West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, a Republican, and state lawmakers announced Friday their support of three Maryland counties that want to become part of West Virginia.
The announcement was made during a Friday press conference led by Justice alongside state Senate President Craig Blair, House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, and Delegate Gary Howell.
“We’ve got it going on right now in West Virginia. We are knocking it out of the park. Why wouldn’t you want to come?” Justice said during the press conference.
“We want everyone to know that we are standing here with open arms. We welcome these counties and would be tickled to death to have them and the great folks of that incredible state,” he added.
Justice emphasized conservative values supported by West Virginia leaders that have attracted the attention of Republican lawmakers and voters in the three western Maryland counties of Garrett, Allegany, and Washington.
The three counties include a population of more than 251,000 people according to information from the press conference.
“Our state supports personal freedoms, we value the Second Amendment, and we love the rights of the unborn. We love and embrace our energy industry,” Justice said.
“Moving to West Virginia means job opportunities like crazy and a chance to live in paradise. No matter where you’re from, we’d love to have you in West Virginia,” he added.
The governor noted during the press conference he plans to call a special session of state legislators to discuss a resolution to make the state’s offer official.
“People are moving to West Virginia, businesses are moving to West Virginia, now we’ve got counties from other states wanting to move to West Virginia,” Blair said.
“Because of the hard work that we’ve done over the last few years to make West Virginia a better place, we’ve been growing and regrowing in our state,” he added.
“We certainly would be more than accommodating and happy to open our borders and open our arms and our state to our friends elsewhere around the borders of our state who may wish to see themselves aligned with West Virginia instead of where they find themselves today,” Hanshaw said during the press conference.
The plan for the three Maryland counties to join neighboring West Virginia is not the first time another state’s residents have sought to join the state. In 2020, some counties in neighboring Virginia proposed joining their western neighbor.
The movement, termed “Vexit,” drew much opposition from Virginia voters. The proposal soon dropped in popularity as the nation shifted focus to the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.
There is plenty of evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 have protection against reinfection, Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) said.
“There’s ample scientific studies that show that natural immunity is absolutely one of the best things you could have—and some studies even show that it’s more effective [than vaccination],” Harshbarger said during a recent appearance on NTD’s “Capitol Report.”Play Video
Natural immunity refers to post-recovery antibodies that shield people against reinfection of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19.
Multiplestudies have indicated that natural immunity among past COVID-19 patients is strong and similar or superior to the protection from COVID-19 vaccines. Some experts have pushed for federal health officials to take natural immunity into account when issuing recommendations and rules. But federal authorities currently recommend virtually everybody get a vaccine, including the recovered, arguing the strong protection gets even better when those people have a jab.
Harshbarger, though, says a number of Americans object to getting a vaccine while pointing out that natural immunity to other diseases is accepted as an alternative to vaccination.
She and 10 other members of the House of Representatives late last week introduced the “Natural Immunity Is Real Act,” a companion to a Senate bill from Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska).
It would require federal agencies to “acknowledge, accept, and agree to truthfully present, natural immunity pertaining to COVID-19 pursuant to promulgating certain regulations.”
The congressmembers are presenting the bill as President Joe Biden’s administration works to finalize a regulation that would force private companies with over 100 employees to mandate presenting proof of COVID-19 vaccination or have staff members be tested weekly for the disease.
There is no opt-out for natural immunity.
Other mandates are already in place on the federal, state, and local level that have led to some Americans losing their jobs.
“I’ve read some of the studies that show that natural immunity, in a lot of ways, can be more effective. And I know there’s one study that shows that the percentage of protection is even better than two doses of the vaccine, in some cases. There is ample scientific data out there that show that. Think about it. We have immunity against measles, and smallpox, and they accept that. Why won’t they do it for COVID?” said Harshbarger, a licensed pharmacist since 1987.
“Too many medical leaders are refusing to publicly recognize what overwhelming data has already shown—protection afforded to individuals with natural immunity is real, robust and durable,” Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) added in a written statement. “Denying science only contributes to existing confusion, misinformation, and mistrust among the American people. This bill helps restore trust and faith in the Public Health system, while maintaining our fight against COVID-19.”
The other co-sponsors are Reps. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), Chris Stewart (R-Utah), Bill Posey (R-Fla.), Mary Miller (R-Ind.), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), and Chip Roy (R-Texas).
While the public focuses on the Biden administration’s vaccination mandate, many are overlooking yet another new federal mandate: Congress’s effort to ban state tax cuts.
Congress passed the so-called “American Rescue Plan Act” (ARPA) in March. The statute prohibits any state accepting ARPA funds from cutting state taxes if ARPA money reimburses the state “directly or indirectly” for funds “reduce[d]” from the tax cut. States must provide detailed records to federal regulators to justify their tax decisions.
As a matter of policy, Congress’s tax mandate makes no sense. If our goal is to recover from economic damage inflicted by COVID-19, then cutting taxes and unleashing private sector growth is the best way to do it.
But the mandate is more than bad policy; it’s also unconstitutional. Last July, Ohio federal Judge Douglas R. Cole so ruled (pdf).
Cole’s decision was based on modern Supreme Court 10th Amendment cases. Those cases say that if Congress wants to impose conditions on a state receiving federal dollars, Congress must lay out those conditions clearly. This enables state officials to understand the program’s costs before they agree to participate.
Cole found that ARPA’s tax mandate wasn’t sufficiently clear, and therefore not enforceable.
This is a good result. But truth to tell, if the Constitution was still fully respected, this sort of litigation would rarely be necessary. It became necessary because of a couple of shameful Supreme Court decisions.
The Two Cases That Rewrote the Constitution
The years from 1936 to about 1952 were perhaps the Supreme Court’s worst period. You can criticize the present justices, as I sometimes do. But compared to the court from 1936 to 1952, today’s bench is a paragon of judicial competence and virtue.
The two cases that marked the beginning of this sad era were United States v. Butler (1936) (pdf) and Helvering v. Davis (1937) (pdf).
The Butler case adjudicated the constitutionality of a federal agricultural subsidy program. There was no serious doubt the program was unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress power to regulate agriculture directly. For 140 years, agriculture had been accepted as within state, rather than federal, jurisdiction.
The court ultimately reached the right decision by ruling the federal program invalid. But along the way, it did some mischief: It inserted in its opinion completely unnecessary—and deeply erroneous—cogitations about the Constitution’s taxation clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1).
The taxation clause, as its name implies, grants power to Congress to tax. After granting power to tax, the clause restricts that authority by requiring that taxes must be levied only for purposes of debt payment or to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” But the court theorized that instead of restricting congressional power, this language granted the power to Congress to spend—and to spend anything it wanted on almost anything it pleased!
This assertion directly contradicts the Constitution’s text and what leading Founders had said about it. For example:
In reading the text, the court ignored 18th-century word definitions. In 18th-century political discourse, “common” and “general” usually meant national rather than regional or special. “Provide” meant “lay up provisions for,” not “spend” (pdf). Thus, the phrase “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” meant only that taxes were limited to storing up funds for national, rather than local or special-interest, purposes.
Immediately after the taxation clause, the Constitution’s text contains a long list of additional congressional powers. Other portions of the document add even more. Of course, all that verbiage would be largely pointless if the taxation clause gave Congress the authority to spend on anything it wants. The court’s conclusion necessarily assumes that the Constitution’s framers, although highly accomplished legal draftsmen, gratuitously inserted enormous blocks of useless script.
The text also includes curbs on some of those additional powers. But if the taxation clause had given Congress power to spend whatever it wants on the “common Defence and general Welfare,” then those curbs would be nugatory. Again, draftsmen as accomplished as the framers do not waste language that way.
Other constitutional provisions empower Congress to pay debts, fund certain programs, and defend the nation. There’s no need to read the taxation clause as authorizing expenditures.
In view of all this, it’s not surprising that during the constitutional debates of 1787–1790, the Constitution’s advocates uniformly affirmed that most spending programs would be administered by the states and would be outside congressional control (pdf).
The only Founding-era source the court marshaled to support its conclusion was a single claim in a single paper written by Alexander Hamilton. But this paper was written after the Constitution was ratified and was sharply at odds with statements that Hamilton—and many other advocates of the Constitution—issued before ratification (pdf). Hamilton’s claim apparently was part of a personal campaign to, in his words, “triumph altogether over the state governments and reduce them into an entire subordination” (pdf). It was not a good-faith interpretation of the Constitution.
Fortunately, the court’s ruminations in Butler weren’t binding authority. They were what lawyers call “dicta”—that is, extraneous material not necessary to the decision of the case.
The Conversion of Dicta Into ‘Law’
Yet, the following year, the bench pretended those dicta were binding authority. Writing for the court in Helvering v. Davis, “progressive” Justice Benjamin Cardozo asserted that
Congress may spend money in aid of the “general welfare.” … United States v. Butler …; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra.
To put it bluntly, this statement was a lie. The Butler case hadn’t “settled” any such thing. The court’s ruminations on the spending power in the Butler opinion were extraneous to the case ruling, and the ruling effectively contradicted those ruminations.
Cardozo also cited Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (pdf), presumably because the court’s opinion in Steward Machine mentioned the Butler dicta. But the issue in Steward Machine involved taxing, not spending. Moreover, Steward Machine was issued the very same day as Helvering and written by the very same justice.
Cardozo’s only “settled” authority was himself.
The truth is that in Butler and Helvering the justices effectively amended our Supreme Law without bothering to consult the people or the states, as the Constitution requires (Article V).
What happened next exemplifies how a single constitutional change can trigger massive long-term consequences. Before these cases were decided, the federal government rarely incurred a peacetime budget deficit. After they were decided, the federal government ran deficits almost every year.
These cases should have been reversed promptly by constitutional amendment, just as bad Supreme Court decisions had been overturned by the 11th and 14th Amendments. But because of the successive crises of the Depression and World War II, that didn’t happen.
So when you assign fault for our unsustainable national debt, don’t limit the blame to spendthrift politicians. Blame also the Supreme Court justices who enabled them.
Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor and legal historian, is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at Colorado’s Independence Institute and author of “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant” (3rd ed., 2015).
When the January 6th defendants sought to move their trial from the highly politicized D.C. circuit, prosecutors insisted that the Defendants would get a fair trial, and actually cited my trial as an example.
The government pointed out that the judge ruled in my case that even though it was likely that a majority – if not all – the Jurors in D.C. would be anti-Trump, there was no reason to believe that the Jurors knew that I was a longtime associate of Trump and therefore, I was given a fair trial.
This would assume that the jurors had not seen anything of the avalanche of pretrial publicity, and were living under a rock. It also ignored the clear political nature of the charges against me.
The truth is, I was subjected to a Soviet-style show trial in which my first, fourth, and fifth amendments were violated. The notion that my trial was fair is ludicrous on its face. The sham of a trial featured bias from Judge Amy Berman Jackson, federal prosecutors, and flagrant misconduct from both the Jury and Jury forewoman.
These were among the reasons President Donald J. Trump ultimately issued my unconditional Presidential Pardon.
Prosecutors were allowed to pick the judge most favorable to their case by insisting that my case was related to their indictment of 17 alleged Russian Intelligence Officers who they claimed gave stolen data to Wiki-leaks at the DNC.
In fact, the Prosecutors in my case promised the Judge that they would produce evidence against me at trial that was collected with search warrants from the Russian hacker’s case. They produced no such thing at trial – defrauding the court and violating my Due Process rights.
My constitutional rights were also violated by the Judge in a series of pre-trial rulings. The fact that the first 5 pages of my indictment clearly state that the Russians hacked the DNC and gave the stolen data to Wikileaks. However, the FBI was forced by my lawyers to admit, before the trial even began, that they never inspected the DNC computer servers.
Amazingly, the Judge refused to allow me to use expert testimony or forensic evidence to prove that the DNC was not hacked, or that it was far more likely any stolen data was downloaded to a portable drive and taken out the back door.
The Judge also ruled that I could not raise misconduct by the Special Counsel’s Office, the FBI, The Department of Justice, or any individual member of Congress. Why would the government make such a motion unless there was misconduct?
We already knew there was during Lt. Gen Flynn’s prosecution, which was conducted by the same office. This ruling was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court decision of Kyles v. Whitley held that the integrity of the investigation is always legitimate grounds for defense.
There is also the makeup of the Jury itself. It is statistically impossible to select a jury in which every Juror was a Democrat and numerous Jurors had served as political appointees in the Clinton or Obama Administrations.
The Jurors in my case included individuals who had direct relationships with the FBI or in some cases, the Special Counsel’s Office. The Judge refused to dismiss any juror for political bias.
Most shocking was the conduct of the Jury forewoman. The Jury forewoman attacked me by name regarding the very case in which she was selected as a juror on Facebook and Twitter in 2019. The Jury Forewoman kept these accounts private during jury selection and the trial and only deleted them after the verdict in my case.
The Judge insisted that this did not constitute any evidence of bias and refused a request by my Attorney to subpoena the deleted material despite the fact that we had screenshots proving the Jury forewoman’s offenses. In any other courtroom, outside the District of Columbia, the jury forewoman would have been prosecuted.
The Judge also imposed an unconstitutional gag on me insisting that any public comment or defense of myself had the potential to influence the pool of jurors. The judge offered no empirical evidence that my then dissipated social media presence would affect the jury pool and had no problem with the Washington Post and CNN, two dominant media voices in the District of Columbia, attacking me on a mere daily basis in the run-up to the trial.
When I appealed this unconstitutional gag, which the Judge left in place after my conviction and prior to my sentencing, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sat on my motion for months while I sustained damage and ultimately ruled that I had to first ask Judge Jackson to remove the gag – an obvious waste of time. It didn’t matter, the Appeals court ran out the clock and my trial were imminent.
Overseeing the case against me for the Office of Special Counsel was Jeannie Rhee, who represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in the email case and who gave the maximum contribution to Hillary’s campaigns in 2008 and 2016 as well as Obama in 2008.
The reason Jeannie got this assignment is that she was a partner at Robert Mueller’s law firm, which had represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in the “Illegal Server/missing Email” case. Judge Jackson, in her tongue lashing of about me at sentencing, said my case was” really about the search for Hillary Clinton’s missing emails.” If so, then both Rhee and Mueller had a conflict of interest and should never have been allowed to investigate the President or myself.
Despite the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons regulations on COVID-19, which held that individuals convicted of nonviolent crimes over the age of 65 be sent to serve their sentence in home confinement, Judge Jackson sentenced me to a 4-year prison term in a rural Georgia prison where the government insisted there were no known COVID-19 cases.
In fact, the head of the Prison Guard Union stated that the government was hiding over 219 positive cases in that facility, and none of the CDC guidelines regarding masks or isolation were being followed in the correctional facility. Only days after the date I was to report to this hellhole, the US Bureau of Prisons website showed over 200 cases at the facility. At 68 years old, and with a lifetime history of asthma, mine was a death sentence.
Most outrageous about my trial was the deliberate suppression of exculpatory evidence by both the Prosecutors and the Judge. On Nov. 3, 2020, by Court Order, the DOJ in a rare midnight press release, published the last remaining, and long-hidden, sections of the Special Counsel’s final report which sought to obfuscate the fact that Mueller could find no “factual evidence of Russian Collusion, Wikileaks collaboration or involvement of the alleged heist of John Podesta’s embarrassing emails.”
It also concluded that even if such evidence had been discovered, which it was not, such activities would not have been illegal. Had this been turned over to my defense attorneys as required by Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150, decision, it would have undermined the government’s contorted and fabricated case against me. How does one lie to Congress about events that one is not involved in and knows nothing about?
Prosecutors ignored over 30 pages of exculpatory evidence of text messages by government witness Randy Credico, which indisputably proved that Credico was in fact, the source who told me that the Wikileaks material would be released in October.
They also disregarded the first-hand testimony of at least 3 Grand Jury witnesses who told the Grand Jury that Credico had confided in them directly that he was my source. Mueller’s thugs ignored a written threat by Credico to “put a hole in the head” of another witness who went to the Grand Jury if he contradicted Credico. Yet they charged me with one count of Witness Tampering for ‘threatening to steal Credico’s dog” – a charge even Credico said he never took seriously.
Steve Bannon, who was Mueller’s surprise lead witness, said under oath that he had discussed Wikileaks disclosures with me in virtually every phone conversation we had in 2016, directly contradicting his sworn testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.
After reviewing both transcripts Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School told the New York Post, “There does appear a glaring and irreconcilable conflict in what Bannon stated in testimony before Congress and the court. What is striking is that this was not a peripheral point but one of the main areas of inquiry. He has two diametrically opposite sworn statements in a high-profile controversy with dozens of attorneys in attendance.”
Turley told The Post Prosecutors surely knew of these discrepancies and therefore they suborned perjury on the stand by Sloppy Steve. Bannon also said I was the Trump campaign’s “access point” with Wikileaks. This came as news to me because I had no role in the Trump campaign, and my one on-line attempt to email the Wikileaks flack on Twitter DMs resulted in a brush-off. Prosecutors also had an obligation to tell my defense attorneys that Bannon was under criminal investigation at the time of my trial as the text of his subsequent indictment showed. They failed to do so.
Prosecutors then proposed a 7-9 year prison sentence for me, in which they repeatedly “enhanced” the length of my sentence based on crimes I had been neither charged with nor convicted of. Mueller prosecutor, Aaron Zelinsky, testified before the House Judiciary Committee that he was subjected to political pressure by Senior Officials at the Justice Department to “go easy on Stone” in sentencing.
According to the Washington Post, the three top career non-political Prosecutors at the Justice Department have all testified under oath to the DOJ Inspector General, denying that any such pressure was exerted on the Prosecutors in my case. In view of the fact that I was prosecuted for allegedly “lying to congress,” one wonders when Mr. Zelinsky will be prosecuted.
The conduct of the Prosecutors, Judge, and Jury in all of the Mueller-related cases demonstrates precisely that no supporter of Donald Trump and no Republican can get a fair trial in the District of Columbia. The January 6th defendants are no exception.
The chorus of elected and appointed government officials denying what the vast majority of us witnessed on election night 2020, permeates the landscape here in Florida. Recently, Governor DeSantis said, “What we do in Florida is, there’s a pre- and post-election audit that happens automatically…So, that has happened. It passed with flying colors in terms of how that’s going.”
Also, singing from the same song book is Lake County Supervisor of Elections, Alan Hays, who writes, “Today, many Americans ascribe to the belief that an election was stolen.” Hays, who opposes doing a forensic audit continues, “Each election is audited by randomly selecting a contest to audit then randomly choosing the prescribed number of precincts for the audit. Then ballots are hand counted in those precincts related to the selected contest. We have a long-running record of 100% accuracy!”
Yes, per Florida election statute, risk-mitigating audits are required to ensure accurate election results. However, this assumes that an audit of a number of statistically random samples applies to the entire sample, all ballots. This type of audit does not analyze all ballots, it only extrapolates that the sample audit applies to the whole. Risk-mitigating audits do not perform analysis of each and every ballot to determine their legality. A forensic audit would determine the legality of each and every ballot that is counted.
If we witnessed anything in election 2020, it is that our entire election system is fraught with flaws, from registration to voting to counting ballots. These systemic flaws did not happen overnight nor inadvertently. Our election system is engineered over decades and we, the citizens, have allowed it. Subsequently, the chorus continues by our elected officials; nothing to see here, not in my backyard (nimby), this election was the most secure election in history, Florida is an example for the rest of the country.
Today, we are left with an inadequate election system, inherent with defects or opportunities for those who choose to cheat. Known defects exist in the maintenance of voter registration records, defects in chain of custody for vote by mail ballots, flaws in voter citizenship authentication, flaws in voter signature authentication, defects in machines used, both scanners and tabulators. And the most significant flaw is that there exists no viable enforcement mechanism for those who choose to cheat. To date, no one has been held accountable for the cheating we witnessed in the 2020 election. The truth is that our Florida electeds have not taken a look, so we nor they actually know how our election system performed in Florida in 2020. We do know that to-date, we have zero legislative or executive leadership in Florida taking action to confirm that we did in fact count only legal ballots, as prescribed by law.
A forensic audit of counties in Florida outlined by Representative Anthony Sabatini in HB 99 is our next best step to confirm or deny that only legal votes were counted in Florida in the 2020 election. This is a reasonable request from the citizens of Florida and merely a call on elected officials to prove what they say is true. At this point, we citizens may or may not trust, so we must verify. To do otherwise, is irresponsible and leads only to the further demise of our essential election system.
These are not ordinary times, thus extraordinary measures are required. We must all take action to audit the vote as called for in HB 99.
Limited government does not mean no government.Posted by Fuzzy Slippers Friday, October 22, 2021 at 09:00am 22 Comments
Back in 2001, Obama infamously noted that the United States Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties” that details “what the states can’t do to you, what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
On this point, he is essentially right. The Constitution is designed to limit the degree to which the federal (and to a lesser degree, state) government can meddle in our lives. The Bill of Rights is a key example of this, detailing what the government cannot do—what it is not at liberty to do—to the American people.
This is right and just. The government should not be meddling in our God-given rights to freedom of speech and assembly, to keep and bear arms, to freely exercise our religion, and etc.
Obama was also correct in noting that the Constitution does not state what the government “must do on your behalf” beyond that detailed in the Constitution concerning the role and purview of each branch of government. He, of course, sees this as a flaw, but it’s a feature.
Indeed, it is arguably the single factor that makes our Constitution the best ever written in terms of establishing the government of a free people. By limiting the role of government, our Founders established that we, the people, are intended to have historically unprecedented freedom to make our decisions and to be able to live our lives free of endless and ever-growing government interference.
So what is the role of the states in all of this? What if the federal government tramples the rights of a free people by requiring a WuFlu vaccination that some people have determined they neither want nor need? Where is the recourse when the federal government itself steps beyond its Constitutional scope to force a private business to do its bidding?
It is through this lens that I consider the decision of Republican governors and legislatures to ban mask and/or vaccination mandates by companies in their states. Joe “I am the Democratic Party” Biden announced a WuFlu vaccine mandate on businesses with 100 or more employees. While this mandate has thus far not actually manifested (though the rule is expected to drop . . . at some point), the mandate on private businesses is an overreach. It falls into the category of Obama’s “what the government must do on your behalf” and, as such, is anathema to Constitutional conservatives.
The federal government, under the false premise of protecting public health, is forcing companies to force Americans to choose between their jobs and their God-given right to self-determination. At this point, these companies are not acting as private entities but as government agents acting not as they wish but as extensions of the federal government.
The federal government cannot mandate that every American get vaccinated, so this is the next best thing: an end-run around the Constitution.
Large parts of the RW commentariat are mentally incapable of grasping that when the Federal government orders private companies to act in certain ways, without there being a law passed or so much as a single regulation promulgated, this isn’t “voluntary private corporate action”. https://t.co/M3ARKb4Iyz
The Houston Chronicle editorial board published a sophomoric and moronic piece claiming that governors banning federal mandates are themselves guilty of mandates. In this twisted view, Texas governor Greg Abbott’s move to protect the American people from livelihood-destroying government overreach is itself government overreach (archive link).
The governor’s order conflicts with a soon-to-be-enacted federal regulation that will require businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure they’re either vaccinated or tested weekly. Butting up against President Joe Biden is precisely the point.
“In yet another instance of federal overreach, the Biden administration is now bullying many private entities into imposing COVID-19 vaccine mandates,” Abbott wrote in the order.
Abbott’s anti-mandate mandate also conflicts with the classic conservative tradition in this state and elsewhere of the primacy of local control. Since Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton have ruled the Capitol roost, such rank hypocrisy is par for the course. Still, it’s one thing when the governor ignores local control over the use of plastic bags, cutting down trees or restricting fracking within the city limits; it’s another when thousands of lives are at stake in a global pandemic.
Well, no, there is no conflict “with the classic conservative tradition in this state and elsewhere of the primacy of local control.” Not only is the Constitution silent on the issue of “local control” of a person’s God-given rights, but the Constitution gives all authority not specifically assigned to the federal government to the states and to the people.
Abbott, as the duly-elected governor of Texas, is the exact Constitutionally-appointed person intended to step in to protect the rights of his state’s citizens. If the people choose to be vaccinated, that’s their choice. A federal government ultimatum—get this series of shots with untold numbers of “boosters” for the foreseeable future or lose your job—is the exact time that a governor not only can but must step in to stop the tyranny.
Furthermore, even companies and businesses that are imposing these vaccine mandates on their own, not under threat of the full force and power of the federal government, are depriving Americans of their liberty to make their own decisions and should therefore be constrained from doing so by the state government.
Doing so is in the very spirit of the Constitution, as a “charter of negative liberties.” No, the federal government should not be able to coerce or force you to take a vaccine you may not need upon threat of unemployment, and no, a private business should not be able to coerce or force you to do so, either. The very idea is anti-Constitutional conservative.
Constitutional conservatives—unlike, say, libertarians—are very much pro-government, as long as it’s the republic established in our Constitution. We recognize that there are some things that the government must do to protect the nation and her people.
That is why, as an example, Constitutional conservatives are perfectly fine with government bans on private companies engaging in the coerced or forced hysterectomies of its female employees. That is why we support minimal regulations such as those that ensure abortion mills are not literally selling baby parts for profit. Limited government, in other words, does not mean no government.
The state government should absolutely intervene to protect the liberty of we, the people. If a tobacco company mandated that all employees become addicted to cigarette smoking, this would be unacceptable and a good place for government intervention. If any company mandated abortions for all female employees or that all employees submit to plastic surgery or foot-binding, we would be, justly, outraged and demand legislative action to stop it.
Companies cannot just do whatever they like, and they certainly should not be free to coerce or force their employees to take one of or a mix of the WuFlu vaccine buffet items. Not only are the various vaccines available problematic and concerning for most age groups without high risk factors, but scientific research and findings are being deliberately ignored and/or suppressed (regarding acquired immunity, for example).
Further, and this seems to get missed rather frequently, these Republican governors or not banning the vaccine; indeed, they are urging everyone to get it. They are merely saying that a vaccine mandate is one step too far, that threatening a person’s career and livelihood over “getting the jab” is unacceptable.
These governors are taking a stand and saying, no, the federal government cannot do this to you, nor can it compel private business to do it to you; indeed, businesses cannot ‘independently’ do this to you, they cannot strip away your rights to self-determination, they cannot bully you or coerce you to accept the injection of something you do not want (and probably don’t need) into your body in order to remain employed and able to support your family.
This Biden (and so far only pending) vaccine mandate on private businesses is a federal government one-size-fits-all “solution” to a coronavirus (reminder: the common cold is caused by a coronavirus) that is demonstrably not a one-size-affects-all virus.
As such, banning harmful and unnecessary business mandates is not only correct, but it is the responsibility and duty of elected public servants whose job it is to protect and defend our Constitution and our individual liberty.
Representative Matt Gaetz is no stranger to controversy, but the latest targeted attack of which he claims to be the victim is beyond the pale.
Gaetz, a staunch ally of President Donald Trump, has denounced allegations that he has been involved in corruption and sex trafficking as a partisan smear campaign.
Indeed, during the Trump era, weaponized allegations of wrongdoing became something of an institution — yet, according to Gaetz, one angry leftist may be geared up to go much, much farther than simply stirring up fodder for progressive Twitter.
The Florida congressman said Wednesday that someone is now trying to kill him and, what’s more, the Department of Justice has refused to do anything about it.
Representative Gaetz made the claims in a speech on the floor of Congress this week, revealing that he’d been told by someone on Twitter that they’d been hired as a hit man to take him out.
BREAKING: A man traveled across the country with the explicit goal of killing me in Washington, D.C.
“I think someone may be trying to kill me. If they are successful, I would like my constituents and my family to know who stopped their arrest,” Gaetz declared in his shocking speech on Wednesday.
“Madam Speaker, on October 8, 2021, a Twitter handle, styled, CIA Bob is at your door, tweeted to @RepMattGaetz, ‘Looky here, pal. I lived in Portland. Portland has ordered a hit on you. I accepted the contract. Have a good day,’” he explained.
Do you believe Gaetz’s story?
“Following this tweet, this individual traveled to Washington, D.C., and the Capitol Police recommended his arrest,” the congressman continued.
Gaetz explained that the investigations and threat assessment section of the Protective Services Bureau shared with him that the Capitol Police recommended the arrest of the individual who had sent him the threatening private message, but that the Department of Justice “refused to do so.”
He derided this as “yet another example of the Department of Justice having a double standard.”
“If my name weren’t Gaetz, if it were Omar or Tlaib, you bet this person would have been arrested because that’s what the Capitol Police recommended,” he charged. “But the Department of Justice doesn’t seem to care so much when it’s Republicans.”
The Department of Justice certainly has time to ensure that angry parents be probed as domestic terrorists, but not to look into overt death threats made against a sitting member of the House of Representatives?
Here’s the thing — it is a sad reality of today’s world that lightning-rod politicians like Representatives Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Matt Gaetz, and Marjorie Taylor Greene do get death threats.
And while these figures may be some of the most emphatic voices in a political landscape that is increasingly polarizing, they are, nonetheless, elected representatives and living, breathing human beings who should be able, at the very least, to be able to walk the streets and go to work on Capitol Hill without fearing for their lives. (There’s an Amendment for that, in fact, as Representative Lauren Boebert knows very well).
The members of the January 6 Commission have given the American public the impression that protecting the citadel of democracy and all its inhabitants should not be a partisan issue, and for all their glaringly political posturing, they’re certainly right on this count.
They’ve practically canonized the Capitol Hill police officer who shot and killed protester Ashli Babbit on that fateful day. Yet, if what Gaetz is saying is true, how is it that the word of the Capitol Police isn’t reason enough to arrest a man who threatened a sitting congressman?
Protecting the lives of the people elected to Congress should be a top priority for the Department of Justice, regardless of who is in the White House or which party’s congressman is threatened.
What’s really sad here is that it’s not difficult at all to believe that Gaetz really has been the victim of Washington D.C.’s notorious two-tiered justice system.
Let’s just pray he doesn’t also become the victim of the deranged leftist the Biden Justice Department allegedly refused to arrest.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week undercut the messaging of President Joe Biden and other Democrats on the subject of packing the Supreme Court while delivering remarks on a diplomatic mission in South America.
Blinken delivered a speech on “Making Democracy Deliver for the Americas” while speaking in Quito, Ecuador. In doing so, he undermined the messaging of his boss and Democratic Party proponents for packing the Supreme Court with additional justices.
“Consider a country where a leader is elected in a free and fair election and then sets about chipping away slowly but surely, at the pillars of democracy – attacking the free press, undermining the independence of the courts, threatening political opponents,” Blinken said following a meeting with Ecuadorian President Guillermo Lasso. “Now, imagine that leader then seeks to use the levers of democracy to pass anti-democratic reforms, eliminating term limits, packing courts, firing legislators.
“That’s the story of more than one democracy in our hemisphere. And it’s one of the ways that democracies can come undone,” the secretary of state also said before heading off to Bogotá, Colombia, the State Department said in a news release.
A number of high-profile Democrats, of course, immediately began threatening to pack the Supreme Court last fall following the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The threat was simple: If RBG were replaced with a conservative justice before the 2020 election, it would mean all-out war. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed last October, and the threats kept coming.
“Nothing’s off the table. Everything is on the table,” said then-Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer.
Biden himself avoided the topic of court-packing throughout the last leg of his campaign. Earlier this year, he punted the ball on exploring court-packing to a commission formed through an executive order.
Do you think Democrats will abandon packing the Supreme Court?
The commission, composed of 36 people appointed by Biden, was to report back to him within 180 days. A week ago, the committee ultimately decided that interfering with the court was a bad idea.
“As a legal matter, we conclude that Congress has broad power to structure the Supreme Court by expanding (or contracting) the number of Justices,” a 28-page draft report from the committee stated. “The prudential question is more difficult, and Commissioners are divided on whether Court expansion would be wise.”
The committee on page 27 of the draft argued that former President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 scheme to pack the court with activist jurists who would help his New Deal legislation worked to intimidate the court.
Biden at one point many years ago slammed FDR over the court-packing scheme.
The then-Delaware senator called FDR’s plan a “bonehead idea” and a “terrible mistake” during comments which cited the harm done by the threat of loading the court with judicial sycophants. Biden at the time argued the Supreme Court wasn’t the same for a decade.
Although Biden seems to have forgotten his staunch 1983 opposition to interfering with the court, his own committee remembers how detrimental to the rule of law the threat of expanding the court once was.
Blinken, when speaking in a foreign country this week, also remembered — even if he didn’t necessarily say what he intended to say.
“They covered my whole neighborhood with posters claiming I was all sorts of things,” Wax told The Epoch Times. “‘Meet your new neighbor.’ It was just a whole slew of libel and defamation.”
“They posted my address; they posted my job,” he said.
Living on the Upper East Side of Manhattan places Wax in the heart of the most liberal city in America. “It’s an uphill fight, but it makes things interesting.”
Having been a guest on cable news channels Wax’s politics are no secret, which has led to problems, both personal and professional.
“I’ve lost friends, I’ve lost job opportunities, I’ve been pushed out of jobs, I’ve gotten dirty looks. The whole gamut of things you can imagine from being a political minority in an overwhelmingly left-wing city,” said the 27-year-old.
The NYYRC bills itself as “America’s Oldest and Largest Young Republican Club.” It was founded in 1911, however, its roots go back as far as 1856.
Before Wax and his administration took the helm in 2019, he said the club had fewer than 50 members and was “a run-down group, kind of a drinking club” and described it as “basically dead.”
Wax and his people have changed all of that. There are now almost 1000 members, they hold $100,000 annual galas and the club regularly has speaker events.
Kat Timpf was one of three speakers in Wax’s first event in 2019. “She’s within the demographic. We go 18 to 40 so she’s well within the demographic,” he said.
Anushka Bhatt, of Syosset, Long Island, was too young to vote in the 2016 presidential election. But by 2020, she had become of age and not only voted for President Trump in his reelection effort, but became a registered Republican.
Bhatt is not alone. There are about 50 active members in the club and about 500 are on the mailing list.
With the exception of schools such as Hillsdale College in Michigan, young conservatives are travelers in a hostile land when they’re on college campuses as well as in the workplace, so many of them feel they have to hide their political views for fear of being ostracized.
“The problem I’ve always had is you have to be secret about who you are,” Stony Brook senior Gabriel Vieira told The Epoch Times.
Vieira interned at Amazon, but when it came time for management to hire employees from the intern pool, he didn’t get a job. He had kept his Republican status on the quiet, but thinks word had gotten out and that’s what did him in.
“It’s well known that being a Republican is one of the most taboo things,” said the 21-year-old business major.
Sometimes college campuses aren’t the safest place for Republicans. During the Trump years, Republicans were often attacked by liberal students who preached tolerance but did not practice it.
Charlie Kirk, co-founder of the conservative, campus-based groups Turning Point USA, has stated in the media that several of its members—as well as students looking to start chapters—have been assaulted by other students. He has video evidence to support these allegations.
Lauren Pena, a fourth-year journalism major at SBU, told The Epoch Times of an attack she witnessed on campus a few weeks ago.
Turning Point USA was there asking students to participate in a poll regarding transgender athletes. Someone who took offence at this poll hurled a can of Arizona iced tea at the Turning Point USA members, but struck a student who was participating in the poll, instead. University police were called.
“The guy who did it ended up running off,” said the 20-year-old.
Where there’s a NYYRC event, there’s also Antifa.
“They have intimidation tactics,” he said. These included “threats of terrorism” and calling the venues and harassing the managements, leading Wax to hire armed, private security to defend the attendees. “They’ve protested outside of events,” said Wax.
Many Americans have the perception that the Republican Party is comprised of old, white males and that people such as Candace Owens are a negligible percentage. SBU’s club debunks that myth.
For starters, everyone is in his 20s or younger. But the real difference comes with the members’ heritage. Bhatt is the daughter of Indian immigrants, secretary Thalyann Olivo is of Puerto Rican descent and freshman Elhussein Abdelhamid is an immigrant from Egypt.
Of the 25 members who attended last week’s meeting, about half were white males the rest were males and females of an assortment of races.
“A couple of years ago I was super liberal, super left-leaning,” Abdelhamid told The Epoch Times. “I believed in socialism like crazy; I was a crazy socialist.”
Abdelhamid decided he wanted to debate conservatives so he could embarrass them. He knew he had to fully understand his opponent’s point of view in order to destroy it.
But once he took a good, hard look at Republican arguments, he “kept shifting and shifting and shifting,” until he became “a full-on Republican, a full-on Trump supporter.”
“I’m brown and you usually don’t encounter brown people who like Trump,” he said.
The membership of the NYYRC also debunks the old, white-male myth. “We have a Hispanic caucus; we have an Asian caucus,” said Wax.
In addition to its political actions, a by-product of the club is several romances have blossomed between members, some even leading to marriage.
Regardless of being the political minority in New York, Wax remains optimistic.
“We’re in the belly of the beast,” said Wax. “I think the fact that we’re in a city that’s very hostile to us politically gives us an edge.”
Shares of former President Donald Trump’s Digital World Acquisition Corp., a blank-check firm that is taking his proposed social media platform public, spiked on Friday after a huge rally the day before.
Trading in Digital World Acquisition Corp. (DWAC) was halted on Friday due to volatility several times during Friday morning trading after it skyrocketed 216 percent at one point. On Thursday, the stock surged over 300 percent to close at $35.54 with significant trading volume and volatility.
There is speculation that small retail investors may be behind DWAC’s surge, as the stock trended all day on Twitter and was heavily referenced on the WallStreetBets sub-Reddit, the same forum that was mostly behind the meteoric spike in so-called “meme stocks” including GameStop and AMC earlier this year.
“Thank you Donald Trump, [DWAC] 17k profit yerterday [sic],” one user wrote.
DWAC was the most actively traded stock Thursday on the Fidelity platform and continued to be the top-traded stock on Friday. More than 11 million shares were traded on Thursday, up from about 3,800 trades on Wednesday.
The new firm has stated that its “mission is to create a rival to the liberal media consortium and fight back against the ‘Big Tech’ companies of Silicon Valley, which have used their unilateral power to silence opposing voices in America.”
The former president also announced he would launch a social media platform, known as Truth Social, coming after Facebook, Twitter, and Google suspended Trump’s accounts in early January. The company is also going public via a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) merger with DWAC.
“In the year 2021, the media pendulum has swung dangerously far to the left,” Truth Social’s About page reads. “Silicon Valley, the mainstream media, and Big Tech have begun to forcibly silence voices that do not align with their woke ideology.”
It adds: “They control the future. They control you. To counter this dangerous exercise of Big Tech monopoly power.”
Former close Trump adviser Jason Miller has started his own social media platform, GETTR. In response to Trump’s announcement, Miller said Wednesday that they couldn’t come to an agreement.
“Trump has always been a great deal-maker, but we just couldn’t come to terms on a deal,” he told several media outlets in a statement, congratulating Trump on the launch of the platform.
The former commander-in-chief, meanwhile, has often blamed Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act for what he said has given social media companies the ability to regulate content posted on their platforms. Those firms, he and others have argued, are biased against conservatives and others with viewpoints outside the mainstream.
Law excusing school officials from reporting crimes becomes political liability ahead of elections
A law passed by Virginia Democrats last year that exempts public school officials from reporting certain sexual crimes to the police has become a political liability ahead of November’s statewide elections.
In the wake of two high-profile sexual assault cases in Loudoun County Public Schools, one concerning an alleged rape in a high school bathroom, Republican candidates are hammering Democratic incumbents, including Gov. Ralph Northam, for passing and signing House Bill 257. The law excuses school officials from reporting instances of sexual battery and other violent offenses that do not meet the threshold of a felony to the police.
Republican Nick Clemente is running to unseat Democratic state delegate Wendy Gooditis, who cast the tie-breaking vote on House Bill 257. Clemente called Gooditis’s vote “reckless” and said he hoped voters will hold Democrats responsible for fostering an unsafe school environment.
“While the attacks that occurred in Loudoun County Public Schools were felonies that still required reporting, Gooditis’s reckless vote sent a message to victims that their being groped, molested, or abused isn’t as important as it was a couple years ago and tells potential predators that consequences have diminished,” Clemente told the Washington Free Beacon. “They are trying to deny, deflect, and hide from this dangerous bill, but voters are intelligent and will hold them accountable.”
Education-related issues, from pandemic school closures to progressive racial and gender ideology in the classroom, became a top priority for candidates this election cycle. The rape and assault cases in Loudoun County further ignited Republican candidates just weeks before the November elections, where they hope to take back control of the Virginia General Assembly and governorship.
Mike Mullin, the bill’s sponsor, and six of his Democratic colleagues who cosponsored the bill did not respond to requests for comment regarding the law and the cases in Loudoun County schools.
Jordan Gray, a Republican who’s running against Mullin, called on the delegate to resign in a statement on Oct. 20.
“As a teacher, I’m shocked and horrified by the news coming from the Loudoun County school system. This form of abuse must not go unchecked, which is why I am calling on Delegate Mullin’s resignation for his sponsorship of H.B. 257,” Gray said. “He must answer for his failures and resign immediately.”
Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin called for an investigation into the Loudoun County school board. At a rally on Tuesday, Youngkin also blamed Virginia’s Democratic attorney general Mark Herring for failing to launch his own investigation into the district.
House Bill 257 was thrown back into the spotlight after the Daily Wire broke the story on the Loudoun County assaults on Oct. 11. The Daily Wire initially reported that officials at Stone Bridge High School, where the first victim was allegedly raped, called police not to investigate the allegations but to handle the alleged victim’s father, who made a scene at the school.
Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office records reported by Jesse Singal, however, revealed that the police were initially dispatched to investigate the assault. Those reports align with district superintendent Scott Ziegler’s email to school board members on the day of the assault, which noted that the school called for additional officers after the victim’s father “caused a disruption by using threatening and profane language.”
The father was arrested during a school board meeting in June after speaking out against the district’s transgender bathroom policies. Those policies were approved in August.
The boy accused of rape was arrested in July, according to NBC 4 Washington, but was released while investigators processed a DNA rape kit. He was transferred to Broad Run High School, where he allegedly sexually assaulted another student in a classroom. In a statement to the Free Beacon, Loudoun County school officials said they would not comment further on the case.
Mark Zuckerberg’s unprecedented intervention in 2020’s election was not legal, argues former Attorney General Phil Kline.
ecent reporting on the influence of private funding of public elections by Mark Zuckerberg is long overdue and greatly appreciated by those of us who have been sounding the alarm about this for over a year. There’s more to the story, however, and the American people need to know the full truth.
The New York Post‘s front-page package of articles and op-eds did an admirable job of covering the scandal, bringing much-needed attention to an issue that many Americans knew little about, even though it was arguably the decisive factor in the 2020 presidential election.
The Amistad Project filed the first litigation seeking to block private funding of elections in September 2020, based on investigations that began months earlier. We have continued and expanded our investigate-and-litigate strategy ever since, with a particular focus on the swing states that ultimately decided the outcome of the election.
What we have uncovered through litigation, discovery, open records requests, and witness interviews is deeply disturbing. In addition to over $400 million from Zuckerberg, The Amistad Project has identified hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of additional contributions in the form of talent, information, and monies from leftist individuals and nonprofits. All told, the real total easily exceeds $1 billion.
As numerous reports have correctly pointed out, there were not explicit laws on the books forbidding the infusion of private monies into public election offices, primarily because such a scheme had never been attempted or anticipated prior to 2020. There are, however, longstanding laws that apply to the broader contours of the left’s election meddling operation, because efforts to interfere with free and fair elections to produce a desired outcome are as old as democracy itself.
For instance, if it can be proven that leftist organizations gave money to public officials with the intent of achieving a partisan electoral advantage, then those contributions are a direct violation of campaign finance law.
In addition, conspiracy to deprive “any person or any class of persons of the equal protection of the laws” is a violation of longstanding civil rights laws. Zuckerberg-funded grants from the Center for Tech and Civic Life heavily favored Democrat-leaning cities and counties, resulting in massive discrepancies in per-capita election funding between the urban core of major battleground states and the rest of those states. The conditions imposed as part of those grants further disadvantaged voters in less urban areas, for example by making it easier for urban voters to have flawed ballots “cured” by officials paid with Zuckerberg money. Moreover, as reported by Mollie Hemingway, these private interests actively worked to eviscerate state election integrity laws allowing for massive breaches in the chain of custody of the ballots in the urban core.
Voters in Zuckerberg-funded jurisdictions also benefited disproportionately from access to conveniences such as absentee ballot drop boxes – in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, one drop box was placed every four square miles and for every 4,000 voters; in the 59 counties carried by Trump in 2016, there was one drop box for every 1,100 square miles and every 72,000 voters.
And this disparate impact was the result of a conspiracy.
The plan was outlined months in advance by David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign manager who later served as a senior political advisor to the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative. In his book,A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump, Plouffe predicted that the 2020 general election would come down to a “block by block street fight” to turn out the vote in the urban core, especially cities such as Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia. Not long after that book came out, Plouffe’s previous employer, the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, began pouring staggering amounts of money – $350 million – into CTCL, which proceeded to use it to turn out left-leaning voters in cities such as Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia.
Prior to 2020, CTCL’s annual revenues never exceeded $1.2 million. But it had all the right connections – leaders such as Tiana Epps-Johnson and Whitney May, who are veterans of the George Soros-funded New Organizing Institute. And CTCL represents just one of scores of leftist nonprofits interfering with the 2020 election.
The Amistad Project is still fighting to hold Mark Zuckerberg, CTCL, and the other key players in this conspiracy accountable. In the coming days, for instance, we will be issuing demands as part of our civil litigation, and will continue consulting those with subpoena power, to demand the production of communications Zuckerberg and other substantial players and billionaires had with leftist nonprofits pertaining to the 2020 election.
Leftist election officials in the urban core of the swing states kicked America out of the counting room and invited billionaires in during the 2020 election. Elections must be transparent to be fair, and America deserves to see the records reflecting how these private interests funded by left-leaning billionaires managed the election.
When those communications are public, it will be clear that the left did far more than just corrupt our elections – they were actively working to turn government offices, which must act objectively, into campaign turn-out-the-vote centers for the Biden campaign.
New Jersey Democrat under investigation for apparent STOCK Act violations
Just days after entering his financial assets into a blind trust to sidestep ethics questions over his failure to disclose stock transactions in a timely manner, New Jersey Democrat Tom Malinowski revealed 86 new financial transactions worth up to $1.97 million that he failed to disclose when he originally made them.
Those transactions, disclosed on Aug. 26, date back to January 2019, his first month as an elected official. Together they were valued at between $373,086 and $1,970,000, according to a WashingtonFree Beacon analysis. The disclosure came just a week after Malinowski on Aug. 17 entered his assets into a blind trust in hopes of sidestepping ethics concerns raised over his past violations of the STOCK Act, which requires members of Congress to report securities transactions worth over $1,000 within 45 days.
Malinowski failed to report any of the 86 newly disclosed stock transactions, made between January 2019 and March 2021, within the required 45 day timeframe. Also included in the report were 48 amendments to financial transaction disclosures that were filed inaccurately.
A report by Business Insider in March that Malinowski had repeatedly violated the STOCK Act in his first two years as a congressman led to numerous ethics complaints against the New Jersey Democrat. The House Ethics Committee announced on Thursday afternoon that its members had voted to continue its investigation into whether Malinowski violated the STOCK Act, noting that he “may have violated House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law.”
Malinowski said his decision to enter his assets into a blind trust go “well above what the law requires” to avoid conflict of interest concerns, but just days later violated what watchdog group Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust called one of the simplest ethics rules.
“Stock transaction disclosures are one of the easiest, yet essential requirements with which members must comply,” FACT executive director Kendra Arnold told the Free Beacon. “The law clearly states members must provide ‘full and complete’ financial information to the public in a timely manner. Rep. Malinowski is well aware of his failure to comply with these rules already, however, he apparently chose to continue to file improperly. These additional violations should be of grave concern to the public because if members cannot follow this simple rule, the public will cease to trust them and our broader system.”
Among Malinowski’s undisclosed transactions were purchases of health care and technology companies that saw their values skyrocket during the pandemic.
On June 11, 2020, for example, Malinowski purchased stock for roughly $5 a share in TFF Pharmaceuticals, a biopharmaceutical company that won major investment as it developed potential COVID-19 treatments. The company’s stock price more than tripled to $18.34 before the year’s end. It is unclear whether Malinowski still holds the stock.
Over half of the newly disclosed trades were made after Jan. 21, 2020–when the World Health Organization determined that coronavirus reached America.
Also included in the new batch of disclosures are transactions involving Chinese companies such as CNFinance Holdings Ltd, which is based out of Guangzhou, China, according to its listing on NASDAQ. Malinowski has publicly talked tough on China, even penning an op-ed for the Washington Post outlining how the United States could “defeat China.”
The ongoing ethics headache could put Malinowski in serious electoral trouble. The New Jersey Democrat is viewed as one of the most vulnerable members in the House—he won reelection in 2020 by just over 1 point.
Malinowski is also at risk of falling prey to the redistricting process, which takes place in New Jersey and states across the country every 10 years. Democratic lawmakers in charge of the process could view Malinowski as a political liability and draw lines that would speed up his exit from politics.
Malinowski’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
The North Carolina House of Representatives gave final approval to a bill that proposes to restore checks and balances on Gov. Roy Cooper’s executive powers during an extended emergency.
The Emergency Powers Accountability Act (EPAA), or House Bill 264, would require Cooper to get “concurrence of the Council of State” before “exercising certain authorities.”
The Council of State consists of bipartisan senior executive offices such as the Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Agriculture Commissioner, and the Secretary of State.
The bill would create a definition for the concurrence of the Council of State under the EPAA, which would clarify how Cooper proceeds in seeking concurrence before acting.
According to Republican House Speaker Tim Moore, North Carolina has remained in a perpetual state of emergency for 589 days “with no end in sight.”
Cooper declared a state of emergency in response to the pandemic in March 2020, a decision that heralded a year of lockdowns throughout the state and country.
“During the pandemic, our governor ignored his statutory duty to seek the concurrence of the bipartisan Council of State before declaring a state of emergency,” Moore said in a press release. “The need for checks and balances is arguably most crucial during a statewide emergency. No one individual should have the ability to exercise unilateral power during such an emergency.”
Republican Rep. Keith Kidwell, one of the bill’s sponsors, said the bill will address the “endless duration of power” that Cooper “has been granted” during a “self-declared and boundless state of emergency.”
Republican House Majority Leader John Bell, another sponsor of the bill, criticized what he said was a lack of oversight that allowed Cooper to declare and extend the state of emergency without input from the Council or the General Assembly.
“No one person, regardless of party, should have the unilateral authority to shut down the state for an indefinite amount of time,” Bell said. “This legislation is not about politics or what the governor has or has not done. It is about clarifying the law to restore checks and balances.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday that he had not sought, and would not seek, ethics review from the Department of Justice over his son-in-law’s alleged ties to the promotion of Critical Race Theory (CRT)
The issue arose because of a report that Garland’s son-in-law, Alexander “Xan” Tanner, had promoted tenets of CRT through his educational data firm, while Garland was cracking down on parents objecting to CRT at recent school board meetings.
As Breitbart News noted earlier this month, citing Becker News:
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s son-in-law is a co-founder of an educational data mining company that promotes the tenets of Critical Race Theory (CRT), a report at Becker News observed Wednesday.
The report noting Garland’s family ties to CRT comes in the wake of the attorney general’s memorandum directing the FBI to mobilize against parents who oppose CRT and mask mandates in K-12 schools and speak out about their concerns.
Panorama produces data mining surveys for schools, including “equity and inclusion surveys” and conducts “professional development” training in the areas of equity and inclusion for teachers and administrators.
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) questioned Garland about whether he had sought ethics review from counsel within the Department of Jusice. Garland indicated that he had not, and would not, because it was not required. Later, under questioning from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Garland reiterated that he had acted within Department of Justice rules.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
FOUNTAIN HILLS, Ariz.—To millions of his conservative admirers Sheriff Joe Arpaio is something of a living legend, though he’s viewed as a heavy-handed law enforcer by his detractors.
Whether you love him or hate him, Arpaio is a powerful personality—even at the age of 89—with strong opinions on where America is heading.
It’s not looking good, he says.
But the “American legend” says he has no intention of fading away in a time of need.
That he’s stood firm on the important issues of the day has only bolstered his popularity, it seems. He’s still tough on crime—and criminals—regardless of who they are in life. After all, that’s how he earned the nickname of “America’s Toughest Sheriff.”
“The media gave me that name,” Arpaio says with a grin as he spoke with The Epoch Times on Oct. 18. “Then, I wrote a book (Sheriff Joe Arpaio: An American Legend). I don’t mind (the nickname). But if they call me ‘America’s Meanest Sheriff’, I wouldn’t like that. If they call me ‘America’s Nicest Sheriff’, I wouldn’t like that either.”
Proud of his Italian heritage, he’s also earned the title “America’s Good-Hearted Godfather,” but he’s okay with that.
“America’s Toughest Sheriff” Joe Arpaio sits at his office desk in Fountain Hills, Ariz., on Oct. 18., 2021. (Allan Stein/Epoch Times)
It goes without saying that Arpaio remains staunchly unapologetic about his controversial methods being America’s top crime fighter.
As sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, he instituted chain gangs for both men and women. He then built the infamous “tent city” to house some of the nation’s worst offenders. He even began issuing pink underwear to felons to prevent theft of the white variety.
He stands unfazed by critics of his hardline stance on illegal immigration. The southern border crisis under President Joe Biden is vindication in itself, he says.
In fact, Arpaio, who served as sheriff from 1993 until his electoral defeat in 2016, has few kind words to say about Biden, or his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. But he won’t stoop to “badmouthing” them, or any other political opponent.
He will, however, proudly show you his birth certificate to prove he was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, on June 14, 1932.
Even today, Arpaio questions the authenticity of Obama’s birth documents. He caught major flak for that, after he launched an investigation into Obama’s legal status while he was in office.
“You never take anything for granted in politics,” Arpaio says he’s learned after nearly four decades in law enforcement. “But let me tell you this—I’m well known around this universe.”
That, too, goes without saying.
Upon meeting Arpaio for the first time in his office in Fountain Hills, Arizona, one is instantly taken by the vast expanse of Arpaio’s media-driven universe.
Hanging on a wall are rows of autographed pictures of Arpaio posing with past Republican presidents George W. Bush, his “hero” Donald Trump, and other GOP notables.
Dominating other walls are front-page newspaper and magazine articles, encased in glass, depicting Arpaio as America’s premier law enforcer.
“America’s Toughest Sheriff” Joe Arpaio considers former President Donald Trump his “hero.” Here, Arpaio stands in front of the many pictures he’s had taken with former U.S. presidents over the years in his office in Fountain Hills, Ariz., on Oct. 18, 2021. (Allan Stein/Epoch Times)
The man—the American legend himself—however, appears older these days, and thinner. Today, it’s Monday, Oct. 18, and he’s wearing a blue blazer and a light blue casual shirt and slacks. He sits back at a big desk with the brass name plate “Sheriff Joe Arpaio” displayed prominently in front.
As Maricopa County’s former top cop, Arpaio says he feels he still has a job to do—something vital, and personal.
That something is a basic need to give back to his adopted hometown of Fountain Hills, population 25,000, after living, and serving, in the community as sheriff for so many years.
Arpaio, however, says he has no qualms about his political future—he wants to become America’s toughest mayor in Fountain Hills.
He says it with such conviction, it almost sounds like a done deal.
Fountain Hills town clerk Elizabeth Klein said that as of Oct. 19 only two candidates have filed papers of interest in the Aug. 2 non-partisan mayoral race—Arpaio, and his opponent, Kelly Smith. Mayor Ginny Dickey has not filed papers yet.
Each candidate needs 324 signatures on a petition to become a viable candidate, Klein said.
As mayor, Arpaio says he’ll be all business.
Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio reflects on the passing of his wife, Ava, after 62 years of marriage in this Photo taken on Oct. 18, 2021. (Allan Stein/Epoch Times)
He’ll stoke the local economy through travel and tourism, and to do this he’ll work toward building a viable partnership with the nearby casino.
“I’m a big advocate of small business,” says Arpaio, who ran a successful travel business with Ava, his wife and best friend of 62 years. She passed away in August.
Arpaio says he’s confident he has the support of conservative voters in Fountain Hills, who back the Blue and support legal immigration. He’s got plenty of name recognition to win in next year’s election, he says.
During his 38-year career as a top federal agent in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Arpaio enforced border laws as the lead official in Texas, Arizona, Central and South America, and Mexico.
He spent 24 years at the border as sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona’s most populous. He also was a street cop in Washington, D.C., and Las Vegas.
While on the job in Vegas Arpaio had the rare distinction of apprehending Elvis Presley, caught speeding on a Harley Davidson motorcycle with an unidentified blonde riding in the saddle.
Regarding illegal immigration, Arpaio says he plans to do a book signing at the U.S./Mexican border in Nogales, Arizona, so that people can “learn the truth about immigration.”
“I don’t have a badge and gun anymore. I’ve got this,” Arpaio says, holding up his book like a minister behind his pulpit.
“I’ve been very controversial even before illegal immigration,” Arpaio adds, yet he’s proud of that fact.
As an “equal-opportunity sheriff,” Arpaio has arrested people from all political parties and of all political persuasions.
“I’ll tell you what really bugs me. I’m not going to say I’m sorry,” Arpaio says. “Now, we’ve got a president of the United States who gets a pass. Obama gets a pass.”
“I still talk about the birth certificate. I think they were worried about the birth certificate.”
Arpaio says most likely it was the birth certificate probe that ruined his bid for re-election as sheriff. It most certainly prompted billionaire globalist George Soros to kick in $3 million to help seal Arpaio’s electoral defeat in 2016, he argues.
In 2018, Arpaio was defeated in a bid for U.S. Senate. He then lost the August 2020 primary for Maricopa County sheriff in the primary election, hoping to reclaim his former position.
But everything moves full circle in politics. It’s no different with America’s Toughest Sheriff.
Arpaio views his controversial past as a political curse, and a blessing.
“It’s strange. I’m getting people coming up to me now (to offer their support) more than when I was sheriff. I can’t figure it out.”
One thing he knows for certain, is that he’s “probably the best politician in history.”
“You know why? Everybody says I’m not a politician,” Arpaio says, smiling.
His political opponents “fear me,” he says, “because I say I’m going to do something and I’m going to do it.’
“There is a rest of the story with my life,” Arpaio says with certainty that tells you he is still writing it.
Former President Donald Trump on Oct. 20 unveiled the upcoming launch of his own social media platform.
The beta version of the app, called TRUTH Social, will be available to invited guests in November this year, according to a statement from the Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). A nationwide debut is expected to follow in the first quarter of 2022.
“I created TRUTH Social and TMTG to stand up to the tyranny of Big Tech,” Trump said in a statement released by TMTG. “We live in a world where the Taliban has a huge presence on Twitter, yet your favorite American President has been silenced. This is unacceptable. I am excited to send out my first TRUTH on TRUTH Social very soon.”
The announcement was timed together with a merger announcement between Digital World Acquisition Corp. and TMTG, which will result in TMTG becoming a publicly listed company with a cumulative valuation of $1.7 billion.
According to a company news release, TMTG’s “mission is to create a rival to the liberal media consortium and fight against the ‘Big Tech’ companies of Silicon Valley, which have used their unilateral power to silence opposing voices in America.”
Twitter and Facebook permanently banned Trump in the wake of Jan. 6. The former president earlier this month sued Twitter seeking to force the reinstatement of his account. In July, he filed class-action lawsuits against Twitter, Facebook, and Google, alleging his rights were violated when he was banned.
Donald Trump Jr. posted a link to TRUTH Social on Twitter. The website currently features a waiting list sign up for and a link to the Apple App Store where the app can be preordered for free.
“For so long, Big Tech has suppressed conservative voices,” the president’s son said on Sean Hannity. “If you’re pro-Second-Amendment, if you’re pro-life, if you’re religious, if you’re just a conservative; you have been in Facebook jail, you have been de-platformed, you have been demonetized.”
“What we’re trying to do is create a big tent, an open and Free Network for people to be able to communicate, to exercise your First Amendment rights.”
The former president’s son said Trump signed the former merger agreement on the night of Oct. 20.
According to Bloomberg, Digital World Acquisition Corp. is a blank check company created for the purpose of acquiring one or more companies.
An underreported result of the trial of police officer Derek Chauvin is upending American ideals of justice
The sanctity of American justice is predicated on the right to a fair trial. Trial by jury was one of the most important American principles at its founding, guaranteed in the body of the Constitution in Article III, Section 2, and in the Sixth Amendment. It was instituted as a protection of individuals against abuses by the government.
Earlier this year, police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of the murder of George Floyd. Chauvin’s attorneys had hired highly experienced and respected retired forensic pathologist Dr. David Fowler as an expert witness. Fowler testified that Floyd died of “a sudden cardiac arrhythmia due to his [underlying] heart disease … during his restraint and subdual by the police” and not because of lack of oxygen. Despite Fowler’s testimony, the jury convicted Chauvin of murder.
Many trials end in decisions that seem wrong, and you may or may not agree with the conviction of Chauvin. But whether we agree with any particular decision or not, the American system of justice requires us to abide by it. Otherwise, the system falls apart.
The whittling away of the American justice system in this instance is not the government’s attempt to change a jury’s verdict; the government got the conviction that it wanted. In a dangerous precedent, the government is now attempting to ensure that future cases are more likely to result in the verdict it wants by making it clear that witnesses with whom it disagrees will be punished, ostracized, and have their careers destroyed.
Fowler, Chauvin’s expert witness, was Maryland’s chief medical examiner from 2002 to 2019. According to his resume on the website of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (pdf), Fowler was trained in forensic pathology at the University of Cape Town. He was an adjunct associate professor at the University of Maryland in the departments of pediatrics and pathology, and on the faculty at the National Study Center for Trauma and Emergency Medical Systems. Fowler is a past president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. He has authored numerous book chapters, scientific journal articles, and formal presentations. He currently serves as the National Association of Medical Examiners representative to the Forensic Science Standards Board.
Shortly after the trial, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh “received a letter from D.C.’s former chief medical examiner Roger Mitchell, and signed by 431 doctors from around the country, saying Fowler’s conclusions were so far outside the bounds of accepted forensic practice that all his previous work could come into question,” according to the Associated Press. Within 24 hours, Frosch, in consultation with Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s chief legal counsel, announced an investigation into Fowler’s prior in-custody death examinations (pdf). In September, Frosch announced the members of the audit design team (pdf). This development is very troubling.
I work as an expert witness in technology cases. I’ve participated in over 240 cases over 25 years. I’ve seen unethical behavior by expert witnesses, a small number of whom can be paid to say almost anything to support their client’s position. I’ve written about this unethical behavior and about the need to set stricter standards for expert testimony and more significant consequences for those who purposely misrepresent facts, use unaccepted processes, change testimony, or participate in other unscrupulous behavior. The key, though, is that I challenge expert results in court after I’ve seen all the evidence, produced my own rigorous analysis, and come to my own conclusions. Many times, another expert will examine the same evidence, produce an analysis, and come to different conclusions. There’s no crime in being wrong. The jury listens to the experts, guided by the lawyers, weighs the evidence, and comes to a decision. Our justice system is far from perfect, but for the system to work and be as fair as possible, we all must abide by the judicial outcomes.
If any of the armchair medical “experts” in the world are allowed to bring down the career of Fowler, then few people will ever have the courage to testify contrary to the government’s case or the public’s desires. There may be no stronger or more serious undermining of the American justice system than this one. For the American justice system to survive, people must be free to testify honestly and without outside pressure.
For the sake of basic American principles of justice, honest expert opinions must be given openly, without coercion, and without the belief that the government could destroy your reputation and career if you testify the “wrong” way. This is one more move by those on the left who are working against American principles and attempting to destroy the very basis of our society. We must all work to stop it, especially in its most subtle forms.
Vice President Kamala Harris, who appears to be in the witness protection program when it comes to her assigned role of restoring our southern border, has re-surfaced in a video she sent to 300 black churches in Virginia. In it, she calls on congregants to vote for Democratic candidate for governor, Terry McAuliffe. She even reminds them they can vote on Sundays and urges them to do so following their church service, presumably after worshipping an Authority higher than the state.
Did Harris just violate the Hatch Act? The Hatch Act says of employees of the federal government: “an employee may not use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” I’m sure “getting out the vote” for McAuliffe qualifies.
In the video, Harris touts what she says was McAuliffe’s record during his previous governorship from 2014 to 2018. She claims he brought thousands of jobs to the state. Former President Donald Trump also made this claim. But the Biden administration gives no credit to Trump for anything, though it has quietly restored some of his policies, such as requiring migrants to remain in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed.
Some other takeaways from the Harris video include her failure to mention anything the current Democratic governor, Ralph Northam, has done. It is as if Northam has been erased from memory, like the Soviet Union used to do with leaders who had fallen out of favor and whose photographs were scrubbed from official ceremonies, and ultimately history, to service the Bolshevik propaganda machine.
In the video, Harris says when she attended church in Oakland, California, “it was our sacred responsibility to raise our voice and to lift up the voices of our community.” Translation: vote for Democrats, though their track record is less than admirable when it comes to serving black and brown communities. For Democrats, African Americans never seem to succeed and are always in need of government. Why? To do what? Reduce shootings in the streets of our major cities? Create and keep families together? Give parents an opportunity for their children to escape failing public schools and allow them to choose a school that provides a real education in a safe environment? None of the above. It is in Democrats’ self-interest to keep African Americans loyal and beholden to their party, though so little is given in return.
When a liberal Democrat “talks God” there is no criticism from the advocates of church-state separation because the left, which now dominates that party, knows they aren’t serious. You can call yourself anything you want so long as you ignore the instructions, admonitions, and salvation message of Scripture. That’s why Roman Catholics like President Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem to get away with proclaiming themselves “faithful Catholics” yet ignore—even oppose—their church’s teaching on abortion, marriage, and homosexuality. As long as you are for the same policies advocated by secular progressives you can be “religious,” and the left doesn’t care.
Democrats who have told conservative Christians they should not try to impose their beliefs through government obviously have no problem imposing misinterpretations of Scripture and even non-beliefs through government and judicial fiat. Some are even inconsistent in those beliefs, accepting their church’s teaching when it opposes the death penalty for murderers, but rejecting teachings that seek to protect unborn human life.
By sending a video to black Virginia churches, Harris is guilty of the same condescension we have seen for years within her party when it comes to certain demographics. If government is the answer, would it not have succeeded by now with so many programs enacted and so much money spent?
Will Harris be held accountable for violating the Hatch Act? Of course not. Washington always protects its own, unless the person is a Republican, or Donald Trump.
Jennifer Granholm used her official capacity as gov’t official to promote Democratic candidates, according to complaint
Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits government officials from leveraging their official duties to impact election results, according to an ethics watchdog complaint.
The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust in a Tuesday letter called on the Department of Energy’s Office of Special Counsel to investigate Granholm, who during an interview carried out in her official capacity advocated for the election of progressive Democrats. The watchdog group said Granholm’s comments were an improper use of her position, according to FACT.
During the interview, which was hosted by beauty magazine Marie Claire and first reported on by the Free Beacon, Granholm was introduced as the secretary of energy and spoke about her responsibilities in the administration. But she quickly transitioned to political discussions about electing more progressive Democrats to office, and acknowledged the chance that she was violating the law.
“I’m subject to something called the Hatch Act, which means I can’t advocate for people to call their Members of Congress,” Granholm told interviewer Emily Tisch Sussman, a Democratic activist and daughter of a major Democratic donor. “If I weren’t subject to the Hatch Act, I’m sure you know I would be, but I am so I can’t do that.”
“Throughout the interview she stated that she was a Democrat, Democrats had a ‘bare majority’ in Congress, urged viewers to contact Members of Congress about policy issues she supported, and to elect more Democrats to Congress,” the group wrote. “In fact she essentially acknowledged that her statements were a violation of the Hatch Act, yet attempted to excuse her remarks with ‘If I wasn’t subject to the Hatch Act, this is what I would say.'”
The allegation comes just a week after White House press secretary Jen Psaki was accused of violating the Hatch Act when she endorsed Virginia Democrat Terry McAuliffe during a press briefing. Shortly after liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed an ethics complaint against Psaki, she admitted to the infraction, saying on Saturday, “I’ll be more careful with my words next time.”
The Department of Energy publicly defended Granholm’s interview with Marie Claire, further establishing that the interview was part of her official duties, FACT said in the letter.
“The Department of Energy affirmed her statements were made in her official capacity, claiming that she shared how Americans ‘can participate in our democracy,'” the group wrote. “Granholm’s statements did more than that—she advocated for precisely how citizens should participate in our democracy and that was by supporting a particular political party and its policies.”
The Department of Energy did not respond to a request for comment.
For a former prosecutor and state attorney general, Kamala Harris must not have much respect for the law.
Granted, she’s the vice president in an administration that has been ignoring and suborning American laws from its first day — allowing a flood of illegal immigrants into the country in a crisis that has come to define the Joe Biden presidency.
But a video Harris made to pump up support for the Democratic candidate in Virginia’s election for governor has gone from bending the law to blatantly breaking it — and a constitutional scholar is calling her out on it.
The video Harris recorded was tailor-made to play in Virginia’s black churches between now and the Nov. 2 election, according to the Washington Examiner.
Black churches are known for their political activism, of course. That political activism almost always favors Democratic candidates, as the Pew Research Center has documented, but there’s usually a fig leaf to comply with IRS regulations that govern political activity by tax-exempt organizations.
A get-out-the-vote campaign, for example, is acceptable activity. But, according to the IRS, appeals to support a specific candidate are not.
And that’s where Harris’ video comes in.
VP Harris implores congregants to vote following church service. The McAuliffe campaign has embraced “Souls to the Polls,” block-party style events featuring top campaign surrogates after church near polling locations, to drive turnout.#VAGOVhttps://t.co/vaefXtWqUepic.twitter.com/yGuIL6e7Fz
After some pablum about her childhood singing in church (presumably when she wasn’t shouting “fweedom!” at civil rights marches), Harris’s recorded remarks cut right to endorsing Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for governor and joined-at-the-hip crony of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
“Terry McAuliffe has a long track record of getting things done for the people of Virginia,” Harris said, among other remarks.
McAuliffe, she said, wants to raise the minimum wage, to “make health care more affordable, to give every child a world-class education” (even if he doesn’t want parents involved in schools.)
There was plenty, plenty more along those lines – all specifically written to be delivered to congregations of churches whose tax exemptions depend on avoiding exactly that kind of activity.
Under the Johnson amendment — legislation named for then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, who went on to become the country’s 36th president — IRS regulations allow tax-exempt groups to engage in activities to advance general goals. Campaigns such as get-out-the-vote “would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner,” the IRS website states.
“On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.”
It would be hard to write words that more blatantly violated the letter and spirit of that rule than Harris’ endorsement.
It’s not hard to guess why Democrats are pulling out all the stops on the Virginia race. Given how badly the first year of the Biden presidency has gone, from the border crisis to the Afghanistan disgrace to inflation hitting home for American workers, a defeat for Democrats in what should be a reliably blue heavy with government workers in the area surrounding Washington would be a smashing defeat for the progressive agenda.
Virginia is crucial for Democrats. But that doesn’t mean Kamala Harris gets to break the law to swing the vote.
Do you think Harris is deliberately defying the law with this video?
And for Jonathan Turley, one of the country’s best-known constitutional law experts, that’s exactly what the Harris video was doing.
“It is part of McAuliffe’s push called ‘Souls to the Polls’ and is a full-throated endorsement of McAuliffe that calls on black churches to turn out for his election,” Turley wrote on JonathanTurley.org. “Harris declares, ‘I believe that my friend Terry McAuliffe is the leader Virginia needs at this moment.’
“The problem is that such direct politicking in tax-exempt churches has been unlawful for decades.”
The IRS warns that such violations will not be tolerated because tax-exempt groups “are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
“The IRS warns that such violations will not be tolerated,” Turley wrote in a Twitter post.
Turley is known as a liberal scholar, but one who isn’t shy about bucking the liberal line when he sees they’ve gone too far – such as in 2019 with the first impeachment of then-President Donald Trump.
And it’s clear he’s not beholden to the Biden White House, given his very public criticisms of the exploits of Hunter Biden (and the media’s disgraceful coverage of them.)
So when he takes a stand on a major issue, Americans on both sides of the aisle should be listening closely.
And Turley’s stand on the Harris video is clear. The vice president of the United States has made a blatant political advertisement specifically and deliberately written for airing in a religious setting.
“In 2020, more Virginians voted than ever before, and because you did, you helped send President Joe Biden and me to the White House,” Harris said.
“This year, I know, that you will send Terry McAuliffe back to Richmond.
“So, early voting has already started, and this is the first year that you can vote on Sunday,” Harris said in the video. “So, please, vote after today’s service. And if you cannot vote today, make a plan to go vote.”
It’s tough to get more obvious than that.
And for Turley, that’s a problem. It should be for the rest of America, too.
“If this is indeed played in churches (as opposed to simply posted on Internet sites), it does appear a premeditated and unambiguous violation of the federal law governing churches as non-for-profit institutions,” he wrote.
A “premeditated and unambiguous violation of the federal law” sounds like the standard mode of the Biden administration — and the standard mode of its vice president.
Because for a woman who used to be the state attorney general in California and a district attorney before that, Harris clearly has no respect for the law.
CORRECTION, Oct. 19, 2021:This post originally misstated the date of Virginia’s gubernatorial election.
LOS ANGELES—Los Angeles City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, who was indicted last week on federal bribery and conspiracy charges stemming from his time on the county Board of Supervisors, sent a letter to his colleagues Oct. 18 saying he will “immediately step back” from council and committee meetings, but he intends to remain in office and resume participating “at the earliest appropriate time.”
The Los Angeles city council is scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. Tuesday, its first meeting since the charges against Ridley-Thomas were announced.
“I fully appreciate the importance of the council being able to conduct its business with minimal distractions. With that in mind, and with deep respect for each of you, I write to let you know of my intention to immediately step back from participating in both full council and committee meetings,” Ridley-Thomas wrote in the letter.
On Friday afternoon, Ridley-Thomas, 66, announced in his first public statement following the indictment that he has “no intention of resigning” his seat and is focused on fighting the allegations.
“Going forward, I intend to do two things: disprove the allegations leveled at me and continue the work I was elected to do—most importantly, addressing the homeless and housing crisis,” he said.
The 20-count indictment filed in Los Angeles federal court on Wednesday alleges that Ridley-Thomas conspired with Marilyn Louise Flynn, 83, former dean of University of Southern California’s School of Social Work, who prosecutors claim agreed to provide Ridley-Thomas’s son with graduate school admission, a full-tuition scholarship and a paid professorship at the university.
She also allegedly arranged to funnel a $100,000 donation from Ridley-Thomas’s campaign funds through the university to a nonprofit to be operated by his son.
In exchange, the indictment alleges, Ridley-Thomas, who was at the time a Los Angeles County Supervisor, supported contracts involving the School of Social Work, including contracts to provide services to the county Department of Children and Family Services and Probation Department, as well as an amendment to a contract with the Department of Mental Health that would bring the school millions of dollars in new revenue.
Attorneys for both have denied any wrongdoing.
On Tuesday, the county Board of Supervisors will consider a proposal by Supervisors Hilda Solis and Kathryn Barger to hire an outside law firm to investigate the allegations against Ridley-Thomas and examine “the associated county processes and policies in place.”
“Over the years, we have sought to prevent corruption by controlling opportunity, incentive and risk through robust processes and policies that provided transparency and accountability,” according to the motion. “We recommit ourselves to these principles and to a renewed assessment of further process and policy improvements.”
Councilman Joe Buscaino, who serves on the Homelessness and Poverty Committee, called for Ridley-Thomas to surrender his council seat.
City Council President Nury Martinez, meanwhile, said the council “will need to take appropriate action” against Ridley-Thomas, although she did not provide specifics.
Former President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit on Monday in a Washington D.C. court against the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol incident and against the National Archives in a bid to keep his presidential records classified, citing executive privilege.
Trump’s court filing, namely, argues (pdf) that the committee’s records request is too broad and doesn’t serve any legislative purpose.
“The Committee’s request amounts to nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by [President Joe] Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration,” the lawsuit said. “Our laws do not permit such an impulsive, egregious action against a former President and his close advisors.”
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), one of the chairs of the House select committee, and the national archivist, David Ferriero, were also named as defendants in the lawsuit.
“In cases like this, where a committee has declined to grant sufficient time to conduct a full review,” Trump’s court filing said, “there is a longstanding bipartisan tradition of protective assertions of executive privilege designed to ensure the ability of the Executive to make a final assertion, if necessary, over some or all of the requested material.”
The Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional should it be “read so broadly as to allow an incumbent President unfettered discretion to waive the previous President’s executive privilege, mere months following an administration change,” according to the lawsuit. The committee is seeking potentially millions of presidential records, including presidential conversations and communications with lawyers.
The lawsuit was filed by Jesse Binnall, who had represented Trump in a Nevada election-related lawsuit filed last year.
Subpoenas for documents and testimony were issued by the Jan. 6 committee against several former Trump administration aides. Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon publicly vowed not to comply with the congressional demands.
After Bannon’s comment, Biden said that the Department of Justice should prosecute him if he continues to defy the subpoenas. However, a Justice Department spokesman rebuked his claim, saying it will “make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law. Period. Full stop.”
It comes days after White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that the Biden administration would not allow Trump to assert executive privilege to block the request from the House committee.
“The president has determined an assertion of executive privilege isn’t warranted for the first set of documents from the Trump White House that have been provided to us by the National Archives,” Psaki said on Oct. 8, adding that more troves of documents could be evaluated on a “case-by-case basis.”
The National Archives is reportedly scheduled to hand over the Trump administration documents next month.
No matter what you think happened on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, there is no denying that it has been a gift, politically speaking, to the establishment left.
It bolstered leftists’ longstanding claims that the nation is filled with white supremacist terrorists just chomping at the bit to bring back the lynch mob and impose the vague form of fascism that anyone even remotely right-leaning is so often accused of supporting.
What is truly terrifying about those who stand accused of participating in the Capitol incursion, however, is the way they’re being treated.
There have been multiple reports of mistreatment and civil rights violations among the Jan. 6 defendants awaiting trial, none of whom, by the way, are facing charges of treason or sedition.
These are serious accusations — as they would be if we were talking about antifa insurgents or Black Lives Matter protesters, as well.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth found Washington, D.C., jail officials to be in contempt of court this week over their treatment of a Jan. 6 defendant and has called on the Department of Justice to investigate whether the rights of other incursion suspects are being violated.
The director and warden of the D.C. Department of Corrections, Quincy Booth and Wanda Patten, respectively, failed to see that defendant Christopher Worrell received necessary medical treatment, The Washington Post reported.
Worrell faces four felony charges, including rioting and spraying pepper gel at law enforcement officers during the Capitol incursion.
He was arrested in March and has been held at the D.C. facility without bail. After breaking his wrist in May, it was recommended that he receive surgery, which has yet to happen thanks to the officials’ neglect.
During a hearing, Lamberth said this failure was “more than just inept and bureaucratic jostling of papers,” suggesting that it could have even been deliberate mistreatment.
“I find that the civil rights of the defendant have been abused. I don’t know if it’s because he’s a Jan. 6 defendant or not, but I find this matter should be referred to the attorney general of the United States for a civil rights investigation into whether the D.C. Department of Corrections is violating the civil rights of Jan. 6 defendants,” he said.
This is a disturbing example of what many fear could happen to our justice system if we are not careful.
For months, attorneys representing Jan. 6 defendants have been crying foul about how their clients are being treated. The allegations sound like they’re right out of the third world and include lack of access to clean water, lengthy periods of time in solitary confinement, and limited legal counsel.
By many accounts, the alleged rioters are being treated like political prisoners in a corrupt, illiberal system — and, sadly, I’m sure many would agree that that is essentially what they are.
However, the Post pointed out that the D.C. Department of Corrections has been accused of creating inhumane conditions before and not-so-subtly implied that it’s only now receiving any attention because the Jan. 6 defendants are white and conservative.
“Some veteran defense lawyers privately noted that complaints raised on behalf of mostly White and conservative Jan. 6 defendants [appear] to have won more traction from some political quarters than abuse claims brought by poorer Black and Hispanic defendants who make up the bulk of the jail population,” the outlet reported.
This is an interesting angle from the Post, considering it’s not exactly uncommon in today’s political climate for lawmakers and pundits to draw attention to all manner of alleged civil rights violations, particularly against minorities.
Of course, the left’s leveraging of such grievances for political purposes is not always proportionate to the actual wrongdoing, so we can take the claim at face value.
If the Jan. 6 defendants are not being singled out and this facility really is so atrocious, well, then it’s a good thing that their cases are bringing attention to gross and widespread civil rights abuses, right? Certainly.
Yet what is unique in the case of these supposedly privileged defendants is that their crime, which has been characterized by the establishment as a carefully coordinated and treasonous affair, seems to have had a suspicious degree of FBI involvement.
No matter how you look at it, the way the Jan. 6 defendants are being treated reeks of swamp corruption. We need to fight for a justice system that defends the rights of even the most politically polarizing prisoner.
Let’s sincerely hope that, no matter who is being mistreated in this D.C. prison, this incident will rip the mask off the people responsible.
Senate Democrats want to pass a new “voting rights” bill that would limit laws requiring voter identification and produce a federal framework for voting.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been skeptical of such a bill, as he is wary of a federal takeover of voter laws. Voting law has traditionally been a province of states, not the federal government.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced the new bill on Thursday, and he is planning a vote on it for next week.
One positive sign for Republicans is Schumer saying that if Republicans have ideas “on how to improve the legislation, we are prepared to hear them, debate them, and if they are in line with the goals of the legislation, include them in the bill.”
Voter identification laws, though, are critical to maintaining a fair voting system.
The Bill of Rights Institute identifies several reasons that voting identification procedures by the states are a good idea:
“In general, it is a good idea to verify a voter’s identity in order to ensure a one-vote-per-person system.
“There are many cases in which people registered in multiple states vote multiple times.
“There are many cases in which deceased registered voters cast a ballot-someone is fraudulently claiming to be the deceased voter.
“Non-citizens vote in large numbers, though they do not possess the legal right to do so.”
Voting identification laws are a fundamental way that states can use to require free and democratic elections.
Furthermore, as states have traditionally been in charge of elections, this latest bill represents an attempt at federal overreach.
Our federalist system depends on having a certain balance of power between the federal government and the state governments, which this bill threatens to make worse.
The balance of power has long been eroded by increasing the power of the federal government, and this bill represents another step backward in the balance of power.
There is a strong chance that this voting rights bill will fail, as there is a 50-50 party division in the Senate and 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster.
Some Democrats contend that new voting rights laws in Texas and other states are a return to Jim Crow-era laws. However, this new bill in the Senate would prevent the kind of good voter identification laws that are needed in this country.
Let us hope that the Senate Republicans do not allow this bill to pass. It would be a step backward and a sign of a dangerous federal government becoming even more powerful.
Frustrated over Republicans stonewalling their efforts to raise the debt ceiling, Democrats in the House have introduced two measures that would abolish the debt ceiling or significantly reform it by placing it largely out of Congress’s jurisdiction.
The legislation, which was introduced by Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), contains two separate approaches to the debt ceiling.
Option A: Abolish the Debt Ceiling Altogether
The first of the two brief bills contains only two lines. The first is “A bill to repeal the debt ceiling,” and the second declares any standing law relating to the debt ceiling repealed.
For much of U.S. history, no such thing as a debt limit existed, but it slowly came about as a congressional assertion of authority over the president.
Before 1917, Congress could approve individual loans or individual methods to be used by the Treasury, but often lending and spending were left to the president’s discretion.
After the nation became involved in World War I, Congress issued its first blanket debt limit with the Second Liberty Bond Act, which limited the debts that the Treasury could incur to $15 billion. Given the president’s large financial discretion, the bill was intended to limit how much then-President Woodrow Wilson could borrow to finance the war.
Aside from a few scattered bills approved by Congress to cap the aggregate debt limit that the president could borrow, the president continued to exercise largely unilateral control of state finances until the 1970s.
In the 1970s, the revelations surrounding the Watergate scandal led Congress to look deeper into the states’ finances, culminating in a reassertion of authority with the Budget Act of 1974.
The bill introduced annual itemized budgets passed by Congress, the budget reconciliation process, and limited the public debt to amounts approved by Congress. Since then, Congress has had unilateral authority to set borrowing limits on the president and the Treasury.
With the legislation, federal spending and revenues became a legislative prerogative rather than an executive one. Since then, the original oversight purpose of the bill has become obfuscated by largely party-line splits over raising the debt ceiling.
Members of both parties have often used the debt ceiling as a mechanism to play political hardball. In 2006, Democrats in the Senate—including then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and now-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—almost unanimously voted against raising the debt ceiling. Republicans have used the same move since then, most notably in 2011 and 2013 under President Barack Obama.
Despite this history of hardball, the move does give Congress the ability to extract concessions from the president, or to make a symbolic gesture of protest against the current administration. Democrats’ 2006 rebellion came as just such a protest vote. During Obama’s tenure, Republicans were able to use the mechanism to obtain a concession from Obama to cut spending.
Now, Boyle’s bill would abolish the debt ceiling altogether, leaving no limits on how much debt the United States can incur. If the measure were approved, neither the president nor Congress could place limits on the maximum acceptable national debt without repealing Boyle’s bill.
Some Democrats are supportive of the bill’s goal.
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) told his colleagues on the House floor that the debt ceiling should be eliminated altogether. Reps. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), David Trone (D-Md.), Dwight Evans (D-Pa.), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), and Earl Blumenhauer (D-Ore.) signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. Despite expressing support for the bill, Yarmuth hasn’t signed on as a co-sponsor.
Option B: Give Treasury Secretary Power to Raise Debt Limit
The second option would once again restore the power to raise the debt limit to the executive branch. The option is put forward in Boyle’s second proposal, called “The Debt Ceiling Reform Act.”
If approved, the public debt would “be treated as being equal to such greater dollar amount as the Secretary of the Treasury may periodically determine.” In brief, the bill would allow the Secretary of the Treasury—currently Biden-appointed Janet Yellen—to unilaterally raise or lower the debt ceiling.
As an appointee of the president, that would return the power to the executive branch and give the president significant influence over the debt limit.
Due to its constitutional power over federal spending, revenues, and debt, Boyle’s bill would allow Congress to keep some influence over the debt limit.
The bill says that the decision of the Treasury secretary to raise or lower the debt ceiling can be overridden by a “subsequently enacted” law. This would give Congress the ability to maintain oversight, but actually executing such oversight would be difficult.
Currently, Congress can use parliamentary maneuvers to approve legislation to raise the debt ceiling along a party-line vote. In 2006, Republicans raised the debt ceiling along party lines; Schumer has indicated that Democrats plan to do the same to raise the current debt ceiling.
But bills to override the Treasury secretary’s debt ceiling decision wouldn’t be able to use the same maneuvers in the Senate, where 60 votes are required to begin debate on a bill before it can be passed by a simple majority. Historically, members of the Senate have voted to raise the debt ceiling when the president is a member of their party, while efforts not to raise the debt ceiling have arisen from the opposition party.
Members of the president’s party are likely to continue to be hesitant to override the decision of his Treasury appointee, and to deny the 60 votes needed for any legislative efforts to do so. Without a supermajority of resistance to the decision in the upper chamber, overriding the Treasury secretary’s decision will be a challenge.
This proposal also has shown to be more popular among the Democratic caucus than the first.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has indicated that she supports Boyle’s second proposal, telling a reporter, “I think it has merit.”
The second bill also has significantly more co-sponsors, with a total of 16: Reps. Coleman, Espaillat, Evans, and Blumenhauer joined Boyle as co-sponsors again; Reps. John Yarmuth, Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Susan Wild (D-Pa.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Mike Levin (D-Calif.), Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.), Danny Davis (D-Ill.), Bill Foster (D-Ill.), Nikema Williams (D-Ga.), and Donald Beyer (D-Va.) also signed onto the bill.
Democrats have insisted that reforms of the debt ceiling are necessary to avert crises in the future.
Boyle’s proposals represent the first effort at cementing his party’s demands into law, but will likely face resistance in the Senate, where Republicans have unanimously refused to raise the debt limit, if Pelosi passes either in a House vote.
Both bills are currently tied up in the House Ways and Means Committee.
A new report seems to confirm what we all already knew about the Ashli Babbitt case: She was shot unjustifiably.
For those who may not remember, Babbitt was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer while trying to open a door that led to the House chamber during the Jan. 6 incursion.
Judicial Watch reported on Wednesday that it had obtained 532 pages of documents from the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police, all regarding Babbitt’s death.
Witness testimonies indicated Babbitt was not holding a weapon at the time of the shooting and that the officer involved, Michael Byrd, looked “upset” after shooting her.
A Capitol Police sergeant testified that he didn’t know why Byrd shot Babbitt.
“I saw Lt. Byrd kind of. I don’t know if it was before or after,” the sergeant said. “I don’t know if something happened to him [that] caused him to take the shot or not.”
“These previously secret records show there was no good reason to shoot and kill Ashli Babbitt,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said.
“The Biden-Garland Justice Department and the Pelosi Congress have much to answer for … over the mishandling and cover-up of this scandalous killing of an American citizen by the U.S. Capitol Police.”
“She was posing a threat to the United States House of Representatives,” he said in an August interview with NBC News.
“I know that day I saved countless lives. … I know members of Congress, as well as my fellow officers and staff, were in jeopardy and in serious danger. And that’s my job.”
The Capitol Police concluded an internal investigation seven months after the shooting, declaring Byrd’s actions “lawful and within Department policy,” according to Fox News.
After a full year of the establishment media and the Black Lives Matter crowd preaching ad nauseam about police misconduct and abuse of power, it was strange to see them fall completely silent regarding Ashli Babbitt’s death.
After all, Babbitt was a white woman, which means her unjustified killing doesn’t play well into their race-baiting narrative.
In July, The Western Journal conducted an interview with Michelle Witthoeft, Babbitt’s mother. Witthoeft blasted Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for failing to investigate the circumstances of her daughter’s death.
“Nancy Pelosi … I feel like, orchestrated the death of my daughter,” Witthoeft told The Western Journal.
“I’ve reached out to Nancy Pelosi’s office several times, and she has yet to call me back because she’s too busy playing in her clubhouse with all of her elite people.”
She went on to remind Pelosi that she should be serving the people.
“You know, it’s the people’s house. It’s not your house, Nancy. It’s the people’s house. That’s my message to Nancy Pelosi,” Witthoeft said.
“The Capitol Police should be held accountable like every other police department in the country.”
It’s well past time that Witthoeft and Babbitt’s other family members were afforded the justice they deserve for the death of their loved one.
Now we all know the truth. Hopefully, justice comes soon.
A federal judge on Oct. 13 held top Washington jail officials in contempt, finding that they violated a U.S. Capitol breach defendant’s civil rights by impeding his access to medical care.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, found Washington jail warden Wanda Patten and Department of Corrections Director Quincy Booth in civil contempt in a written order after expressing displeasure with them during a court hearing.
The order doesn’t include sanctions or penalties, but was being transmitted to Attorney General Merrick Garland for an inquiry into the potential civil rights violations of defendants charged in relation to the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, “as exemplified in this case.”
“It’s clear to me the civil rights of the defendant were violated by the D.C. Department of Corrections,” Lamberth said in federal court in Washington. “I don’t know if it’s because he’s a January 6 defendant or not.”
The referral concerns the treatment of Christopher Worrell, who has been charged with civil disorder and other counts.
Worrell, who has been held since being arrested in March, has been dealing with a finger fracture and cancer, according to court records. In June, an orthopedic surgeon at a nearby hospital recommended that Worrell have surgery to repair the fracture.
A surgery for the fracture is still in the process of being approved by U.S. Marshals, Worrell’s attorneys and prosecutors wrote in a joint update last week.
Lamberth said that after receiving the update, he contacted Acting U.S. Marshal Lamont Ruffin to inquire about the subject.
Ruffin said that repeated requests for medical records from the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC) didn’t yield necessary notes. The judge then ordered the D.C. jail and DOC to provide the records to the court.
Jail officials didn’t respond to the order, Lamberth said in a separate filing on Oct. 12. He ordered them to appear before him and show why they shouldn’t be held in civil contempt.
A lawyer for the jail argued that they had been working to get the records together to comply with the court’s order before the contempt hearing was set.
“He’s needed an operation. He hasn’t gotten it,” the judge said.
Defense lawyers representing a number of Capitol defendants have said their clients are being treated poorly in the Washington jail. Several defendants have said guards beat them.
“They’re being treated like third-world country political prisoners,” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told The Epoch Times.
Chris Geldart, deputy mayor for public safety and justice in Washington, told The Epoch Times in an email that the DOC “has made every effort to comply with the orders of District Court including the provision of external medical records referenced in this case.”
“The Department works to ensure the Constitutional rights of all residents and will fully cooperate with any lawful inquiries or investigation by the United States Department of Justice and/or the United States Attorney’s Office,” Geldart wrote.
Department of Justice officials didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.
“Both my client and I are pleased with the outcome of the hearing and Judge Lambert’s ruling today,” Alex Stavrou, an attorney representing the defendant, told The Epoch Times in an email.
“On behalf of all January 6 defendants, we support the [judge’s] position that the Office of the Attorney General investigate into potential civil rights violations. On behalf of Christopher Worrell and all January 6 defendants, we trust and pray that the Office of the Attorney General will conduct this inquiry immediately and without prejudice,” Stavrou wrote.
Reflecting the national media’s scant coverage of the Spygate scandal, only 3 in 10 Americans say they are aware that a special prosecutor is investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia “collusion” probe, according to a nationwide survey conducted this month by TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics (TIPP).
But of those who say they know of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation, most say they want him to get to the bottom of whether the FBI opened investigations into several Trump campaign advisers during the 2016 election without proper “predication.”
Nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of respondents say they want the Justice Department to renew Durham’s budget for another fiscal year, the TIPP poll found, and a whopping 81 percent want the department to release his final report to the public.
Attorney General Merrick Garland, a Biden appointee, holds the purse strings to Durham’s investigation. He also has authority over whether his report will be made public.
“Americans who know of the Durham investigation have a keen interest in it,” said Raghavan Mayur, president of New Jersey-based TIPP. “Regardless of party or ideology, the majority of them want the attorney general to continue the investigation and release the report to the public. We found unanimous consent there.”
A surprisingly high share of Democrats—68 percent—agreed with Republicans and Independents that Durham’s budget should be renewed, while 82 percent of Democrats agreed his report should be released in full.
“It’s very interesting to see Democrats also are very interested in the results of the investigation,” Mayur said.
Known as a tough, nonpartisan prosecutor, Durham earlier this year resigned from his post as U.S. attorney for Connecticut to lead the Special Counsel’s Office case full-time. Richard Blumenthal and the other Democratic Senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy, have both praised Durham as a “fierce and fair prosecutor.”
The so-called Russiagate investigation of Trump and his aides began under the Obama administration. After Justice’s inspector general in 2019 exposed FBI abuses of the top secret FISA surveillance program to spy on at least one Trump aide, former Attorney General Bill Bar appointed Durham to conduct a criminal probe.
Earlier this year, the special counsel secured a felony conviction of top FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, who doctored an internal email critical to obtaining a FISA warrant to continue spying on former Trump adviser Carter Page. And last month, Durham indicted former top Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann for making a false report to the FBI linking Trump to Russia. Sussmann denies the charges and is fighting them in court.
TIPP asked the subset of survey respondents who said they were aware of Durham’s case if they think he should also question Hillary Clinton and her former top campaign officials—specifically, Jake Sullivan—as part of his investigation. Sixty percent answered yes to interviewing Clinton, while 58 percent said they wanted to see Sullivan and other Clinton aides questioned before the federal grand jury Durham’s impaneled in D.C.
Sullivan is now serving in the White House as Biden’s national security adviser. His wife, Maggie Goodlander, formerly clerked for Garland when he was a federal judge, posing a potential conflict of interest for the attorney general as he oversees Durham’s work—particularly as it relates to Sullivan, who is referenced in the Sussmann indictment.
Garland and Goodlander have a close personal relationship. Last year, they exchanged warm sentiments during an interview conducted by Goodlander, then a law professor at the University of New Hampshire.
“One of the real joys and benefits of being able to clerk for you was to have an insider’s view on how you do your job,” Goodlander gushed. “You can ask me as many questions as you want, Mag!” Garland said.
When asked at his Senate confirmation if he would commit to providing Durham with the time and budget needed to complete his investigation, Garland declined to do so.
According to the TIPP poll, 80 percent of Republicans think Durham should question Clinton as part of his investigation, followed by 74 percent of independents and 44 percent of Democrats. Meanwhile, nearly three-fourths of GOP respondents say Sullivan and other senior Clinton advisers should be interviewed by investigators, and 68 percent of independents agree. Among Democrats, 46 percent said they want to see Sullivan and other Clinton aides questioned.
The national survey also asked whether Durham should question former President Obama as part of his investigation. Of respondents who say they’re aware of the special counsel’s probe, 73 percent of Republicans, 67 percent of independents and 37 percent of Democrats answered yes.
Obama was engaged in the Russiagate investigation’s progress. During the 2016 campaign, both the FBI and CIA briefed him about it. After the election, he held a high-level White House meeting to discuss investigating Trump and his advisers. In fact, he ordered then-FBI Director James Comey to “look at things” and put “the right people” on the case.
What about his vice president? Biden attended the high-level January 2017 meeting and even offered the FBI a pretext to investigate ret. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who Trump had nominated as his national security adviser.
The vast majority of Republicans (70 percent) and independents (62 percent) want Durham to question Biden about his own role in the investigation of Trump. Democrats are less eager to see the head of their party dragged into the investigation. Only 36 percent said they want to see Biden interviewed.
Asked if they want Durham to question Clinton, Sullivan, Obama and Biden, the majority of Republicans (58 percent) and independents (51 percent) chose “all of them,” compared with just 16 percent of Democrats. Overall, 33 percent of respondents said they want them all questioned.
“The data show more grassroots support for Durham’s investigation than the media has reported,” Mayur said in an interview. “It appears to be a matter of great import to Americans, regardless of party affiliation,” at least for the 31 percent of Americans who are aware of what Durham has been doing.
The pollster explained that “Americans want to have faith in and respect for the FBI. When there is a smidgen of irregularity, they want it exposed. They likely see a thorough Durham investigation settling the issue and putting closure to questions about the origins of the Russia probe.”
What leftists don’t understand about Ron DeSantis is what they don’t understand about America.
The Republican Florida governor, potential presidential candidate and biggest liberal lightning rod in the country whose name isn’t “Trump” published a proclamation on Monday saluting Columbus Day with praise for the navigator whose voyages changed human history.
And in the process, he scored a direct hit on the progressive left that dominates the country’s current president.
Christopher Columbus displayed courage, determination, and perseverance when he sailed the ocean blue more than 500 years ago.
For a politician with an Italian-American heritage, DeSantis’ statement was almost obligatory, of course. But for a conservative in the United States of the 21st century plagued by a political movement that aims to attack just about every vestige of the imperfect past, it was an act of defiance.
At a time when self-loathing liberals are condemning their own nation because the Founding Fathers of more than two centuries ago didn’t live up to the pieties of the present, DeSantis’ words came like a breath of fresh air.
Without Columbus, DeSantis wrote, “the country we hold dear and the lives we enjoy would not exist.”
That’s a simple fact. Columbus’ 1492 voyage was the hinge the history of the world has turned on ever since. And his landfall in what is now the Bahamas is what made possible the settlements of North America that eventually gave rise to the British colonies, the American Revolution and the face of the globe as it is today.
For the modern left, the fact that Columbus had all the imperfections of his time (a tolerance of slavery, for instance, that was shared across Africa and the Arab world) is somehow a disqualification from admiration today.
DeSantis’ statement showed better, saluting “a singular figure in Western Civilization who exemplified courage, risk-taking and heroism in the face of enormous odds.”
But DeSantis went further than simply acknowledging Columbus’ accomplishments. He turned the statement into an attack on the “woke” world of the left, declaring that “individuals who seek to defame Columbus and try to expunge the day from our civic calendar do so as part of a mission to portray the United States and Western history in a negative light as they seek to blame our country and its values for all that is evil in the world, rather than see it as the force for good.”
Bingo.
It doesn’t require star-spangled patriotism to understand that the United States is and has been a force for freedom in the world. And it’s entirely possible for mature minds to acknowledge the flaws of the past while being grateful for the country the Founding Fathers built and proud of its leading place in the world.
To do the opposite — to dwell on the manifold sins of the past that have become a lucrative livelihood for grifters peddling critical race theory garbage while refusing to adopt a clear-eyed comprehension of just how great the United States actually is — is the kind of moral and intellectual failure American progressives have perfected.
Naturally, DeSantis’ proclamation was greeted with predictable bilge — sophomoric barbs blaming him for the calamitous consequences of the European conquest of the Western Hemisphere for the native inhabitants.
It’s truly amazing how many individuals there are who think a high schooler’s knowledge of history combined with a high schooler’s conceit (“Columbus thought he was in Asia!”) constitute brilliant political insight rather than puerile protest. But then, it’s amazing that Joe Biden is the president, too. (There might be a connection between those two.)
Here are some fair examples of the kind of intellectual heft we’re dealing with:
But even in the leftist cesspool of social media, there were users who understood DeSantis’ point.
This means more to me at least than all else done in government today! Thank you for continuing the good fight spreading freedom and truth! We are a lucky State at the moment for having you and I believe more will realize it with time!
Can’t hold the past to our standards. History shows how the human condition has evolved and became more civilized. If Columbus had not “discovered” America, the United States would not exist. We be judged in the future. I pray in the context of our world not theirs.
The reality is that, for modern leftists, morality is mainly a matter of expedience, and expedience means condemning the Western culture. Columbus will be attacked ad nauseam for the slave trade that followed his voyages, but nothing will be said about the slave trade fostered by Africans and Arabs for centuries.
Columbus will be blamed for the admittedly brutal subjugation of the native tribes of North and South America that followed his expeditions, but never is he or the European heritage credited with the principles of the Declaration of Independence that also followed his discovery — or the United States of America, the single greatest force for freedom in the world since the spread of Christianity.
Adult Americans understand that Columbus wasn’t perfect. They understand their country isn’t perfect and never has been. Because sane adults understand that perfection doesn’t exist in a world of human beings.
But they also understand the greatness of the country, too.
Ronald Reagan conducted the most consequential presidency in post-war history because Americans knew he understood that. George W. Bush spent eight years in the White House for the same reason.
Donald Trump upended the political establishment to win the presidency in 2016 (and should have done the same in 2020) because he trumpeted that message from sea to shining sea.
Leftists didn’t get it then, and they don’t get it now. They won’t get it in 2024 no matter who is running for president against the corrupt ineptitude of the Biden-Harris White House.
A relatively new type of search warrant that attempts to compel search engines to hand over information on anybody in a certain area who has entered in a set of terms is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, experts say.
“Keyword warrants are a blatantly unconstitutional way to transform every Google search into a government tracking tool,” Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, told The Epoch Times in an email.
Law enforcement in the so-called keyword warrants seek records relating to searches in a bid to advance an investigation.
Most of the warrants, which are similar to geoforce warrants, have sought information from Google.
In one of the earliest known examples, a police officer in Hennepin County in 2017 asked Google to turn over details of any user in Edina who searched four terms, all containing the name “Douglas,” between Dec. 1, 2016, and Jan. 7, 2017.
Details sought included names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, and payment information.
The population of Edina is about 53,000.
The warrant was approved by a judge but it wasn’t clear whether Google complied. Court records for the case weren’t available.
A federal judge signed off on five warrants for a probe into bombings in Austin, Texas, the following year. Thewarrantssoughtinformationfrom Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. FBI investigators wanted details of any users who searched for addresses where the bombs were set off. According to court records, the warrants were executed.
Another keyword warrant was authorized by a federal judge in June 2020. Investigators wanted information on any Google users who searched for the address of a residence in Kissimmee, Florida, which housed a government witness in the case against singer R. Kelly. Somebody set a vehicle on fire outside the residence, prompting an investigation.
According to court records, Google handed over records relating to Michael Williams of Valdosta, Georgia. That ultimately led to Williams being arrested. Williams, an associate of Kelly, pleaded guilty to arson in April. Kelly was found guilty last month of multiple counts including racketeering, sexual exploitation of a child, bribery, kidnapping, and sex trafficking charges.
The existence of the rare type of warrants was highlighted recently by Forbes, which found federal investigators in Wisconsin in 2019 had asked Google to hand over information on any users who searched for a minor who was allegedly kidnapped and sexually abused.
The warrant was accidentally unsealed and reviewed by Forbes before being sealed again.
One other previously unreported keyword warrant was found in California federal court. It related to Google and sought information on users who searched for six terms.
The FBI and the Edina Police Department did not respond to requests for comment.
Aaron Mackey, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the warrants don’t appear to be lawful under the Constitution.
“Should a warrant be issued for this? I just think the answer is pretty simple: it’s no. Because the cops are using the warrant to get the suspect, to find the suspect. They’re not establishing probable cause to identify the suspect or locate that particular person or place or thing and search it,” he told The Epoch Times. “It’s just sort of the opposite of how everything should work, and therefore it’s a pretty significant Fourth Amendment violation.”
“Keyword warrants pervert the promise of the 4th Amendment. Under our constitution, warrants are supposed to be limited to a particular individual, based on showing of probable cause. Keyword warrants provide information on overwhelmingly innocent people, potentially tens of thousands of people at a time,” Cahn added.
Because many of the records relating to the searches are sealed, it’s not clear whether Google or other companies that have been targeted by the warrants have challenged them in court.
Mackey recommends members of the public push back and demand Google stop complying with the warrants and also work on pressuring law enforcement agencies who are utilizing them.
Google did not respond to a request for comment. Microsoft declined to comment. Yahoo could not be reached.
A DuckDuckGo spokeswoman told The Epoch Times via email that the way its engine is set up precludes being targeted by keyword warrants.
“DuckDuckGo doesn’t have any search histories by design,” she said. “And because we do not have search histories, we have never been served with a warrant or other law enforcement demand for search histories of any kind, keyword warrants or otherwise.”
In 2016, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomasdelivered the commencement address to graduates at Hillsdale College in Michigan. While many speakers use commencement addresses to boost graduates’ confidence with lofty platitudes about following one’s dreams or believing in one’s potential, Justice Thomas chose to go a different route.
He spoke not about what the world has to offer to young people, but instead what they ought to offer the world. He emphasized to the graduates that as they entered the public square, they must be aware of what it means to be an American citizen. Citizenship, he told them, is a duty—not a privilege.
Justice Thomas asserted that in keeping with a long philosophical tradition, the reverse side of freedom is responsibility; there’s a vital relationship between the liberty of a thriving constitutional republic and the day-to-day sacrifice of individual citizens. In his view, liberty comes with deep and abiding obligations.
He concluded that instead of trying to dedicate their lives to changing the world, students should instead begin to practice responsibility, dignity, and gratitude in their lives. Instead of fixating on implementing sweeping social changes from the top down, they should first examine how they treat those closest to them.
Those words, spoken five years ago by Justice Thomas, epitomize the man, who this week is celebrating his 30th anniversary as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Born in abject poverty in Pin Point, Georgia, abandoned by his father when he was just 2 years old, and suffering from the racism that was prevalent at the time as a black child in the South, Justice Thomas started out life seemingly with three strikes against him. He could have chosen to be a “victim” of his unfortunate circumstances and respond in anger to his situation.
But instead, he was fortunate to have a mentor in his grandfather, Myers Anderson, a self-made man who became successful in business despite also being born into poverty. It was Anderson who taught the young boy the value of hard work, self-reliance, and a good education. With Anderson as an inspiration, Justice Thomas would become the first member of his family ever to attend college, and eventually earned a law degree from Yale.
Justice Thomas had taken the lessons he received from Anderson to heart, and instead of focusing on what the world supposedly owed him, he chose to focus on what he owed to the world—gratitude and personal responsibility regardless of the circumstances. He knew the value of personal sacrifice, and his life is one that embodies the obligation he feels to invest in those who come after him so they too can have a brighter future.
For those young people who have been fortunate enough to serve as clerks to Justice Thomas, they could not find a better mentor. Justice Thomas invests in the relationships with his clerks, providing the same sort of mentorship that he received from Anderson, and many have gone on to be leaders in government, law, and the private sector.
But it’s just not his law clerks with whom Justice Thomas shows interest—those who have had the honor of meeting him in his chambers at the Supreme Court have found a man of exceeding kindness and a wonderful sense of humor. He greets and treats all as if they are close personal friends.
Justice Thomas understands that being a good citizen requires standing firm in one’s beliefs while treating everyone with dignity, even those with whom he disagrees or who hurl personal attacks against him. In doing so, he serves as a role model for us all and shows us through personal responsibility, self-sacrifice, gratitude, and dignity what citizenship and duty is all about.
So, as we celebrate the 30th anniversary of this humble servant’s service as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, let us all strive to follow the words he gave those graduating students at Hillsdale College and that he has lived out throughout his life—to see citizenship as a duty that requires sacrifice and not a privilege that demands special treatment.
That’s the legacy of that young boy from Pin Point, Georgia. His life is a testament to how being a good citizen will result in both personal and national restoration.
Historically, the difference with equity cases was that judges were allowed a wide exercise of their own discretion rather than strictly adhering to actual laws.
Justice Harry Blackmun, in Roe v. Wade, abused that discretionary power. Authorizing the taking of innocent life is never a matter to be decided by judicial discretion.Has the concept of “equity” replaced the ideal of justice?Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Equal Outcomes Through Unjust Killing
Caught up in the rhetoric of the sexual revolution and with zero experience in abortion jurisprudence, Justice Blackmun sought to redress the unequal outcomes allegedly suffered by a pregnant woman with “the unwanted child” by granting her a compensatory right to commission the killing of that child “lawfully.”
It was an equity without justice that introduced a pregnant woman’s killing rights over her “unwanted child” as a legitimate resource needed to reach an equal outcome with men.
Now “equity” has become a popular woke term being misapplied under the guise of correcting alleged discrimination in a huge number of new areas.
Our courts now thrash about trying to impose equal outcomes, too often through unjust means.
Substituting Equity for Justice Is Unconstitutional
Substitution of equity for justice in Roe v. Wade subverted the pre-eminent purpose of the Constitution — to “establish Justice.”
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice … and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
But a progressive Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade narrowed these constitutional obligations. It demoted justice and declared equity to be a better road to forming a more perfect union.
Progressives altered the Supreme Court to be primarily a court of equity rather than a court of laws. To this end, Roe v. Wade introduced an overriding endeavor — the establishment of a new kind of equity for women by inventing for us a vile “right” to commission the prenatal killing of the innocent in our power and under our care.
“Equity” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “justice according to natural law or right, specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism.”
The Roe v. Wade court was lured into adopting a facile remedial equity that abrogated justice by introducing a most unjust bias against laws protecting the natural law rights of those the Founders called infants in their mothers’ wombs.
The Women’s Health Protection Act: Abortion Rights as Absolute Rights
Recently, in the passing of the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (Yeas and Nays: 218 – 211), we saw a majority of the House succumbing to that unconscionable bias.
“It is the purpose of this Act … to promote access to abortion services and women’s ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States.”
The constitutional commitment to justice and the rule of law crumbled as the House agreed to sacrifice innocents to the radical feminists’ 21st-century idol — equity.
The Constitution’s original and primary goal “to establish Justice” has been revised. Now the new “build back better” goal has been erected to correct through abortion on demand the “inequity” of pregnancy, ostensible source of imbalance between women and men.
The act condemns state laws protecting the unborn child as “tool[s] of gender oppression … rooted in misogyny.” Protective laws against killing little ones in their mothers’ wombs somehow “reinforce harmful stereotypes about gender roles.”
Should the act pass in the Senate, a mother’s optional commissioning of the prenatal killing of her child becomes an absolute right — no questions asked.
The act specifies there must be no requirement to “disclose the patient’s reason or reasons for seeking abortion services” and no limitation “based on any actual, perceived, or potential reason or reasons of the patient for obtaining abortion services.”
Achieving Equity Justifies the Death Penalty?
For Justice Blackmun, the innocence of “the unwanted child” was insignificant. His ambitious eyes on the rosy picture of achieving equity for women, he declared a new higher priority for courts of law than separating the innocent from the guilty before imposing a death penalty.
In that one appalling decision, abortion jurisprudence collapsed into anarchy.
The Supreme Court was transformed from a court of justice sworn to the constitutional protection of the innocent to a court of obsessive equity dealing out killing rights.
These killing rights were awarded as faulty compensation for alleged social and economic injuries quite innocently visited prenatally by a child upon the child’s mother.
Since Roe, innocence is no longer adequate protection in law against arbitrary deprivation of life.
How Did We Fall for This?
How did we come to tolerating a Supreme Court-approved death sentence carried out “lawfully” by the mother’s abortionist on the mother’s innocent child?
How did we allow a multi-billion dollar abortion industry to profit out of the programmed “lawful” killing of over 62 million American children since Roe?
A progressive-dominated Supreme Court shifted radically from its constitutional requirement to establish justice. From decisions executing the guilty while protecting the innocent, it “progressed” to decisions executing the innocent as compensation for “victims” of unwanted pregnancy.
It was all about legalizing the killing of the innocent for what we were conditioned during the sexual revolution to believe was a higher good — equal outcomes for pregnant women. It was about permanently removing from the disadvantaged pregnant woman the immediate cause of her disadvantage measured against men’s superior advantage of never having to be burdened by pregnancy.
But history teaches us: To do what is wrong — to kill the innocent — never delivers equity.
Women’s Equity Valued Above Legal Protection for Innocents?
In Roe, the whole constitutional justice system collapsed and was replaced with a system that pursues a superficial equity at the expense of true justice.
The court’s discretion was used in an unjust way. It was dead set on awarding compensation to pregnant women by visiting the guilt of women’s “inequality” upon the innocent unborn and pronouncing them deserving of the death sentence if their mothers so choose.
The Supreme Court must reject these inane demands that continue to dribble down to us from the sexual revolution. It must reject extreme socialist justice — the idea that justice is no longer about separating guilt and innocence but rather about enforcing a radically socialist transformation of our nation.
The progressives’ justice is now about reconfiguring our very nature as human beings. It’s about recklessly mutating natural law to the alleged social and economic advantage of selected “victim” groups.
On just such a perversion of justice did the highest courts in communist Russia and in Nazi Germany predicate their disastrous reforms also deemed necessary to redress inequities.
We must turn back from this madness. Supreme Court justices are jurists — not social workers.
As long as we are endowed by nature with differences, the goal of perfect equity is out of reach. Maybe one day the scientists can homogenize us into identical robots, all with the same color, sex and abilities.
But right now that’s not the work of Supreme Court justices. They must return to being faithful to the Constitution — “in Order … to establish Justice” once again.
Today I built a desk out of some lumber I picked up from the local yard this week. It’s a remarkable way to express myself and build incredibly useful furniture for around the house. I’m learning new skills, refining the art of carpentry, and getting some much needed time away from the chaos of our fallen world and the City of Man.
People have been asking me how I find the time to do things like this while running Gab and raising two young children. The answer is simple. I don’t watch TV. I don’t use Facebook. I don’t follow any sports or celebrity gossip. I don’t watch Hollywood movies. I spend as much time as possible living in the City of God and fleeing from the City of Man.
It’s astonishing how much time you have when you remove the things of the world from your life. I spend several hours every week outside going for walks, photographing the beauty of God’s creation, and every dad’s favorite pastime: mowing the lawn.
Something remarkable happens when you exit the City of Man and start living in the City of God. The City of Man is the society that not only rejects God, it is anti-God by design. In the City of Man there is no objective Truth, only feelings. There is chaos, division, hate, fear, sorrow, and sin.
Living in the City of God starts with having a Christ-First Kingdom-Oriented Mindset. When Christ is the cornerstone of every aspect of your life making the shift away from the City of Man becomes rather straightforward. Just ask yourself some simple questions.
What does binge watching Netflix all night accomplish for God’s Kingdom?
How does worshiping at the church of NFL instead of your actual church on Sunday glorify God?
Does watching Fox News for 5 hours every night after work really help you get closer to God?
You all know the answers. Yet so many Christians fall into the pit of the Enemy’s hands by dedicating all of their time, attention, and money to the City of Man.
If we are going to survive the rise of global communism we need to start building for the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory of Jesus Christ our King.
We need Kingdom Economics.
Where are Christians spending their money?
Where are Christians spending their time?
In the City of Man.
How do we change this?
If we unite and work together to lay the foundation for a parallel society we can simultaneously build the largest and fastest growing Kingdom Economy this side of heaven while toppling the City of Man by refusing to live in it any longer.
The point of Kingdom Economics isn’t to only support Christian businesses exclusively, although I won’t complain if you choose to do so, but rather it’s about making a conscious effort to support Christian-owned businesses FIRST.
In doing so you are Kingdom building for Christ and His Church. We need to unite and help one another. Buy things from one another. Communicate with one another. Love one another. We need to make a strong and dedicated effort to keep the majority of our time, money, and data with our brothers and sisters in Christ and start building for the Kingdom.
When we do the entire City of Man will collapse on itself into a pit of ash. We are the backbone of their economy. We need to stop propping up the demonic system with God’s resources. Everything we have belongs to God. We are shamefully using what God has mercifully provided us with to fund, support, and live in the City of Man.
It needs to stop.
I know things seem dark right now, but from my view I can see the light of God working in a big way. I’ve been on the phone all week with so many Christian business owners and entrepreneurs who are rising up right now.
Parallel Christian healthcare services, insurance, banking, homeschooling services and resources, and so much more.
Our God is the living God and He is on the move. His people are answering the call to build, protect, and preserve what is good and Holy, together.
Keep the faith brothers and sisters and do well to live in the City of God and flee from the City of Man.
For too many Americans, “civics” is either a vague mystery or akin to a dental cleaning: we know that we should do it but would avoid it if possible. Regrettably, our country has chosen in the past 50 years the path of avoidance and ignorance by demoting civic education in our schools, including higher education, which also deems civics unserious, unpleasant, or less important. The consequences of this de facto policy have been disastrous for our educational system and our civic culture. Some educators, scholars, and civic leaders have warned about it, and some serious efforts have been undertaken to redress it. Nonetheless, what retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor diagnosed over a decade ago as America’s “quiet crisis” remains a crisis, even if some progress has been made in raising awareness about the problem.
I’m grateful to have been born into a family of fairly recent immigrants who instilled in me a love of America as an exceptional country, if a work in progress, along with a love of education. I also am grateful for those teachers who sustained an educational tradition stemming from the ancient Greeks and Romans, and that thrived in America until the last century—a serious civic education, regarded as both a duty for any free person in a decent political order and an indispensable element of an examined life.
To define civics and civic education, I invoke a recent national study of which I was a coauthor—along with scholars and educators from Arizona State University, Harvard, Tufts, iCivics, and the Arizona department of education—entitled Educating for American Democracy. We gathered as a heterogeneous group by design, holding progressive and liberal-to-conservative views; yet we shared a premise that study of U.S. history must be melded with study of America’s constitutional and political principles to prepare citizens for self-government. Such a civic education is indispensable for preparing informed and engaged participants in the American experiment. It requires instruction from kindergarten through high school—and into higher education for those so fortunate—of the civic knowledge and civic virtues needed to contribute responsibly to civil society and political affairs.
In our deliberations, we noted that America had rallied against external threats in the past 75 years by re-investing in both K-12 and higher education and re-designing their priorities. This process occurred in response to the 1957 Sputnik crisis of the Cold War and the economic-competitiveness crisis of the 1980s, with the educational beneficiary largely being science, technology, and mathematical studies, or STEM. America has forgotten, however, Lincoln’s 1838 warning on the perpetuation of our political order: that if America were to fail, it would not be by foreign conquest but by suicide—due to civic ignorance about our laws and Constitution, combined with decline in the civic virtues needed to sustain civil disagreement and civic friendship amid the diverse views in our republic.
Contrary to what might be expected from a group of educators in our era, the Educating for American Democracy report forthrightly declares our love for America and defines patriotism as a fundamental element of civic education. It calls on teachers, educators, and serious citizens to endorse the twin necessities of civic knowledge and civic virtues such as civil disagreement and friendship across philosophical, religious, and partisan views. We invoke Alexis de Tocqueville’s idea, expressed in “Democracy in America” (1835), of a reflective patriotism that loves America, but through study and argument; incorporating love of people and place but elevating these sentiments given our country’s foundations in universal principles and self-government. Our current deficit of such reflective patriotism and other civic virtues is intertwined with civic ignorance.
If liberal education means free inquiry and discussion about the most fundamental questions concerning humanity, nature, and the divine, it also means awareness that “liberal” bespeaks a dual reality. Only among a free people, enjoying political liberty, and the rule of law rather than rule by sheer power, can traditions and institutions of Socratic inquiry thrive and be perpetuated.
Those devoted to genuinely higher education must be equally devoted to the study of and perpetuation of political liberty; otherwise they are free riders, self-contradictory, and living on borrowed time. Thus, the decline of civic education in American schools and universities both reflects and reinforces the decline of genuine debate and heterogeneity in higher education, and other elite American institutions. There can be no true liberal or civic education without intellectual diversity and lively debate. Most damaging, then, is the rise of a culture of conformity and orthodoxy in several crucial disciplines of the humanities and social sciences, in turn yielding an outsize effect on universities, schools, and the media. We no longer study and practice the civic virtue of civil disagreement across diverse views, or of civic friendship transcending differences, and this deficiency reinforces the perpetual academic tendency to sort into schools, and sects of thinking. Liberal education and civic education need one another, both for development of the human soul and for the health of our civic and educational cultures.
School children facing Horatio Greenough’s statue of George Washington at the U.S. Capitol in Washington in 1899. (F.B. Johnston/Library of Congress, Public Domain)
Lest this approach be seen as itself partisan, we should note the recent argument by Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, in his book “Higher Expectations,” that higher education is failing students, due to two grave deficiencies: the decline or absence of civic education and of ethics education. These subjects no longer are prioritized in the required curricula of most universities and colleges. Bok is no curmudgeonly conservative. Indeed it is heartening, in a time of polarization across our academic and civic lives, that he offers an insight similar to that suggested in Richard Brookhiser’s fine biography of George Washington, “Founding Father,” that the civic character and civility of this great statesman were mutually reinforcing. Here was a powerful and ambitious leader—as admirers of the musical Hamilton! might have recently rediscovered—who disciplined his soul as a boy and throughout his life by “Rules of Civility” written by Jesuits in 16th century France about ethical regard for others. This is a crucial reason why Washington could found and serve a civic republican order, and twice relinquish near-absolute power (as victorious general and as our first president) to secure that constitutional republic for posterity. The same ethical and political principles also led him to be the only slave-holding American president to emancipate all his slaves and to provide them with financial support and education. Napoleon himself later remarked, in failure and exile after giving free rein to his ambition, that the French had wanted him to be a Washington—that is, to serve a common good and embody civility. Brookhiser notes that Latin provides a common root for our English words citizen, civility, and civilization. But by design or neglect, in recent decades America has inflicted upon itself a civic ignorance that feeds an angry incivility, in turn causing civic disintegration and regular political violence—thus placing in doubt the foundations of our civilized life.
As a matter of civility, I will point the finger at my own profession first—the scholars and professors who have turned away from genuine civic education. Experience provides grounds for a new consensus to correct several unwise educational views. At one extreme are the purist and narrowly utilitarian views: that civic education necessarily is partisan, and thus either threatens the free discourse needed in liberal education or ranks beneath the higher capacities of technological, scientific, quantitative, and core communications learning. At another extreme is the postmodernist redefinition of all learning as political, subjective, and power-implicated: thus civic education should be partisan, but with social-justice ideology and activism replacing America’s hypocritical, failed legacy. Our regrettable condition is that most leaders in higher education, and in the crucial social science and humanities disciplines needed to restore a healthier middle ground on civic education, hold one of these mistaken views.
Perhaps the best foundation for warnings about America’s crises of civic ignorance and disintegration is the sober Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu. He founded a moderate approach that corrected the rationalist and modernist excesses of some famous predecessors. Many more Americans have heard of his fellow Frenchman Tocqueville, who in fact was Montesquieu’s great successor in advocating moderation or a careful balancing of principles about human liberty and its decent aims.
We should rediscover why Montesquieu was the most cited philosopher during our constitutional founding, invoked alike by advocates of the new 1787 Constitution and its opponents for providing the most balanced, comprehensive view of how to combine the rule of law, natural rights, liberty, religious belief, and modern commerce. The “hardware” of our complex constitutional order, of separation of powers and federalism, derives almost singly from this eighteenth-century philosopher and his work “The Spirit of Laws” (1748). Yet just as importantly, Montesquieu explains the “software” of civic and religious virtues indispensable for the functioning of a complex republic like America to include the moderating of tendencies toward extremes of rationalism and materialism, and of partisan or sectarian fanaticism. His balanced, complex philosophy also was a greater influence on our Declaration of Independence—with its blending of classical, medieval, and modern elements—than many recent scholars have recognized. America has always been more than a land of “Lockean” individualism.
Study of Tocqueville arguably is needed to supplement and elevate Montesquieu’s political science, and not only because Tocqueville had the advantage of encountering the American constitutional republic whereas Montesquieu could only call for such polities to be fashioned. Nonetheless Montesquieu under-girds America’s first political science, “The Federalist,” which includes an appreciation for the central role of statesmanship or high prudence in both domestic and foreign affairs. This approach helps us to appreciate such great American statesmen as Washington, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan—and also those statesmen who never held high office, including Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
A letter regarding the U.S. constitution, written by the first president of the United States, George Washington, is seen on display at Christie’s Auction House in New York City on June 17, 2013. (Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
A truly educated American cannot disregard these principles, debates, achievements, and figures of the American experiment without repudiating the foundations of the liberty and prosperity permitting them to be educated at all. The wave of ideological fervor about racial justice currently sweeping our elite institutions embodies this self-contradiction and ingratitude, given America’s decisive influence in turning human history away from slavery or legal servitude. A culture of rejection or repudiation is inadequate to understanding or sustaining America. A civic education also must include study of America’s leadership during the twentieth century in establishing the first global order safe for political and economic liberty, and of how this achievement might protect rather than betray our founding principles. What citizen can be truly informed in casting a vote, leading an organization, voicing an opinion, or joining a protest without education in these matters? Yet somehow our elites tolerate a disregard for civic education. We need to do better.
America’s founders, and subsequent great leaders in our history, emphasized civic education. One reason for this is that Montesquieu’s “Spirit of Laws” was the first work of modern political philosophy to intertwine discussion of civic education with advocacy for free and complex political orders. Tocqueville deepened this vein of moderate republicanism. Both philosophers warned, in their distinctive ways, that seemingly free polities in fact could degenerate into despotism marked by fanatical republican patriotism, or by passive acceptance of elite rule amid hollow forms of democracy. Both saw the link between sound civic education and the perpetuation of constitutional liberty; both saw deficient education leading to a despotic, irrational politics of passions, appetites, and unbridled ambition. Too few of our leading minds grasp that this is largely our condition today—this oscillation between frenetic activism, at one extreme, and civic ignorance and indifference, at the other—and how it is nothing less than a recipe for disaster.
The self-educated Lincoln had the grasp of human nature, history, and politics to foresee such disaster even as a young man. He dedicated the remaining quarter-century of his life to preventing it. “If destruction be our lot,” he argued in 1838, “we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” His remedy was a civic education in the laws, constitutionalism, and fundamental principles of our country. He later would emphasize the Declaration of Independence as the cornerstone of such education. He eventually would lead the new birth of freedom to enact the full meaning in America of what the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God required—the equal liberty of all people. The study of such ideas and statesmen is as thrilling as it is necessary for a free people. It is our duty to ourselves and our posterity, and we are blessed that it also is a delight. But all those who now believe so must think clearly, deliberate with one another, and act before it is too late.
Following a Department of Justice announcement Monday that it would direct the FBI to mobilize against parents who allegedly threaten teachers and school board members, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis promised that the state would defend parents amid GOP outcry against the move.
“Attorney General Garland is weaponizing the DOJ by using the FBI to pursue concerned parents and silence them through intimidation,” DeSantis wrote. “Florida will defend the free speech rights of its citizens and will not allow federal agents to squelch dissent.”
The Justice Department stated that it would create a task force to see how the federal government can be used to prosecute any criminal conduct toward teachers or how to assist state and local authorities investigate such threats. It came after a national association of school boards asked the Biden administration to use “extraordinary measures” to prevent alleged threats against school board staff, accusing parents who oppose teaching critical race theory and mask mandates of lodging them.
DeSantis’s office on Tuesday released a statement saying Florida law already prohibits harassment of teachers, while adding that Florida law enforcement is “perfectly capable of responding to crimes in Florida, and we have never heard the FBI suggest otherwise.”
“However, disagreement is not harassment. Protest is not terrorism, unless it involves rioting, looting, and assault, like some of the left-wing protests of summer 2020. Again, all of those actions are crimes in Florida and will be prosecuted, regardless of political context,” the statement added.
According to the Justice Department, it will create a task force to determine how to use federal resources to prosecute offending parents along with how to provide advice to states where no federal laws have been broken. Training will also be provided to school staff members on how to report threats from parents.
During school board meetings across the United States over the past several months, heated discussions have been held by parents, teachers, and school board staff on whether critical race theory or associated ideologies should be taught to children. The Department of Justice’s announcement did not elaborate on whether threats against teachers and staff are widespread.
This week, Republican lawmakers sharply criticized the Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland’s directive, arguing the Biden administration is attempting to silence dissent.
“Your memorandum is a politically-motivated abuse of power and displays a lack of reasoned, sound judgment … confronting parents to oppose the views of the Biden administration and its socialist agenda,” wrote Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) in a letter to the agency.
“Parents are speaking out against Critical Race Theory in schools. Now the Biden administration is cracking down on dissent,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) wrote on Twitter.
A group of Michigan parents is seeking to overturn a long-standing state constitutional amendment outlawing public funding of private and religious schools.
One of the plaintiffs, Jessie Bagos, told The Epoch Times: “To have the federal court declare the so-called Blaine Amendment unconstitutional will open up real school choice for all the people of Michigan.”
Bagos, a mother of twin first-grade boys, said: “This is a step in a much bigger process. Without this step, thousands of parents will have no alternative but the public school. They will have nowhere else to go.”
School choice is very important to Bagos and her husband, Ryan.
“Because,” she said, “our public school district handled the pandemic horribly. Two young boys forced to do kindergarten on a computer! Can you imagine? They cried every morning.
(Steven Kovac/Epoch Times)
“We believe our children were harmed by that experience. One son developed anxiety. He just kept clinging to me and crying.
“Ryan and I wanted to switch the boys over to St. Mary’s (a nearby religious school). It stayed in-person all year long during the 2020–2021 school year. But, we couldn’t afford it.
“I never want to be in that position again. I want choice!” Bagos said.
In August, at the suggestion of a friend, Bagos asked for help from the Mackinac Center, a free-market think tank based in Midland, Michigan.
By mid-September, the Bagoses had joined four other Michigan families and the Parent Advocates for Choice in Education Foundation as plaintiffs in a complaint filed on Sept. 23 in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, Southern Division.
The plaintiffs are suing Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, and State Treasurer Rachael Eubanks in their official capacities.
(Steven Kovac/Epoch Times)
The suit asks the court to overturn as unconstitutional Article 8, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the state constitution, which prohibits public funds from going to private or religious schools, and to rule on the constitutionality of other state statutes and policies.
The complaint alleges that the state constitution violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on the grounds of religious animus, differential treatment, and “conditioning the availability of benefits on a recipient’s willingness to surrender its religiously impelled status.”
The complaint also alleges that Michigan law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by the “creation of political structure that discriminates against religion.”
According to the complaint, discrimination occurs when parents contributing to the Michigan Education Savings Plan are treated differently.
A couple may contribute to a plan up to $10,000 annually, receive a tax deduction for it on their state income tax form, and use the money to pay for school tuition at a public school they like outside of their district of residence. However, under state law, another couple who uses the same money to pay for tuition at a religious or private school will lose the deduction.
“That’s unfair!” said Bagos. “It’s my money. Can’t I spend it where I want to? Why are they telling me what to do with it?”
The complaint also alleges Michigan’s private secular schools can request to be changed into charter schools, which enables them to receive public funding. Private religious schools aren’t afforded that opportunity unless they sacrifice many of their beliefs and values.
Pastor Jared Witkowski, of Community Baptist Church of Kimball, told The Epoch Times that he would be “leery” of accepting public funds to help support the Christian school at his church because of possible “strings attached.”
“I think money should go to the parents and the government should leave its hands out of the church,” he said.
(Steven Kovac/Epoch Times)
Patrick Wright of the Mackinac Center, one of the lead attorneys on the case, told The Epoch Times that the complaint would be defended by lawyers from the office of Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat.
“We are encouraged by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent interest in religious liberty cases. If successful, this case will bring educational choice to Michigan’s 1.6 million schoolchildren,” said Wright.
Ben DeGrow, director of educational policy at the Mackinac Center, says of the lawsuit: “It is a significant case. Victory would mean the extension of educational and religious freedom. It will help thousands of families find, and help them afford, a better education for their children.
“The health and future of our nation depends on a well-informed citizenry. Not just academically well-prepared, but also in the understanding of the values of our country that can guide them for the rest of their lives.”
Defiant human smugglers who know that they can do what they please on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande are now openly taunting National Guard troops Texas has posted in its bid to plug holes in the leaky border, according to a new report.
“NEW: In multiple instances over the past several days, Texas DPS tells me suspected cartel gunmen involved in human smuggling have stood in & near the Rio Grande in Starr County and taunted TX National Guard soldiers. They wear tac vests & have AK47s,” Bill Melugin of Fox News posted on Twitter on Wednesday.
NEW: In multiple instances over the past several days, Texas DPS tells me suspected cartel gunmen involved in human smuggling have stood in & near the Rio Grande in Starr County and taunted TX National Guard soldiers. They wear tac vests & have AK47s. Courtesy: @TxDPS@FoxNewspic.twitter.com/68dpIOa2Nc
Biden Admin should declare Cartel terrorist organization & deploy US Marines to Rio Grande. Incursions to US border would cease with US Marines on patrol & a couple of sniper squads ready to take out armed & hostile Cartel members. @SecMayorkas & @VP secure the US Border now.
On Tuesday, Rio Grande Valley Sector Border Patrol agents reported that they responded to multiple human smuggling cases on Monday in which 41 illegal immigrants were apprehended.
In one case, a truck that was seen picking up several people was chased until it ran off the road. Four illegal immigrants were detained, but the driver escaped.
Separately, stash houses in Roma, Texas, and Edinburg, Texas, were raided, resulting in 37 illegal immigrants being detained.
“Even with the spread of the COVID-19 virus, human smugglers continue to try these brazen attempts with zero regard for the health and safety of migrants or the citizens of the U.S. they may encounter. The U.S. Border Patrol agents of the Rio Grande Valley Sector will continue to safeguard the nation and community against these criminal elements,” the release said.
Smugglers use a variety of routes to enter the U.S.
Agents working near Penitas, TX, discovered a migrant covered in thorns! Unable to walk and in severe pain, #USBP EMT’s evaluated the individual & requested transport to a local hospital. #rescuepic.twitter.com/KvHcBLB0kL
We documented over 100 migrants smuggled into the US by smugglers on rafts making their way from the Mexican side. Migrants coming off the raft were wearing bracelets that cartels/smuggling groups put on them to track and determine payment. Stay tuned for full story @DailyCallerpic.twitter.com/d7Q0vL8AU5
As the trafficking and floods of illegal immigrants continue, Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee are calling on the Biden administration to respond, according to Fox News.
“The dire situation along the southwest border is a crisis that has spun out of control,” a letter to President Joe Biden from the 16 Republicans on the committee said.
“[Customs and Border Protection] has surpassed numerous records for the number of migrants illegally crossing the border? Why is your administration trying to deceive the American people that the border is secure?” the letter continued.
“It is time for your administration to take appropriate steps to prevent a recurrence of what we witnessed in Del Rio, Texas.”
One parenting leader is speaking out after Attorney General Merrick Garland sent a memorandum from the Department of Justice to the FBI to address supposed “threats of violence” from parents.
Asra Nomani joined Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday morning wearing a T-shirt with the words, “I’m a mom, not a ‘domestic terrorist.’”
“It’s outrageous what the federal government is doing now,” said Nomani, who is vice president for strategy and investigations for Parents Defining Education.
“We have parents right now waking up from sea to shining sea to bring their children to school, to urge them into the day, and what has happened now is that the federal government and the National School Board Association has declared a war on parents,” she said.
Nomani responded that the only goal of parents is to speak up for their children.
“All we have done over the past year is stand up and speak up for children. It’s unconscionable that the Federal Bureau of Investigations should even spend a minute thinking about us,” she said.
“We all reject violence and all we want to do is protect our kids,” Nomani added.
The government needs to stop demonizing us as parents: Parents Defining Education member @AsraNomani rips the DOJ’s ‘overreaching’ probe into potential threat against school boards. pic.twitter.com/XD4NbgzQUF
Her efforts on social media also have caught the attention of Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul.
“The punk who assaulted the policeman defending my wife and I in DC went free but the Biden Admin. labels concerned parents as ‘domestic terrorists?’” Paul tweeted alongside a post from Nomani urging parents to contact the National School Board Association in response to its letter.
The punk who assaulted the policeman defending my wife and I in DC went free but the Biden Admin. labels concerned parents as “domestic terrorists?” https://t.co/dSsqm6TNQQ
“In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence among school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s schools,” the attorney general wrote.
“The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate,” Garland said.
“In the coming days, the Department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel,” he continued. “Coordination and partnership with local law enforcement is critical to implementing these measures for the benefit of our nation’s nearly 14,000 public school districts.”
BREAKING: Attorney General Merrick Garland has instructed the FBI to mobilize against parents who oppose critical race theory in public schools, citing “threats.”
The letter follows the National School Board Association’s request to classify protests as “domestic terrorism.” pic.twitter.com/NhPU03YOYq
The NSBA letter said, “As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”
An attempt by Kansas City’s political leadership to strip its police department of millions of dollars in funding has been quashed by a judge who said the attempt to hobble the police broke the law.
Jackson County Judge Patrick Campbell said that under the law, the city cannot alter police funding without approval from the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, according to WDAF-TV.
The lawsuit came about after Mayor Quinton Lucas pushed to cut $42.2 million from the police budget, and the City Council agreed. The mayor’s plan meant that about 18 percent of the department’s budget would then be reallocated to a Community Services and Prevention Fund, according to the Kansas City Star.
During the hearing, Kristine Reiter, budget manager for the police said the cuts would have meant the department ran out of money by December unless changes were made.
She said the department would need to lay off 1,000 officers and staff members to stay within budgetary limits. Lucas disagreed with that contention.
Campbell said his ruling is not a determination on the wisdom of defunding police.
“This judgment does not resolve whether citizens of Kansas City should exert direct political control over their law enforcement agency,” he wrote.
“It is not a referendum on the Chief of Police, the Mayor, or any other appointed or elected official. These are subjects of vigorous social debate and should be finally resolved by a healthy democracy. However, they are not legal issues pending before this Court,” he wrote.
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who had sided with the police against the city, released a statement, according to KMBC-TV.
“Today, a Jackson County Judge sided with the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners and the Attorney General’s Office and struck down Kansas City’s illegal attempt to defund the police. This is a huge win for the people of Kansas City and law enforcement officers who work every single day to keep their communities safe. I will always stand up for Missouri’s law enforcement and fight back against craven attempts to defund the police,” he said.
Lucas indicated that he and the council will not let the matter drop.
“I imagine the Council will set the expectation that any dollar received by the Department over statutory requirements must be negotiated and focused squarely on preventing violent crime in our community. Discussions about next year’s budget have already started,” he said.
“The City will weigh all options going forward, including appeal,” he continued.
Brad Lemon, president of the Kansas City Fraternal Order of Police, said the decision was a victory, but it “does little to repair the damage the City’s misguided decision has had on KCPD and our members’ morale,” according to WDAF-TV.
“KCPD has seen a record number of resignations and retirements in This year more than 100 officers have resigned or retired and 35 more will leave this year, numbers that represent nearly double the total number of resignations and retirements than any other year in KCPD history,” he said.
“It is the FOP’s sincere hope the City and the BOPC can put this unfortunate situation behind them and focus their efforts, instead, on finding ways to recruit and retain officers. If we revisit this terrible situation again next year, the Department will not be able to withstand its effects and the results will be catastrophic for public safety in Kansas City,” he concluded.
District of Columbia residents are not entitled to voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court ruled, affirming a lower court decision.
The ruling came after the House approved legislation in April to make D.C. the 51st state, but the bill stalled in the Senate. Democrats support the measure, arguing that all U.S. citizens should be represented in Congress; Republicans oppose it because they believe the framers of the Constitution did not want D.C. to become a state, and because the new state’s two senators would almost certainly be Democrats in the Democratic Party stronghold.
The case is Castañon v. United States, court file 20-1279. The ruling, which summarily affirmed a lower court decision, came Oct. 4. There were no oral arguments.
In the brief unsigned order Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch indicated they would dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. They did not elaborate.
In the order, the high court referenced Adams v. Clinton, a decision it handed down in 2000. In that previous decision, the court held the District of Columbia was not a state and was therefore not entitled to representation in Congress under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Referring to the nation’s capital that at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1788 had yet to be created, that provision gave Congress the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”
Although President Joe Biden supports D.C. statehood, his administration urged the Supreme Court “that the appeal be dismissed or, in the alternative, that the district court’s order be affirmed.”
The petitioners, a group of Washington residents led by Angelica Castañon, previously argued in their complaint before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the continuing denial of the right to vote, which “is fundamental under our Constitution,” “violates the constitutional guarantees of equal protection, due process, and the constitutional right of association.”
In March last year, a three-judge panel of the District Court ruled against the residents.
“We recognize that District residents’ lack of the congressional franchise is viewed by many, even most, as deeply unjust, and we have given each aspect of Plaintiffs’ claims most serious consideration, but our ruling today is compelled by precedent and by the Constitution itself,” the opinion stated.
However, Washington residents are not completely shut out of self-governance. There is an elected District Council that takes care of day-to-day local government matters, subject to the possibility of a joint resolution of disapproval being passed by both houses of Congress, something that rarely happens. The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1961, gave the District 3 votes in the electoral college in presidential elections.
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), a nonvoting member of the House, said she was “disappointed” by the Supreme Court ruling.
But she said in a statement that “the ruling has no bearing on the constitutionality of D.C. statehood, which would give D.C. residents voting representation in the House and Senate and full control over their local affairs. In fact, the three-judge panel expressly referred to statehood as a remedy for D.C. residents.”
“In 2016, D.C. residents voted overwhelmingly for statehood, and the House has passed my D.C. statehood bill twice since June 2020. We have record support for D.C. statehood in the Senate, and we have never been closer to statehood.”
West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice announced on Oct. 3 that there’s “no chance” he’ll mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for children attending school.
When asked about whether he would copy a mandate signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to mandate vaccines for eligible children to attend class, Justice told CBS News that he won’t do it.
“From the standpoint of mandates, I don’t believe in imposing upon our freedoms, over and over and over. And I’ve said that over, I don’t know how many times I gotta say it,” Justice told the network. “But from the standpoint of our children, I’m going to still encourage in every way, because I truly believe that the more people that we get vaccinated, the less people will die. But at the same time, we still got to stand up for who we are.”
Justice, a Republican, said that such mandates are divisive. “For crying out loud, we’re Americans.”
Several weeks after Newsom, a Democrat, survived a recall attempt, he became the first governor in the nation to announce a statewide vaccine mandate for schoolchildren aged 12 and up.
“The state already requires that students are vaccinated against viruses that cause measles, mumps, and rubella—there’s no reason why we wouldn’t do the same for COVID-19,” Newsom said.
Numerousstudies and federal health data show that children are very unlikely to develop serious or long illness, become hospitalized, or die from COVID-19. A study found that in the UK, five times more children committed suicide during pandemic lockdowns than died from the virus.
Last week, Newsom announced “a statewide requirement for in-person instruction for all of our children to add to a well-established list that currently includes 10 vaccinations … the vaccination for COVID-19.”
“Are there exemptions? Yes, well-established exemptions for medical reasons, personal and/or religious beliefs. Those are established in those guidelines as well,” he said.
While some parents in California praised Newsom’s mandate, many criticized it.
Sarah Burwick, a lawyer in Los Angeles and parent of a soon-to-be 5-year-old, said she’s fully vaccinated, but that it isn’t clear at this time whether the risk to her child is greater from getting the shot than from the disease.
“I think any mandate on this vaccine for kids is way too soon,” she said, according to The Associated Press. “We keep hearing the buzzwords ‘safe’ and ‘effective,’ but I think the question for kids should be: Is this necessary?”
Janet Meadows, whose children are in first grade and preschool, said she would consider homeschooling her children before vaccinating them. The 41-year-old from Kern County, California, said she’s worried about the health effects of the not-yet-approved shots for children and a potential exodus of families from public schools.
“I don’t think we know enough about the vaccine to make our children get it,” she said. “There’s just a lot of unknowns. We don’t need to rush into this right now.”
The Texas Oil and Gas Association (TXOGA) and API recently released a new analysis of the oil and natural gas industry’s vast economic impact on Texas’ economy and highlighted its importance to the state’s post-pandemic recovery.
The study, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and based on the latest government data available, shows that Texas’ oil and natural gas industry directly and indirectly supported over 2.5 million total jobs across the state’s economy in 2019. Texas ranked as the state with the highest share of total economic contributions by the oil and natural gas industry, generating $411.6 billion toward the state’s GDP – including $251.2 billion added to total labor income.
“Texans understand the essential nature of oil and natural gas, and this analysis confirms the indispensable role the industry plays in providing jobs and investment that benefits every community and all Texans,” said TXOGA President Todd Staples. “As leaders in domestic energy production, our member companies’ efforts ensure reliable products are available to power modern America and serve as the underlying foundation of Texas public school, university and public infrastructure funding.”
“As America’s economy comes back, the natural gas and oil industry will serve as the foundation for long-term growth and prosperity in Texas,” said API President and CEO Mike Sommers.
As economic activity, travel patterns and consumption continue to grow during the post-pandemic recovery, the EIA expects global oil and liquid fuels consumption to surpass 2019 levels in 2022. The PwC report reinforces how the oil and natural gas industry — in Texas in particular — is critical to economic revitalization and opportunities for job creation. According to the findings, in 2019 the industry directly and indirectly:
Supported 2,508,870 total jobs (620,330 direct and 1,888,540 indirect) or 13.9 percent of Texas’ total employment.
Generated an additional three jobs elsewhere in Texas’ economy for each direct job in the state’s oil and natural gas industry.
Provided $251.2 billion in labor income ($134.3 billion directly and $116.9 billion indirectly) to Texas, 21.8 percent to the state’s total.
Contributed $411.5 billion to Texas’ GDP ($230.9 billion directly and $180.6 billion indirectly), 22.3 percent to the state’s total.
In 2019, the U.S. led the world in oil and natural gas production, and the benefits of that leadership permeated throughout nonproducing and producing states alike. At the national level in 2019, the oil and natural gas industry:
Supported more than 11.3 million total jobs (2.5 million directly and 8.8 million indirectly) or 5.6 percent of total U.S. employment.
Generated an additional 3.5 jobs elsewhere in the U.S. economy for each direct job in the U.S. oil and natural gas industry.
Produced $892.7 billion in labor income ($318.6 billion directly, $574.1 billion indirectly), or 6.8 percent of the U.S. national labor income.
Contributed nearly $1.7 trillion to U.S. GDP ($763.3 billion directly, $925.3 billion indirectly), accounting for 7.9 percent of the national total.
The Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on Sept. 29 that it intends to issue a new memo scrapping the “Remain in Mexico” immigration program implemented by former President Donald Trump despite a Supreme Court ruling that the program was to be reinstated.
Also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), the “Remain in Mexico” program centers around making some immigrants who seek asylum wait in Mexico while their claims are heard in the United States.
The program was launched in January 2019 under the Trump administration and was widely credited by proponents for the decline in illegal border crossings.
Mark Morgan, who was acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection at the time, told The Epoch Times that the MPP was ”the most significant game-changer” and largely responsible for a 75 percent drop in such crossings.
However opponents, including Democrat leaders, have argued that the immigration system needs to be completely overhauled, and have slammed the MMP as “inhumane” and “dangerous” to illegal aliens who are at greater danger of exploitation by cartels and criminal organisations in Mexico.
MMP was swiftly suspended by President Joe Biden on his first day in office in January, along with several other Trump-era immigration policies.
Although DHS issued a memo ending the program in June, a Texas-based federal judge ruled that the MPP must be restarted and placed an injunction that required the department to work in “good faith to re-start MPP.” DHS appealed that injunction but was blocked by the Supreme Court in August.
“The Department of Homeland Security intends to issue in the coming weeks a new memorandum terminating the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP),” the DHS announcement reads.
“A new memorandum terminating MPP will not take effect until the current injunction is lifted by court order. In issuing a new memorandum terminating MPP, the Department intends to address the concerns raised by the courts with respect to the prior memorandum.”
Republicans decried the move. GOP members of the House Homeland Security Committee said it was “negligent and irresponsible,” adding: “Like much of the rhetoric coming out of the administration, this action flies in the face of our homeland security and foundation of laws.”
Illegal immigrants, many from Haiti, wait in lines to board buses under the Del Rio International Bridge, in Del Rio, Texas on Friday, Sept. 24, 2021. (Julio Cortez/AP Photo)Illegal immigrants take supplies back and forth between Acuna, Mexico, and the United States (far side) across the Rio Grande, the international boundary with Mexico, in Acuna, Mexico, on Sept. 20, 2021. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)
DHS said that in the meantime, it will continue working in good faith to re-start MMP in compliance with the Texas judge’s order and is engaged in ongoing diplomatic talks with Mexico.
But according to court documents filed this week, Mexico has so far been resisting the rebooting of the program and Biden is yet to send a single illegal immigrant back to the country.
“Discussions with Mexico are ongoing and are proceeding in good faith, but, as of yet, Mexico has not yet agreed to accept returns under the Court-ordered restart of MPP,” Brian Ward, a lawyer at the U.S. Department of Justice, wrote in one filing.
“Simultaneously, the Department has instituted an interagency Task Force to efficiently rebuild the infrastructure and reapportioning the staffing that will be needed to restart MPP once that concurrence has been obtained. Among many other steps, the Task Force is updating policies and procedures to account for COVID-19 and preparing to put in place contracts to rebuild the soft-sided Immigration Hearing Facilities used for court proceedings associated with MPP,” DHS added.
The department noted its commitment to building a “safe, orderly, and humane immigration system that upholds our laws and values,” stating that it will continue to process immigrants in accordance with U.S. law.
The memo comes at a time when border patrol agents are buckling under the weight of increasing illegal immigrant crossings that show no sign of slowing down. Agents made over 200,000 arrests at the southern border alone in August, one of the highest months on record.
The Texas Secretary of State’s office is carrying out a forensic audit of 2020 election results in four large counties, including Dallas and Harris counties.
The office announced the audit last week but declined to provide more details until Sept. 28.
Phase one of the review is already underway, the office says. This phase involves verifying the accuracy of voting machines, assessing cybersecurity, and pinpointing and removing from voter rolls any people who cast votes illegally in 2020.
State officials have received reports from the Electronic Registration Information Center regarding voters who may have voted twice or who illegally voted in Texas despite living in another state. In addition, officials have identified votes they say were potentially cast by non-U.S. citizens and alerted counties to review each case. Once that’s done, any instances of possible illegal voting will be referred to the state Attorney General’s Office for investigation.
Phase two of the audit, estimated to take place in the spring of next year, is centered on examining the election records from various counties, including Tarrant and Collins counties.
The Secretary of State’s office plans to examine all chain-of-custody forms concerning equipment and all logic and accuracy-testing records for voting machines.
Depending on the results of the examination, there could be a full manual recount in the affected precincts or polling locations.
“The purpose of this audit is to ensure all Texas voters can have confidence in the elections systems in our state, and to address any outstanding issues county election officials may face that undermines the integrity of our elections,” the office said in a statement.
A spokesman said in an email that the office won’t be hiring or contracting with any outside firms to conduct the audits. The position of Texas secretary of state is currently vacant.
Election offices in the four counties didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, a Democrat, told reporters last week that “the sensational announcement of an audit by the state is nothing more than a political ploy by a former president and someone who’s trying to curry favor.”
“I’m working to do everything in my power to stop this not only because complying with a sham audit will take us away from serious work we have to do but also, and most importantly, because it will take trust away from our election systems here in Harris County and here in Texas,” she said.
Trump won Texas in the 2020 election by about 630,000 votes but said in a letter to Abbott that he heard Texans want an audit.
“Your citizens don’t trust the election system,” he wrote. “Texans know voting fraud occurred in some of their counties.”
Abbott defended the audit over the weekend.
“There are audits of every aspect of government. We have a state auditor. There’s a federal auditor for the way that government operations work. Businesses that are public companies are subject to an annual audit,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Why do we audit everything in this world, but people raise their hands in concern when we audit elections, which is fundamental to our democracy?”
He also said the audit began months ago, although that hadn’t been previously disclosed.
How can we use technology to build and preserve a parallel Christian society on the internet for generations to come?
This is the question that keeps me up at night.
I’ve recently been writing extensively about what I call a Parallel Society. This led one of my close friends to point out a book to me by Rod Dreher called The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation. It’s a fantastic read and brilliantly captures the spirit of what I have been trying to do with Gab for over five years now.
Rod Dreher argues that the way forward is actually the way back—all the way to St. Benedict of Nursia. This sixth-century monk, horrified by the moral chaos following Rome’s fall, retreated to the forest and created a new way of life for Christians. He built enduring communities based on principles of order, hospitality, stability, and prayer. His spiritual centers of hope were strongholds of light throughout the Dark Ages, and saved not just Christianity but Western civilization.
Many of you don’t know that I lived and worked in Silicon Valley as a Christian entrepreneur before starting Gab in 2016. Few Christians can truly understand what it means to live in the nihilistic hellhole of a post-truth, post-morality, and post-Christian world until they have lived in San Francisco among the most narcissistic, empty, and sociopathic people in Silicon Valley.
Like St. Benedict of Nursia I was horrified by the moral chaos of America’s fall as demonstrated by the city of San Francisco. So I too retreated to the forest in Pennsylvania to create a new way of life for Christians on the internet. Together and by the Grace of God we built an enduring online community grounded in the uniquely Christian value of freedom of speech.
My greatest fear after witnessing the erosion of free speech and Christian values by this group of wicked people in Silicon Valley was that eventually there wouldn’t be a place for people to discuss and learn about the Gospel on the internet. They would label it “hate speech,” and indeed many already have.
I couldn’t stand by and watch that happen.
Laying the groundwork of infrastructure for a parallel society.
This week we installed a giant 600 terabyte storage machine in one of Gab’s data centers. Few people realize all of the work and time that goes into making Gab possible behind the scenes. We do not have the luxury of being hosted in the cloud by Amazon, Microsoft, or Google web services. We had no choice but to build our own and invest millions of dollars in time and hardware to maintain and grow our servers.
It’s all worth the extra money and effort though because on Gab Christians are thriving and the Gospel is being shared. Gabbers are starting businesses, holding virtual Bible studies, starting groups to connect and fellowship with one another, praying for one another, and many are even embracing the love and saving grace of Jesus Christ for the first time in their lives.
Gabbers are discovering and supporting Christian business owners, Christian writers, Christian news organizations, and Christian entertainment. It’s really amazing to see. A parallel Christian society is forming–and it’s growing quickly.
One such Christian entertainment production company that has been having phenomenal success with Gab Ads is Revelation Media. Their mission is to “produce and license culturally relevant and engaging media that leads people into a relationship with our Creator.”
I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know the folks at Revelation Media behind the scenes over the past few weeks and I can’t tell you how impressed I am with their work.
Their upcoming movie The 7 Churches of Revelation: Times of Fire, is going to be in theaters nationwide on October 11th and October 12th, as well as online beginning October 26th. You can click here for an exclusive 22 minute early look at the film before it hits theaters.
For full disclosure: yes they are advertising on Gab, but I am genuinely excited for this film. My pastor is currently working through a series in Church on the book of Revelation so this movie instantly caught my attention. What impressed me even more was the high quality production value and fascinating story.
Many Christians know and will openly admit that the production value on Christian content can often be lackluster and dare I say it–cringe. That isn’t the case with this movie and the other work that Revelation Media is producing. If you don’t believe me go watch the early preview for yourself. It’s a very encouraging thing to see.
They are building a viable, high quality entertainment and education alternative for Christian families that will be essential for a parallel Christian society.
It’s easy to say that we should all cancel Netflix and stop watching the media outlets and entertainment produced by the Enemy, but what fills that void? I believe Revelation Media is one of the many Christian alternatives working to do so and we are glad to have them as part of the Gab community.
This is why Gab’s infrastructure must be preserved and expanded at all costs. Not only is it powering the real time flow of information, but it’s also powering the creation of a parallel Christian economy where Christians can discover parallel goods, services, and entertainment being provided or sold by other Christians.
One day our great grandchildren will learn what really happened during the greatest Spiritual war of our time and how we laid the foundations for a new parallel Christian society.
Governor Greg Abbott today announced that the State of Texas will appeal the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of Texas’ Federal Emergency Declaration request as a result of the escalating crisis at the Texas-Mexico border. Earlier today, the Biden Administration denied the state’s emergency declaration request related to the border crisis. Specifically, the Biden Administration denied Texas’s request for supplemental federal assistance to respond to the thousands of illegal crossings along the border.
The Governor sent a letter to President Biden on September 20 requesting this declaration, noting that the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws, and in particular, its failure to halt illegal crossings on federal property, which is the sole jurisdiction of the federal government, led to substantial burdens on local and state resources. The failure of the federal government to intervene led to a surge of more than 16,000 migrants at the Del Rio International Bridge for several days.
“President Biden has turned his back on Texans living along the border, and FEMA’s refusal to declare a federal emergency at the border puts their health, safety, and property at risk,” said Governor Abbott. “The State of Texas is appealing this detrimental decision by FEMA because the Biden Administration’s refusal to solve the crisis at our border has led to a strain on local, state, and federal resources. The surge of over 16,000 migrants at the Del Rio International Bridge is just one of the most recent examples of the federal government’s failure to take action. A member of the United States Customs and Border Protection said that order was only maintained thanks to the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Texas National Guard, and local stakeholders, and the President of the National Border Patrol Council estimated that troopers outnumbered federal agents by three to one.
“This crisis has not ended and will only get worse if the Biden Administration continues to turn a blind eye to the reality at the border. Texas will continue to step up and address this crisis in full force, but supplemental federal assistance should be granted to further protect Texans and halt the influx of drugs, people, and contraband into our state. I respectfully urge FEMA to reconsider this decision and provide the crucial support the State of Texas needs to secure the border and keep our communities safe.”
Governor Abbott made border security funding a priority for the first and second special legislative sessions. The Governor launched Operation Lone Star in early March to help secure the border and combat the smuggling of people and drugs in Texas. There are currently thousands of state personnel, including DPS troopers, agents, and Rangers, and National Guard soldiers who are engaged in the mission and working with local law enforcement. The Governor expanded the mission shortly after its launch to include anti-human trafficking efforts. Governor Abbott’s plan to secure the border also includes the construction of a border wall, in addition to the use of strategic fencing and other barriers. A project manager for the initial stage of building the wall was announced September 16. Earlier this month, the Governor signed House Bill 9 which appropriated $1.8 billion to Texas border security efforts. Among other things, the funding will add more National Guard and additional resources to better secure the border.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday announced his state has obtained its own supply of monoclonal antibodies, a type of treatment for COVID-19, in a move that bypasses the Biden administration’s limits.
“Texas has obtained its own separate allocation of these monoclonal antibody treatments working around the limitations that President Biden has put on us so that we will be able to ensure that anybody in the state of Texas that wants access to these special treatments, that they will be able to get it,” Abbott, a Republican, said during an interview with radio host Dana Loesch.
Earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) moved to ration COVID-19 treatment via monoclonal antibodies. Monoclonal antibodies distribution sites previously could order the treatment directly from manufacturers.
The federal government-directed change now requires states to use HHS as a middleman to obtain the antibody treatments and places caps on how many each state can obtain.
The Texas Department of State Health Services told news outlets this week that it obtained some 4,700 doses from drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline. The Epoch Times has contacted the agency for comment.
Previously, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, announced he ordered thousands of doses of the treatment from GlaxoSmithKline after HHS’s rule change. The governor then called on the Biden administration to restore Florida’s supply of the drug.
“We should be doing everything we can to get patients monoclonal antibody treatments, not cutting allocations of treatment like the Biden Administration has done,” he said in a statement issued last week. “Despite the cuts by the federal government, we want any Floridians that could benefit from this treatment to have access to it. Florida is going to leave no stone unturned when finding treatment for our state, and we are encouraged to have secured a shipment of monoclonal antibody treatments from GlaxoSmithKline.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) proposed legislation that would prevent HHS from creating rules to block health care providers and hospitals from purchasing monoclonal antibody treatments.
But the White House said that the change is necessary to make sure states all across the country get access to the treatment.
“Just seven states are making up 70 percent of the orders. Our supply is not unlimited, and we believe it should be equitable across states across the country,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said earlier in September.
Texas Attorney General Paxton announced on Sept. 20 that he is leading a coalition of 10 states in filing an amicus brief with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Florida’s law that attempts to regulate censorship on Big Tech social media platforms.
Paxton signed on behalf of Texas, joining the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and South Carolina who have also filled an amicus brief in support of Florida’s law.
“The regulation of big tech censorship will inevitably suppress the ideas and beliefs of millions of Americans,” Paxton said in a statement. “I will defend the First Amendment and ensure that conservative voices have the right to be heard. Big Tech does not have the authority to police the expressions of people whose political viewpoint they simply disagree with.”
Florida’s SB 7072 law allows Floridians to take legal action against Big Tech platforms if they censor a user’s content without consistent standards.
The new bill also prevents Big Tech from banning Floridian political candidates. Social media companies that deplatform candidates for statewide office will be fined $250,000 a day. The fine is $25,000 per day when deplatforming candidates for other offices.
Big Tech companies that violate the law can be brought to trial for monetary damage, and the state’s attorney general can litigate companies that don’t comply with the law under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the bill into law in May but District Judge Robert Hinkle in June granted a temporary injunction preventing the governor from implementing the law after two Internet trade groups—NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association— filed a lawsuit.
The trade groups argued the law may violate the First Amendment by compelling social media platforms to host offensive speech they otherwise would not and by interfering with their editorial policies.
The coalition in its amicus brief said the district court’s First Amendment analysis is “riddled with errors.”
“It veered off course from the outset by concluding that S.B. 7072 regulates speech, when that law instead regulates conduct that is unprotected by the First Amendment: social media platforms’ arbitrary application of their content moderation policies,” the coalition wrote.
Earlier this month, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Texas’s House Bill 20—similar to Florida’s law—which protects Texans from wrongful censorship on social media platforms.
House Bill 20 prevents social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, from banning users based on their political beliefs. The attorney general would also be able to take legal action on behalf of Texas residents that were banned or blocked by a platform due to such discrimination.
“We will always defend the freedom of speech in Texas,” Abbott said. “Social media websites have become our modern-day public square. They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely—but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas. That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas. I thank Senator Bryan Hughes, Representative Briscoe Cain, and the Texas Legislature for ensuring that House Bill 20 reached my desk during the second special session.”
The Epoch Times sits down with Elbridge A. Colby, author of the new book “The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict,” to discuss America’s strategy for defeating China in a war over Taiwan.
China aims to replace the United States as the dominant power in Asia, and it is rapidly acquiring the means to achieve this goal. As a result, Beijing will soon be able to make a bid for regional military dominance, starting with an invasion of Taiwan. Absent an effective American response, Beijing could certainly achieve its aims.
This is the premise of a watershed new book, “The Strategy of Denial: America’s Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict,” by Elbridge A. Colby, the top Pentagon official who authored America’s 2018 National Security Strategy (NSS).
The 2018 NSS explicitly moved America away from terrorism and towards China and great power competition, a complex shift in mindset for many in the U.S. defence establishment.
“I absolutely experienced a lot of institutional pushbacks on it,” Colby told The Epoch Times in an interview. “And we’re still not there, there has been an enormous amount of foot-dragging, but there’s been a lot of progress too.”
Colby noted that it was not widely appreciated that China posed the greatest threat to U.S. security interests.
“That is one of the reasons I wrote this book, not just as a statement, but to lay out in a pretty clear and rigorous way why China is the primary threat and how do we deal with it in a military context,” he said.
The stakes could not be higher. Asia comprises 40 percent of global GDP and around two-thirds of global growth. Chinese dominance over Asia would, Colby observes in his book, give Beijing the power “to exclude the United States from reasonably free trade and access to these wealthy regions.”
Not only would China be a true peer competitor of the United States, but its advantageous position would also gravely weaken America. Eventually, China could consolidate to “project violent force elsewhere, including into North America.”
Colby clearly has no time in his book to discuss America’s destiny as the most powerful nation. While others continue to speak of the U.S. strategic objectives, Colby cuts to the chase stating clearly: “Denying China hegemony over Asia is the cardinal objective of U.S. grand strategy.”
Colby is also candid in his writing that America’s unipolar moment has passed.
The United States does not have the power to do everything everywhere and must make hard choices about aligning means to the ends. The sacrifices America must make in other parts of the world are real, and Colby does not shy away from these, calling them out by name.
Colby notes that the United States has made far-reaching pledges in Europe and the Middle East without appreciating China’s rise as a potential great power. Many fear that failing to follow through on these commitments will fatally weaken Washington’s credibility with allies in Asia.
Yet Colby presents a compelling counter-argument—that means and actions speak far louder than stated intentions. If the United States doubles down on rhetoric without responding to changing realities, then this undermines rather than supports America’s credibility.
This “differentiated credibility,” as Colby persuasively puts it, means jettisoning pledges that are of lesser importance, so that America may focus on its core interest in Asia. He argues it is this willingness to focus effort that will really determine whether Asian partners have confidence in their American ally.
Colby analysis of America’s comparative strengths and weaknesses, the optimal pathways available to each actor, combined with his ruthless honesty, is what makes this book a must-read for anyone with an interest in strategy or the post-pandemic world.
It’s also what gives his framework for U.S. success its own “credibility”—that to prevent Beijing’s dominance in Asia, an anti-hegemonic coalition must be able and willing to defeat China in a war over Taiwan. By carefully walking the reader through all the alternatives, the consequences for failure, and the means required for success, Colby demonstrates the inescapable truth through rationalised reason.
Colby observes that ordinary Americans seem to have a far greater appreciation for the true threat China poses than the political and foreign policy elite in Washington.
Asked by The Epoch Times why he thinks that is, he explains that the speed of China’s rise has escaped an enormous number of people, especially outside the economic sphere.
“In the military sphere, there hasn’t obviously been a major war so it hasn’t been put to the test, so lagging like this is not uncommon,” he said. “It doesn’t make it excusable or good, but it isn’t uncommon.”
Colby notes that those in the Midwest understand the China challenge in a more visceral and real way than others.
“I think we still are failing to appreciate the magnitude the China challenge,” he said
The framework Colby lays down for defeating China is one he knows, from first-hand experience in the Pentagon, will help policy-makers make sensible resource decisions.
“If you are to make intelligent decisions, you have to have a framework, and that framework should allow your military, your defence establishment, to understand what’s most important, how you deal with it and in what way,” he said. “My aspiration is to make it clear on what basis we need to focus our effort and what kind of military strategy we need…How many F35s do we have, how many ships we have in the navy, what kinds of things we do with different allies etcetera.”
Defeating China in a war over Taiwan requires robust preparation, and not only by the United States.
“Japan and Taiwan both need to dramatically increase defence spending,” says Colby, pointing to the fact Japan only spends 1 percent of GDP on defence.
“Japan needs to at least double its defence spending at a minimum. Taiwan needs to invest in the right kind of stuff to resist an invasion and be resilient to a blockade.”
Many American foreign policy experts speak in overtly ideological or universalist language, and the contrast with Colby’s realist tone is striking, yet he considers this a matter of approach.
“I am motivated by American values and my motivation is to preserve and promote them,” Colby tells The Epoch Times. “I think the way to do that is in a realistic fashion.”
Recently the world commemorated 20 years since 9/11. Reading through the book one cannot escape the sense that this level of analysis–rigorous, methodical, and serious-minded–has been sorely missing from American strategic policy during these past two decades.
Asked to rate American performance since 2001 Colby is scornful: “Quite poorly, honestly. Very poorly, especially until about 5 years ago.”
“We allowed China to more than steal a march. I mean, we allowed China to grow without being challenged, and not just grow but get closer to a position where it could bid for regional dominance, so we really need to do better,” Colby said.
While America experienced political paralysis over the so-called Russian influence at home, those in Asia have witnessed China’s expansionist ambition with increasing unease. Beijing is exerting dominance over the South China Sea, cracking down in Hong Kong, and deploying ever more numerous and advanced capabilities for seizing Taiwan.
Missing has been any plan from America to thwart Beijing’s goal of dominance.
Colby’s book arrests this danger in a direct way, laying down a believable framework for victory that will galvanise support, concentrate action and help decision-makers make correct choices in a hegemonic rivalry that will play out for decades to come.
Elbridge A. Colby’s “The Strategy for Denial: America’s Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict” is a must-read for every person who is concerned about China’s growing threat and how the world—and more importantly, America—should counter it.
Should companies that alienate customers and hamstring themselves in the name of wokeness be held to account by investors in court? Sen. Marco Rubio thinks so — and he introduced a bill that would do just that.
The Mind Your Own Business Act, unveiled by the Florida Republican on Thursday, would force corporate directors to testify in court that they were acting in their company’s best interest when taking political actions if sued by shareholders.
“Patriotic Americans who love their country and the opportunity it provides should be able to fight back against the growing tyranny of the woke elites running corporate America,” Rubio said in a statement.
“These are often nationless corporations that amass fortunes divorced from the fate of our great country while pushing socially destructive, far left policies like boycotts and cancel crusades at home,” the sentator said.
“My Mind Your Own Business Act would put the burden of proof on corporations to show that their far left actions were in shareholders’ best interests, and make corporate directors and officers personally liable if they can’t prove it.”
The bill would require a company listed on public stock exchanges to provide large shareholders “certain privileges with respect to claims for breach of fiduciary duty” if that corporation “takes an action on a primarily non-pecuniary basis in response to State law, boycotts a class of persons or industry on a primarily non-pecuniary basis, or uses primarily non-pecuniary public reasoning for an action.”
It’s not difficult to identify examples of all three.
In the first class — actions taken in response to state law — you have the anaphylactic reaction of corporate America to a relatively moderate voter integrity law in Georgia, a reaction that included moving the MLB All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver.
In the second class, you have banks that won’t deal with gun manufacturers.Do you support Rubio’s bill?Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
In the third class, pretty much any self-sabotaging corporate posturing that surfs on the crest of a wokeness wave would qualify.
As Rubio pointed out in an Op-Ed for Fox Business published Thursday, shareholders theoretically should be able to sue these companies for damages already — but the cards are stacked against them.
“One solution is to empower shareholders to push back,” the senator wrote. “If you own a stock, invest in a mutual fund, have a company-sponsored 401k, then you are a shareholder and are owed legal duties by the corporations you invest in. The truth is that corporate executives keep you in the dark about your right to hold them accountable for how they spend your money.
“Under current law, a shareholder has the right to sue corporate officers when they take actions like these that are motivated by their politics rather than your financial interests. But corporations have stacked the deck to make these lawsuits hopeless. They tweak provisions in their bylaws to protect themselves as they leave America behind.”
Thus, Rubio said, his legislation would “provide a clear path forward for shareholders when they sue in response to these actions” by putting the burden of proof on companies.
“No more legal tricks that shield these corporate executives from accountability. If they really believe that being woke is good for business, they should have to say so — and prove it — under oath in court.”
The tactic would be an interesting one. For instance, imagine the corporate officers of Nike going to court to justify their 2019 decision to nix a shoe with the Betsy Ross flag on the side — reportedly at the behest of Colin Kaepernick, a Nike endorser who reached out to the company to complain that the flag had offensive historical connections.
Nike’s fealty to Kaepernick has mostly been forgotten by the former NFL quarterback and his allies, who’ve moved onward and upward. For conservatives, however, the affair still sticks in their craw. Was it a good pecuniary choice for Nike? More importantly, did executives believe it was?
The senator’s proposal was applauded by the Free Enterprise Project, a conservative shareholder activist group.
“We heartily endorse Senator Rubio’s efforts,” said FEP director Scott Shepherd, according to a news release. “This is an important first step toward reining in the most aggressively politicized American corporations.”
“Increasing numbers of corporate executives have indulged their own personal policy preferences at company – shareholder – expense, taking controversial, inflammatory and oft-times discriminatory and illegal positions on behalf of their companies,” Shepherd added.
“All of this has to stop. The left and the right should be able to agree that no one wins if corporate executives are permitted to abandon their obligations to shareholders in order to act as unelected, unappointed policy czars. Senator Rubio’s legislation should sound as a fire bell in the night to those executives.”
This has no chance of passing in this Congress, given that Democrats are in control of both chambers and corporate wokeness is a virtue in their books.
However, if and when the GOP is back in control of things, the Mind Your Own Business Act could force companies to make a tough choice: position themselves to mollify the left or create value for shareholders.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he would hire any Border Patrol agent fired by the Biden administration after several top White House officials said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would investigate images of agents on horseback blocking Haitian illegal immigrants from entering the United States.
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said his agency would probe claims that the agents whipped Haitian aliens with the horse’s reins, despite Border Patrol union officials and the Getty photographer who captured the images saying they didn’t whip anyone.
Those agents, Abbott said, “wouldn’t have been in that situation had the Biden administration enforced the immigration laws.”
If President Joe Biden “takes any action against them whatsoever—I have worked side by side with those Border Patrol agents—I want them to know something,” Abbott said. “If they are [at] risk of losing their job by a president who is abandoning his duty to secure the border, you have a job in the state of Texas. I will hire you to help Texas secure our border.”
During a news conference on Sept. 24, Mayorkas dedicated a significant amount of time answering questions about the images of agents on horseback, while White House press secretary Jen Psaki previously said that horseback patrols would be suspended. The agents were responded to a surge of illegal immigrants from Haiti who had amassed in Del Rio, Texas, and camped underneath a bridge before DHS moved them elsewhere.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection mounted officers attempt to contain migrants as they cross the Rio Grande from Ciudad Acuña, Mexico, into Del Rio, Texas, Sunday, Sept. 19, 2021. (Felix Marquez/AP Photo)
“I promise you, those people will pay,” Biden told reporters at the White House hours before Mayorkas held his press conference. “There will be consequences. It’s an embarrassment. But beyond an embarrassment, it’s dangerous. It’s wrong.”
In describing the scene near a river crossing area in Del Rio, Getty photographer Paul Ratje said that Haitian men were running and “trying to go around the horses.”
“I’ve never seen them whip anyone,” he told KTSM, referring to the agents. “He was swinging it, but it can be misconstrued when you’re looking at the picture.”
Brandon Judd, an official with a Border Patrol agent union, told The Epoch Times in an interview last week that the agents “did not use those reins in any way, shape, or form to try to strike anybody.”
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has received significant criticism from progressive and pro-immigration activists, who claim that DHS’s plan to deport some illegal immigrants back to Haiti violates U.S. protocols on refugees. However, Republicans and local elected officials who represent municipalities along the Texas border have said the Biden administration’s messaging and policies are confusing and are triggering the surge in illegal immigration.
Mayorkas, during an interview with Fox News on Sunday, confirmed that more than 12,000 Haitian illegal immigrants who have been moved from the bridge area were relocated to other parts of the United States for processing.
The national divide has gotten so deep that even the brilliant Roger Simon has broached the subject of succession: “I never thought I’d be writing about secession or anything close. Not in a million years,” he wrote.
After reciting his love of country, Simon continues,
“But the times being what they are and the man occupying the presidency being who he is, not to mention those surrounding him being who they are, plus the issues that divide us … I feel compelled to discuss secession or division as if they were a real possibility worth considering.”
Simon has picked up on the secession talk I’ve heard bubbling through the grassroots:
“… I know I’m not alone in thinking about what was once unthinkable. Indeed, from what I’ve heard, even in the halls of Congress there are those so concerned with the inability of the red and blue to speak or reason together, who see a gulf between both sides so wide it will never be bridged, that some of our politicians are beginning to whisper about secession or the like as well.”
Secession movements are responses to national policies imposed over strong objections from particular regions of the country. The first major secession movement arose in the New England states during the War of 1812. The federal government, then dominated by officials from other states, had declared war on Great Britain. The war destroyed the New England fishing and commercial economy.
The second major secession movement was, of course, the exodus of Southern states in 1860 and 1861. The South resented federal tariffs and feared the central government would act against slavery. The immediate trigger was the election of a president whose party had pledged to end slavery in the federal territories. If that happened, the slave states would be hemmed in and their “peculiar institution” potentially doomed to extinction.
Like previous secession movements, modern secession sentiment derives from regional dissatisfaction with national policy. However, the current sentiment differs from previous movements in at least four ways:
First: In previous movements, the national policies causing dissatisfaction were few in number. Today there is much more to complain about: The central government has been forcing all states and citizens (except those with political pull) to bend the neck to arbitrary and stupid diktats governing health care, immigration, education, marriage, social policy, land use, and many other subjects.
Second: During the War of 1812, New England contained only five of the 18 states. (Maine was still part of Massachusetts.) In 1860–61, only 11 of 34 states—containing just 27 percent of the population—seceded.
Modern dissatisfaction is more geographically widespread. In recent years, a majority of states have sued to upend Obamacare, vaccination mandates, and other federal policies. In 2020, half the states voted for Donald Trump. Sixty percent of the states have Republican legislatures and a majority have Republican governors.
Third: It was awkward to make a moral case for New England commerce and particularly difficult to do so for slavery—although some people tried. By contrast, many of the policies now issuing from Washington are deeply offensive to traditional morality.
Fourth: The centralized policies of 1814 and 1861, wise or not, were constitutionally legitimate: The Constitution grants Congress power to declare war and (despite the absurd ruling in the Dred Scott case) power to govern the federal territories. By contrast, many current national policies are, under any honest reading of the Constitution, far outside federal authority. Some of them, such as the Biden administration’s failure to enforce immigration statutes, actually defy federal law.
One might argue that these four differences make secession more practical than in 1814 or 1861. But a better way of looking at it is that those differences give the dissenting states certain advantages, and more viable options, than merely submitting or seceding. The best option—and the key to saving the country—is decentralization.
The Founders understood the advantages of decentralization. That’s why they created a federal, rather than a unitary, government. History had shown that free republics endured only if they govern small territories. Republics occupying large areas degenerated into despotism, because holding together regions with disparate interests and cultures required a strong man or military oligarchy. An obvious example was the Roman Republic, which could not adapt to territorial expansion, and therefore degenerated into autocracy. Another example is Russia today.
John Dickinson in his “Fabius” essays and Alexander Hamilton in “Federalist” No. 9, pointed out that the Constitution met the challenge by creating a decentralized system. The overwhelming majority of policy issues would be resolved at the state or local level; divisive national controversies would be limited to tariffs, foreign affairs, the post office, and a few other subjects.
We have ignored this wisdom and the Constitution that enshrined it. Federal functionaries and their media/special interest allies have nationalized every issue. That is the leading cause of our bitter divisions: We fight over everything because the feds try to control everything.
How do we restore decentralization? The Constitution gives us a tool for the purpose. Article V of the Constitution permits two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures to force Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. At a convention for proposing amendments, each state has an equal voice: It is one species in a larger class of assemblies called “conventions of states.” State lawmakers can direct this assembly to propose amendments limiting federal power, after which the states then decide whether to ratify them.
This is the procedure the Founders recommended for correcting central overreach. George Mason, Constitutional Convention delegate from Virginia, insisted on it as a remedy in case the central government became “oppressive.” Samuel Rose, a leading New York ratifier, noted that the procedure “prescribed for the states a mode of restraining the powers of government, if upon trial it should be found that they had given too much.” Tench Coxe, the author of some of the most-widely read essays in support of the Constitution, explained:
“The sovereign power of altering and amending the constitution … is vested in the several legislatures and [ratifying] conventions of the states, chosen by the people respectively within them. The foederal government cannot alter the constitution, the people at large by their own agency cannot alter the constitution, but the representative bodies of the states, that is their legislatures and conventions, only can execute these acts of sovereign power.
“… [A]s the foederal legislature cannot effect dangerous alterations which they might desire, so they cannot prevent such wholesome alterations and amendments as are now desired, or which experience may hereafter suggest. … If two thirds of those legislatures require it, Congress must call a general convention, even though they dislike the proposed amendments, and if three fourths of the state legislatures or conventions approve such proposed amendments, they become an actual and binding part of the constitution, without any possible interference of Congress.”
The number of states with Republican legislatures (governors have no role in the process) already approaches the necessary two thirds. Because the Biden administration’s power lust is matched only by its incompetence, after the 2022 election, the tally of GOP legislatures may soon be higher. Surely a convention dominated by conservative state legislatures can draft amendments popular enough to be ratified by 38 states. There are, after all, sensible liberals appalled by federal excess and the danger of national breakup.
We have everything to gain from a convention of states and nothing to lose. (Claims that an amendments convention is uncontrollable or could be controlled by Congress are myths without historical or legal basis.) We have, accordingly, a moral and legal obligation to employ that constitutional tool before splitting up the country.
The penalty for lying to Congress is up to five years in prison.
And, according to a recent report, President Joe Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was guilty of as much in December 2017.
This revelation came out thanks to the indictment of Michael A. Sussmann, a partner at the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
As The Washington Post reported, special counsel John Durham indicted Sussmann on the charge of making false statements to the FBI regarding the motives of his clients when they planted the rumor that the Trump campaign had a secret server it was using to communicate with Russia’s Alfa Bank.
These claims were later investigated as part of the long-running Trump-Russia investigation that ended with the ruling that there had been no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
This initial rumor involving Alfa Bank originated with the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. It was then obtained by the Clinton campaign, who sent the false allegations forward to the FBI.
Here’s where the story ties back to Sullivan.
In December 2017, Sullivan told Congress that he had no idea that Fusion was involved in the Alfa Bank opposition research and “denied knowing anything about Fusion in 2016 or who was conducting the opposition research for the campaign,” according to Paul Sperry of Real Clear Investigations.
However, in Sussmann’s indictment, it was revealed that he, along with the cyber experts recruited to prove the Trump-Russia connection, “coordinated with representatives and agents of the Clinton campaign.”
Sperry further alleged that “sources close to the case confirmed” that Sullivan was among those campaign officials.
“They say [Sullivan] was briefed on the development of the opposition-research materials tying Trump to Alfa Bank, and was aware of the participants in the project,” he wrote.
In other words, Sullivan was a key player in the plot to spread a wild conspiracy theory involving Trump and Alfa Bank, a conspiracy theory he knew to be forwarded by an opposition research firm.
The very same conspiracy theory, in fact, that the Clinton campaign later fed to the FBI.
According to the report, Sullivan knew about the biased source of this information, despite telling Congress otherwise.
As the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion cases work their way through the criminal justice system, there’s been no shortage of puzzlement and outrage from some quarters over why some of the defendants have pleaded guilty and received no more than a slap on the wrist.
Eric Torrens is one of these individuals. According to BuzzFeed News, he took a deal on Aug. 19 that saw him plead guilty to a single count of illegally parading, demonstrating, or picketing inside the Capitol.
“He admitted entering the building through a broken door and walking around. The government noted in court papers that Capitol surveillance cameras recorded his entry into the building as well as his movements inside,” BuzzFeed’s Zoe Tillman reported on Tuesday.
“Prosecutors cited four other videos they obtained related to Torrens, including one that showed him exclaiming, ‘We goin’ in!’”
You can say this doesn’t necessarily represent charming behavior on the part of Torrens, but this certainly doesn’t rise to the level of being an “insurrectionist.” And, while there were violent rioters in the crowd on Jan. 6, there were also plenty of people who treated it as an ill-advised opportunity for tourism.
As if to drive the point home, the judge in Torrens’ case ordered the video showing him inside the Capitol to be released.
It’s decidedly underwhelming.
U.S. District Chief Judge Beryl Howell ordered the release after media organizations — including BuzzFeed — requested the videos that prosecutors in cases like Torrens’ are using to determine the defendants’ culpability.
“Before Torrens’ plea hearing, Howell asked to see videos that the government relied on in describing Torrens’ conduct. She also asked the parties to weigh in on whether those videos should be released to the public,” BuzzFeed News reported.
“At the plea hearing, Howell noted that there was a presumption in favor of access to judicial proceedings and that the public had an interest in materials that were submitted in court, that judges relied on in making decisions, and that shed light on how prosecutors exercised discretion in criminal cases.”
The prosecution said the videos showed entrances and exits to the Capitol that weren’t known to the general public and that their release would “compromise the security of the United States Capitol and those who work there.”
“This footage, when combined with other footage from nearby cameras, could be used to track individual rioters moving through the building thereby creating a visual pathway which other bad actors could use in planning their breach point and pathway for future attacks,” prosecutors argued.
Last Wednesday, Howell sided with media organizations, ruling the videos didn’t show “sensitive” parts of the Capitol and could be seen on a public tour.
“Hundreds of cases have arisen from the events of January 6, with new cases being brought and pending cases being resolved by plea agreement every week,” the judge wrote.Related:
“The public has an interest in understanding the conduct underlying the charges in these cases, as well as the government’s prosecutorial decision-making both in bringing criminal charges and resolving these charges by entering into plea agreements with defendants,” she said.
BuzzFeed’s Tillman uploaded a one-minute clip of the videos released Tuesday to her Twitter account.
The footage, pretty emblematic of the whole, doesn’t exactly look like violent treason in action:
And thus did Tillman spend the rest of the day reminding us that Jan. 6 had been Very Bad and the Capitol riot was the handiwork of Extremely Dangerous and Violent Insurrectionists:
WARNING: The following videos and tweets contain graphic language that some viewers will find offensive.
Yes, we know. There’s been no shortage of these videos and they’ve received no shortage of airtime. You don’t break into the Capitol during the certification of the Electoral College without some violence being involved.
However, of the 650 people who have been charged for entering the Capitol on Jan. 6 and those who have evaded detection or capture, how many of them were rampaging, violent beasts in body paint and how many of them were people who made the poor life choice of using the opportunity to stroll around?
The fact that government officials wanted these videos suppressed because they represented some kind of “security” threat — when they clearly didn’t — indicates how desperate they are to curate the narrative that there were far more of the former when what we see instead is a lot of the latter.
With reporters like Zoe Tillman, they needn’t worry. If and when videos like these are released, they’ll simply tell us the only videos that matter are a handful of those that show Jan. 6 at its most brutal.
The Biden administration is forging ahead with a cryptic federal program to expand government control of property under the guise of combating “climate change.”
Skeptics say the program is a sinister land grab targeting 680 million acres nationwide disguised as environmental conservation, Breitbart reported Wednesday.
Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska has been leading the charge to oppose President Joe Biden’s so-called 30 x 30 executive order, which calls for the government to conserve at least 30 percent of all the land and water in the United States by 2030.
Ricketts said several counties in Nebraska — where 97 percent of the land is privately owned — have passed resolutions to block the initiative.
“More and more Nebraska counties are speaking out against President Joe Biden’s 30 x 30 land grab,” he tweeted.
Boone County has unanimously passed a #Stop30x30 resolution!
More and more Nebraska counties are speaking out against President Joe Biden’s 30 x 30 land grab.
Contact your county commissioners today and urge them to step up and make their voices heard. pic.twitter.com/Jv0QQneOtZ
The president announced his 30 x 30 program a week after being installed in the White House.
In his Jan. 27 executive order, Biden openly declared that he’ll use the full power of the government to advance his radical climate agenda, which is to “deliver an equitable, clean energy future, and put the United States on a path to achieve net-zero emissions” by 2050.
To achieve this goal, Biden vowed to take aggressive action “that combines the full capacity of the Federal Government with efforts from every corner of our Nation, every level of government, and every sector of our economy.”
A keystone of the 30 x 30 plan is federal control of large amounts of land across the country. It sets a goal of “conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030.”
Not surprisingly, private landowners such as farmers and ranchers are disturbed by this move.
“While private owners have successfully stewarded our land and water here in Nebraska, new leadership in the White House wants more federal control,” Ricketts said in a June 8 news release.
“On January 27th, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14008, which set a goal of conserving 30% of the nation’s land and waters by 2030,” the governor said. “This requires restricting a land area the size of the State of Nebraska every year, each year, for the next nine years, or in other words a landmass twice the size of Texas by 2030.”
Adolph Biden
Ricketts slammed the executive order as “radical,” saying the president has no constitutional authority to execute his plan.
He said landowners are especially concerned because Biden has shared few details about what exactly his program entails.
“So far, he has not defined what he even means by ‘conservation.’ Aside from vague platitudes, he has not revealed how he intends to implement his plan,” Ricketts wrote.
The governor also warned that the program will result in higher taxes.
“Unlike states in the western part of the country where there are already significant amounts of federally owned lands, 97% of land in Nebraska is privately owned,” he explained in the news release.
“Federally owned land is not taxed, and restrictions will reduce our ability to develop it for agriculture, infrastructure, or businesses. If 30% of land in Nebraska is set aside for conservation, it will shift the property tax burden onto fewer farmers, ranchers, homeowners, and business owners.”
Fourteen other Republican governors, including Greg Abbott of Texas, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Doug Burgum of North Dakota, Greg Gianforte of Montana and Brad Little of Idaho have slammed what they call potential federal overreach.
I joined Governors around the U.S. in standing against Biden’s radical 30×30 plan.
The President has no authority to dictate to states or citizens what to do with their private property.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack denied that the government is attempting to seize private property.
“There’s no intention to have a land grab,” Vilsack said in April, according to Agri Pulse. “There’s no intention to take something away from folks.”
However, the Biden administration has not provided details about how it plans to implement the program, and this lack of transparency is alarming.
Even some liberals are skeptical. Tom Goldtooth, an activist with the Indigenous Environmental Network, is worried that Biden’s initiative will be another Big Government scam.
“We have so many concerns that this is just another scam,” he told NPR on Tuesday. “It’s another scam to give the impression that these lands are going to be protected, set aside, restoring nature.”
Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has hired a new surgeon general who will allow science, measured thinking and reason to dictate how health authorities approach the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and other matters of public health.
Dr. Joseph Ladapo was introduced by DeSantis at a news briefing shortly after the doctor was also announced to be joining the faculty at the University of Florida. The governor shared some information about the doctor’s background.
“Dr. Ladapo comes with us by way of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. He is married; he has three children,” DeSantis said. “He was born in Nigeria and immigrated to the United States with his family when he was five. His father is a microbiologist and brought his family to the United States to continue his own studies and the apple doesn’t far fall from the tree.”
DeSantis remarked his new hire is a former Wake Forrest University decathlete who obtained his degree in medicine from Harvard Medical School, and later his doctorate in health policy from the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. DeSantis was so proud of his state’s new surgeon general he bragged about him online:
Today, I appointed Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD as Florida Surgeon General and Secretary of the Florida Department of Health. He has a remarkable academic and medical career, and will bring great leadership to @healthyFla. Watch: https://t.co/7b3KnwIpjI
Those who might not have been impressed by his resume are sure to be stunned by how intact his mind and heart are.
Ladapo, a UCLA medical professor who opposes forcing people to wear masks and take COVID vaccines, had a clear message for all who were listening. In accepting his new position, he shared a message that surely tested the limits Democratic Party and establishment media’s terror machine: Fear will not be taken into account as long as he’s making the decisions.
“Florida will completely reject fear as a way of making policies,” Ladapo told reporters in Tallahassee.
He added bluntly: “So, we’re done with fear.”
Ladapo continued saying that fear has been a “centerpiece of health policy in the United States, ever since the beginning of the pandemic.”
“It’s over here,” he said. “Expiration date: It’s done.”
Ron DeSantis just made Dr. Ladapo the new Surgeon General in Florida. Watch this and you’ll wish he was in charge of COVID policy for the United States.
“Florida will completely reject fear as a way of making policies”
“We’re compassionate, we get it, you know, there are scary things — we’ve seen a lot of fear from COVID over the past almost past year and a half, and it’s very understandable. But the way to approach that is not from a place of fear, because it doesn’t lead to good decisions,” he said.
“We’ve seen a lot of that, where the risks and benefits of decisions haven’t been considered, wholly or thoughtfully, so that’s over here,” he added. “In terms of our approach, you know, we are going to have a positive approach. We’re going to acknowledge the fact that there are some things that are scary, but that’s not the only thing.”
DeSantis, a model governor in an age of big government insanity, has hit another home run. Ladapo is not a man of fear. He’s a man of reason, and he will react to evolving situations based on logic and not impulse.
Of course, the establishment media is already smearing Ladapo with predictable headlines. Newsweek, for example, shared news of the doctor’s hiring by connecting him to African Dr. Stella Immanuel, who last year was excoriated by the cynical corporate media for things she’d said in her ministry in Texas.
“Ron DeSantis’ New Surgeon General Appeared in ‘Demon Sperm’ Doctor’s COVID Conspiracy Video,” the outlet claimed through a misleading headline. How is Ladapo connected to Immanuel? Both last year appeared in a video — along with a lot of other doctors — which championed personal choice and challenged mask mandates over efficacy concerns.
The doctors also touted some common medicines as a potential way to treat cases of the coronavirus. Of course, anyone who goes against the grain in the era of COVID, cancel culture and intrusive mandates will be slung with mud. The fact that the establishment media can’t stand Ladapo is a pretty important data point. It means he’s probably the right man for the job.
We know he’s already challenged the notion that fear should drive policy. In an era where pandemonium brought on by words from people such as Dr. Anthony Fauci too often prevails, that’s refreshing. Florida is ushering in a new day with regard to public health.
The state is bolstering an already rock-star-leadership cast with a man who is supremely qualified to be the state’s top doctor.
Perhaps other states will follow. It would be nice to see public policy derive from something other than capitulation to anxiety.
In groups large and small, with thoughts said aloud and others held close in silence, America’s students began Wednesday in prayer at the annual “See You at the Pole” event.
As noted by CBN News, this was the 21st year of the student-led event, which takes place around the world at school flagpoles in the morning before classes begin.
This year’s theme came from the New Testament:
Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you. – James 4:10
At Croatan High School in North Carolina, about 25 students gathered to pray, according to the Carteret County News-Times.
“There is just so much going on in our country and in our leaders. It’s so important that we pray for our country,” freshman Faith Eilertson said. “The leaders need wisdom because they are facing so many situations.”
“We need to gather around and pray because this country has done so much for us. I’m praying for the students and the country. I’m praying for our military because of Afghanistan,” freshman Brody Weihrauch said.
In Pikeville, Kentucky, students at Shelby Valley High School gathered together to pray.
“It makes me feel like I have a connection to everybody in this room, or everybody in the circle while I’m praying,” Collier Fuller, a sophomore, said, according to WYMT-TV.
At Tyler Legacy High school in Tyler, Texas, about 200 students gathered, according to KLTV-TV.
“I think it really does help our school system and it just helps us as believers just to really put God into our hearts and into our school system,” a freshman named Lillian said.
“I would like to say that this very much impacts the school. I want people to understand that we care about each other. We actually are praying for you,” said Jaren, a senior.
Christians from around the country shared images from their schools.
This morning, we gathered together across the country to stand in prayer and glorify God! Thousands of students stepped out and shared their faith in their schools. #SYATP 🙌👏🙏✨🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/A0HYbR8gJN
At Copperas Cove High School in Copperas Cove, Texas, student-athletes were given a break from football practice and went to pray in their uniforms with about 100 other students, according to the Killeen Daily Herald.
“It makes me feel a lot closer to them, to be honest,” football player Aleczander Patterson said of having his teammates attend the event. “I know a lot of them probably have struggles in their life that probably they need to ask God for … it just means a lot to see them open up like that and show who they are.”
Senior football player Caleb Newberry, who led the event with Patterson, said it was an opportunity to spread God’s word and connect with others in prayer.
“It meant a lot, just so I could be able to serve God and spread the message of Christ and just be able to build connections with other people,” he said.
Wednesday marked See You at the Pole, a student-initiated, student-organized and student-led movement of prayer that happens annually on the fourth Wednesday of September. https://t.co/XvmtnzRn6p
More than 100 percent of private sector jobs in Arizona have been recovered since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the August employment report.
The Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity report showed that Arizona has recovered 325,500 private-sector jobs since April 2020, representing 101 percent of private-sector jobs lost.
Between July and August, Arizona’s unemployment fell by about 13,000 people. The unemployment rate dropped from 6.6 percent to 6.2 percent, marking the largest rate decline of the year.
“The last year and a half have challenged Arizonans like never before,” Gov. Doug Ducey said in a press release last Thursday. “But thanks to the ingenuity and perseverance of our hard-working employees and business community, Arizona’s recovery is in full swing, with a real momentum headed in the right direction.”
The state is 97 percent recovered from the pandemic when government jobs are included. This makes Arizona the state with the third-fastest total jobs recovery in the country. The United States, on the other hand, has recovered 79 percent of private sector jobs.
While the U.S. labor force is still more than 3 million people under pre-pandemic levels, in March, the number of Arizonans working or seeking employment surpassed its pre-pandemic height.
The report ranked Arizona as the eighth least impacted by labor shortages.
“We will continue to work hard to make sure Arizonans have ample opportunity to reenter the workforce, access new skills and get back to work,” Ducey said.
Senate Republicans will not vote to raise the debt limit at this time because of Democrat plans to spend trillions of dollars, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other Republican leaders said Wednesday.
The House of Representatives voted this week along party lines to pass a bill that includes suspending the debt limit until after the 2022 midterm elections. The Senate plans on voting on the measure next week.
“We all agree, America must never default. The debt ceiling will need to be raised,” McConnell told reporters in Washington.
But “reckless” Democrat spending plans, including one measure that’s been pegged at $3.5 trillion, and the way Democrats have been operating “on a partisan basis,” means the party will have to figure out how to raise the debt ceiling without GOP votes, the senator from Kentucky said.
“The democrats can deal with us all by themselves, because they have the House, the White House, and the Senate. So this is their responsibility,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman, added.
Democrats have a 220–212 majority in the House and a one-vote majority in the 50–50 Senate thanks to their control of the White House.
Democrats have struggled, though, to pass legislation since President Joe Biden took office. Republicans have criticized many of their plans, and several moderate Democrats, including Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), have refused to vote for some of the more radical proposals.
The White House last week warned the looming federal debt crisis could lead to a recession as it pushes for raising or suspending the debt ceiling.
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, tried blaming McConnell on Sunday for the failure to get a bill passed that would do one or the other.
“The position that Republicans, primarily Sen. Mitch McConnell, have taken is totally irresponsible,” Yarmuth said. “Mitch just said that every Republican in the United States Senate was prepared to vote to have the federal government default. That’s what he said. I think that’s a violation of the constitutional oath. It would be financial havoc if we actually defaulted,” he added later.
Yarmuth on Monday, though, noted that Democrats can raise the debt limit without any Republican votes. But he said they don’t want to do that.
“They don’t want people to know how much money they want to spend and borrow. They don’t want the American public to know they don’t want to put a dollar figure on their irresponsible reckless spending,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the Senate Republican Conference chairman, told reporters on Wednesday.
“The American people can see through this, they know that they’re going to be taxed, everyone’s going to ultimately pay one way or another through inflation through higher taxes on their income on their retirement savings, even on death. If the Democrats want to go it alone on spending, they’re going to have to go it alone on raising the debt ceiling,” he added.
Democrats and Republicans worked out a suspension of the debt ceiling in 2019, and then-President Donald Trump signed the bill. The ceiling was suspended for two years, but came back into effect on July 31. The ceiling is the highest amount of debt that the Department of Treasury can issue to the public or other federal agencies, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It was reset this year to $22 trillion plus the borrowing that took place during the suspension.
A member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in Arizona is resigning after leaked audiotapes revealed him criticizing both the integrity of the 2020 election and some of his fellow supervisors for their stances on the highly controversial state-ordered audit of the 2020 election.
Supervisor Steve Chucri said he will resign from his position in November, citing “toxicity” and the impact of leaked recordings published by conservative news outlet The Gateway Pundit.
The leaked audiotapes, recorded in January and in March, make Chucri appear highly critical of what was done in the county, which has been sparring with state-level Republicans for months over an audit of the 2020 election. In general, the county has fought the state’s efforts to obtain machines and data.
Chucri, however, appeared on the tape to be siding with the state Senate against his fellow county officials.
“I don’t feel comfortable with Dominion [Voting Systems],” he said in one snippet, referring to the company whose voting machines were under a cloud during a spate of allegations that followed the 2020 election.
The Gateway Pundit said it obtained audio of a March conversation in which Chucri said opposition to the Arizona state audit was centered around other supervisors’ fears for their margins of victory and referred to the county’s audit of its results as “pretty bull****.”
Chucri was taped in January saying, “I think it was done through dead people voting. I think it was multifaceted,” according to The Gateway Pundit.
He later reportedly threw around the words “ballot harvesting.”
In his resignation statement, he neither confirmed nor denied the specifics of the comments, but acknowledged the damage the leaked recordings have done.
“In recent days it has come to light that I was secretly recorded in conversations regarding differences with some of my colleagues about an audit of the 2020 election. The comments I made were during a very turbulent time,” he said.
“My colleagues have every right to be both angry and disappointed with me. I should not have made such statements and offer my colleagues heartfelt apologies,” he said.
“Unfortunately, the political landscape changed for the worst this year. The environment is wrought with toxicity — and all civility and decorum no longer seem to have a place. The fixation with the 2020 election results and aftermath have gotten out of control,” he said.
“I do not want to perpetuate the very problem I ran to eliminate several years ago. While I have had my differences with my colleagues, I have known them to be good, honorable and ethical men. The picture some individuals are trying to paint about a cover up, scam and other nonsense about my colleagues and myself is simply false,” he said.
Chucri’s statement then sought to put distance between himself and the leaked audio.
“There was no cover-up, the election was not stolen. [President Joe] Biden won,” he said.
The Western Journal has reached out to Chucri for comment, but did not immediately receive a response.
Florida’s new Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, issued a new measure allowing parents to decide whether their children who have been exposed to COVID-19 should quarantine rather than giving schools the authority to do so.
Guidelines signed on Wednesday by Ladapo remove prior statewide rules requiring students to quarantine for at least four days off-campus if they were potentially exposed to COVID-19, the illness caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. Students who have been exposed, under the new rules, can continue to attend class in person without restrictions or separate treatment if they are asymptomatic.
“Quarantining healthy students is incredibly damaging for their educational advancement,” Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said on Wednesday at a news conference in Oscelola County. “It’s also disruptive for families. We are going to be following a symptoms-based approach.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that students should quarantine for 14 days if they are not vaccinated against COVID-19. If they test negative, the CDC recommends that students quarantine for seven days.
Florida rules saying that COVID-19 infected students quarantine for 10 days, get a negative test, or offer a doctor’s note granting permission to return to school remain intact.
On Wednesday, Commissioner of Education Richard Corcoran said that the new rules would put an end to “chronic absenteeism” and described the mandate as “common sense.”
But some local school district officials and teachers unions disagreed with the DeSantis administration’s quarantine rule.
“The spread of the virus among children has gone up by triple digits, yet our governor and his newly appointed surgeon general continue to bury their heads in the sand,” Anna Fusco, president of the Broward Teachers Union, said in a statement. “This is clearly politically, not public health, motivated. Contact tracing and quarantining are working to minimize the virus’s spread. Why are we fixing what’s not broken?”
DeSantis named Ladapo as Surgeon General on Tuesday. Ladapo, who previously was a UCLA doctor and health policy researcher, shares the governor’s approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Like DeSantis, Ladapo has said he doesn’t believe in school closures, lockdowns, or vaccine mandates.
Ladapo said during the news conference on Wednesday that he is “very happy to be working with someone like the governor, who has a similar vision about how to think about weighing costs and benefits with managing this pandemic.”
“We respect that some parents may be less comfortable sending their kid back to school after being exposed,” he said. “And so the new rule allows for those parents to keep their children home for a period of time. And the new rule also allows for parents who are more comfortable letting their healthy child return to school.”
Students, parents, and community members across the United States on Wednesday resume the “See You At The Pole” tradition, uniting in prayer around the flag poles at their schools.
The event, according to the See You at the Pole (SYATP) organization, is held on the fourth Wednesday of September each year. This year marks the 21st annual event, which falls on Sept. 22.
People from all over the world took part in See You at the Pole today. THANK YOU to all of those who participated. We pray that God performs miracles through your obedience. #syatppic.twitter.com/3sk94iBvLp
The prayer rally is meant to “lift up their friends, families, teachers, school, and nation to God,” SYATP said. It is usually held before school and at the school’s flag pole, with students in elementary school through college all around the globe. Adults often pray in support of the students on campus by gathering nearby, at their places of work or worship, or at city halls.
There is no sponsor for the student-organized and student-led event, according to SYATP, although a diverse group of about 100 church denominations, ministries, and organizations are listed as “supporting ministries” who promote, endorse, or otherwise support the movement.
Students at Oak Mountain Middle School are gathering for See You at the Pole today. It’s an annual event where students come together to pray for their community, country, and world. pic.twitter.com/7VyeE5ZL8I
FCA students from Winfield High and Hurricane Middle participated in the student-led “See You at The Pole” event this morning at their schools. #PutnamProudpic.twitter.com/KnupbZUrMb
With schools switching to virtual instruction and varying public health restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many SYATP organizers last year moved the event online on Sept. 23, 2020, to pray for their communities. This year, however, many participants chose to meet in person.
“We prayed over our school, our community, our state, and our country,” the Fellowship of Christian Athletes group at Forest High School in Ocala, Florida, wrote on Instagram along with images of their prayer event. “We prayed over students who are going through things we will never understand. We prayed over an amazing student going through surgery this morning. We prayed over being a light through the hallways of this campus.”
According to the latest guidance by the U.S. Department of Education, it is a student’s constitutional right to engage in voluntary prayer that doesn’t disrupt the school’s educational programs or activities. Students also have the right to organize prayer groups, religious clubs, and SYATP rallies, to the same extent that they are permitted to organize non-curricular activities groups.
“Nothing in the Constitution prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the schoolday,” read the federal guidance, which was updated last year under former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. “Students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Students may also speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics.”
A barbeque food truck operator in North Carolina is suing a local government after it enacted protectionist regulations that increased food truck permitting fees by close to 8,000 percent.
The lawsuit, Shirley v. Town of Farmville, was filed Sept. 21, in state court in Pitt County, North Carolina, on behalf of plaintiff Mark Shirley by Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm based in Sacramento, California. Shirley resides in Walstonburg, just west of Farmville.
“Many restaurants faced difficulties throughout the COVID-19 pandemic,” Jessica Thompson, a PLF attorney representing Shirley, told The Epoch Times.
“And when so many small businesses are fighting to survive, the government shouldn’t be erecting new barriers for entrepreneurs. The Town of Farmville cannot pick economic winners and losers.
“And we’re suing under the North Carolina constitution to protect Mark’s economic liberty as well as the economic liberty of future generations of entrepreneurs in North Carolina. That’s because economic liberty protects an individual’s right to improve their own lives and it also provides customers with more choices.”
In September 2019, Shirley quit his sales job and started his own food truck business. He obtained the needed permits, paid Farmville’s then-required $100 annual fee, rented a private parking space in town, and opened up for business serving lunch in Farmville on Wednesdays and Fridays. Despite the usual challenges a new restaurant faces, including the ongoing pandemic, his food truck business, called Ole Time Smokehouse, developed a loyal customer base, according to the legal complaint.
But in April, Farmville amended the food truck ordinance to require Shirley to fork over a $75 permit fee daily—which works out to an annual fee of $7,800 for a truck serving lunch twice per week—representing an increase of more than 7,700 percent. The amended food truck ordinance also forbids food trucks from operating within 100 feet of the property boundary of brick-and-mortar restaurants, unless the food truck receives written permission from its competitor to operate in closer proximity.
The permit fee “operates as an illegal tax to raise general funds for the Town’s expenses unrelated to food truck regulation,” the legal complaint states.
The amended ordinance “is intended to protect existing brick-and-mortar restaurants from competition from food trucks by erecting expensive, arbitrary regulatory barriers.”
“Because economic protectionism is not a constitutionally legitimate purpose for an ordinance, the restrictions on Mark’s business violate the North Carolina Constitution, Article I, Sections 1 and 19. Moreover, because the Amended Ordinance singles out food truck lunch providers for regulatory burdens while exempting brick-and-mortar lunch providers, the ordinance also violates the North Carolina Constitution’s equal protection clause, Article I, Section 19.”
Thompson said the problem is that “the General Assembly has not authorized Farmville to levy such an outrageous permit fee,” which is functioning as a tax.
Under North Carolina law, towns are allowed to assess regulatory fees only to cover the cost of the regulation, she said. “There’s just no way that it costs them $75 a day to regulate food trucks.”
The town doesn’t conduct health inspections of the food truck, or provide water or waste removal or any other services, she said.
“It’s an arbitrary regulation intended to make it difficult for him to operate his business and interfere with his right to earn a living,” Thompson said.
The requirement to seek permission to operate the food truck within 100 feet of the property line of an established restaurant gives that restaurant a veto on the food truck setting up in a private lot near it, she said.
According to the legal complaint, for Shirley, Ole Time Smokehouse is more than a food truck.
“It represents century-old southern cooking traditions, service to others, and his professional calling. Rare is the debate between North Carolinians livelier than about which style of barbeque represents true Carolina Barbeque: Eastern-style or Lexington-style barbeque. Some barbeque historians argue that the difference is one of degrees since both styles are vinegar-based—the two styles are more alike than different, especially when compared to other regional barbeque styles. Mark’s Ole Time Smokehouse food truck blends these Carolina barbeque traditions.”
Farmville officials couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
Despite the passage of laws in some states banning Critical Race Theory (CRT) from being taught in schools, some educators are teaching other educators how to “back-door it” into the classrooms.
A teacher in Iowa posted a video teaching other educators how to circumvent the ban on teaching Critical Race Theory in her state.
In Florida, a Duval County teacher was removed from her position because she refused to remove a banner in support of Black Lives Matter from outside the door to her classroom.
The Zinn Education Project has collected the names of nearly 7,500 educators who vow to keep pushing CRT into classrooms despite the passage of laws banning CRT in a growing number of states.
While the head of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Randi Weingarten, denied that critical race theory was even taught in elementary schools or high schools, she vowed to fight back against “culture warriors” who are “bullying teachers.”
Not only did the National Education Association adopt a resolution to prioritize their effort to implement CRT in “K-12 and higher education,” it vowed to use all resources at their disposal—including friendly media—to go after those who are “attacking educators doing anti-racist work.”
In June 2020, the Florida Board of Education unanimously passed a rule banning CRT from being taught in the schools.
But on Sept. 20, Florida Atlantic University sponsored a webinar where Dr. Gholnecsar (Gholdy) Muhammad—an associate professor of language and literacy at Georgia State University—taught educators in Miami Dade, Broward, Martin, and Palm Beach County how to creatively slip the divisive subject matter through the back door of any classroom, regardless of subject matter.
This was not the first time Muhammad made a conscious effort to promote CRT in the classroom. During a 2020 interview, Muhammad discussed her plans for revising the entire education system in five steps.
First, Muhammad believes educators “need to get a team together to write new learning standards that are embedded in identity, skill development, intellectualism, joy, and criticality.”
Second, Muhammad said they need “new standards for folks who are writing curriculum,” suggesting they “will no longer write a curriculum that’s absent of identity and cultural-responsiveness.”
Third, “we need to change the way we think about standardized testing,” she added. “Skills-only does not measure success for a child’s life.”
Fourth, Muhammad wants schools to “stop hiring folks who don’t have a justice-centered mindset.”
“If they don’t have this justice-centered mindset, stop hiring them as Secretary of Education, stop hiring them as school board members, as superintendents, as principals, as teachers, as staff. Period,” Muhammad said.
“The fifth part of the plan is teacher education,” Muhammad concluded, suggesting “diversity” cannot be “learned in one class” but rather it needs to be “threaded throughout the entire program.”
“This calls for hiring conscious professors who know how to research and teach within the realms of critical race theory and other theories like it,” she said.
The Epoch Times reached out to Muhammad for comment.
Difficulties in Defining CRT
“This is very similar to what has happened here in Loudoun,” Patti Hidalgo Menders—president of Loudoun County Republican Women’s Club in Virginia—told The Epoch Times. “They’re implementing CRT under the guise of equity and diversity.”
Menders explained how the new principal at Parkview High School—Dr. Jason Jefferson—immediately removed the heads of all departments and “fired the bookkeeper because she wouldn’t take the equity training.”
“Then he gave a speech about how he wanted to ‘dismantle and disrupt the American public education system,’” Menders said. “So they’re making it very clear what their progressive ideas are.”
“Dr. Jefferson asked Park View’s department chairs to re-apply for their positions,” Wayde B. Byard, public information officer for Loudoun County Public Schools told The Epoch Times. “This is a common practice used when administrations change so that the principal can interview the department chairs and get to know them. At Park View, all the department chairs reapplied and all were reappointed.”
Byard also said “there was no bookkeeper at Park View when Dr. Jefferson assumed his position on May 25. Thus, he fired no one.”
“Dr. Jefferson related to me that he did not make the following statement: ‘dismantle and disrupt the American public education system,’” Byard stated further. “I would hope that anyone who would make such an accusation would be willing to stand behind it. Attributing such a quote anonymously would be cowardly.”
Menders also shared how the Loudoun County school board “spent hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring equity consultants.”
“One group is called The Equity Collaborative,” Menders explained, “and while the superintendent of Loudoun Public Schools claims they are not teaching CRT in schools, it talks about CRT training right on their website.”
“The LCPS Ad Hoc Committee on Equity created an Equity Resolution that was adopted by the Loudoun County School Board on September 24, 2019,” the website explains.
“As a part of the on-going equity work in the school division, on June 8, 2021, the newly appointed superintendent, Dr. Scott Ziegler, recommended that the Equity Resolution be reaffirmed by the current School Board. By consensus, the board recommended that this resolution [pdf] should be publicly available.
“In recent days, media reports and social media posts have sought to distort the equity work by Loudoun County Public Schools,” LCPS Superintendent Dr. Scott Ziegler states on the LCPS website. “Misconceptions and misinformation persist. I want to take a moment to clarify LCPS’ efforts to ensure every student, employee and member of the community is treated in an equitable, respectful manner.”
“In explaining LCPS’ equity priorities, it might be helpful to state what they are not,” Ziegler explains. “They are not an effort to indoctrinate students and staff into a particular philosophy or theory. What they are is an effort to provide a welcoming, inclusive, affirming environment for all students.”
However, the Equity Collaborative website clearly states that their “goal is to help organizations develop their own capacity to create educational equity and social justice by addressing bias and oppression.”
“That means creating an environment that is capable of holding staff members in a place where they are uncomfortable enough to change, but not so uncomfortable as to disengage or revolt,” the Equity Collaborative explains.
The Epoch Times reached out to LCPS for clarification regarding what some, like Menders, see as a contradiction in claims.
“Loudoun County Public Schools has said—repeatedly—and I will repeat now,” Byard told The Epoch Times regarding this separate matter. “Critical Race Theory is not part of our curriculum.”
“They’re very good wordsmiths,” Menders said. “They’re re-branding CRT and calling it ‘equity, diversity, and inclusion.’”
“All they do is take the various aspects of CRT propaganda and change the language, change the name,” Pruitt told The Epoch Times, explaining how textbooks used to mention “Critical Race Theory, or Race Theory” by name.
“Now when you open those same textbooks, you’ll read things such as ‘diversity and inclusion or equity theory,’ which is the same baseline as CRT,” he explained. “That’s one way they back-door it.”
Asked how people can oppose “critical race theory and other theories like it” being taught in schools, Pruitt said parents can provide the first line of defense themselves.
School Boards
“The best avenue is to take over the school boards to monitor and fire teachers who are determined to push CRT,” he said bluntly. “They also have to be represented in the education department at the state level. It’s not enough to take over the school board and have a blue governor. Even if you have a red governor, like in Florida. You’ll still get resistance in the education department.”
“What needs to happen is almost like the spoil system,” Pruitt went further, “where parents take over school boards and conservative governors are elected, and then the governor basically wipes out the entire state-level education bureaucracy and puts in new people. That’s the only real way to solve it.”
Publishers
While Pruitt anticipates the pushback from parents at school board meetings will continue to increase, as will the number of parents who send their kids to different schools or resort to a home school program, pro-CRT publishers are going to keep “pushing the agenda they want” through the textbooks they provide to their supporters throughout the school system.
“Under a different name with new adjectives and nouns, CRT is concealed, shrouded, veiled, or disguised in the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) ELA curriculum,” Pruitt noted. “With the use of subliminal messages, teachers are guided to teach Social Emotional Learning (SEL), equity, diversity, inclusion, etc. Feelings are more important than facts.”
As The Epoch Times reported on June 8, HMH declared on its own website a “commitment” to Black Lives Matter (BLM) and “social justice.”
“We believe the education system needs to change,” the website states, “and we will continue to use our platform to make that change.”
Members of the Collier County School Board (CCSB) were made aware of this during a June 7 meeting by CCSB Vice-Chair Jen Mitchell, who said she learned of the “commitment” through an email she received from a concerned citizen. Mitchell further revealed that one of BLM’s greatest advocates in the education field—Dr. Tyrone Howard—had been given a platform to promote the principles of CRT and BLM through the HMH blog site.
“It will be a wait-out, like everything else with the left,” Pruitt explained. “In other words, they don’t have to win. The left has a hold of the publishing world, and they are teaching it in higher education. So it doesn’t matter what the textbooks say in K-12.”
Textbooks
Pruitt strongly suggests parents “actually open and read the textbooks and highlight passages and send it out to people to show other parents what their children are being taught.” According to Pruitt, “most parents don’t understand the language of diversity and inclusion.” He posited that, when people were first waking up to CRT, it was because it was easy to find if one only bothered to look. They used words like “white people” and “oppression,” which most people found to be “troublesome and problematic.”
“But when you use language like diversity and inclusion,” Pruitt suggested, “it doesn’t come off as rough.”
“The people haven’t changed. The committees haven’t changed. The publishers haven’t changed,” Pruitt said. “It’s the language they’re changing.”
“By the time these children graduate, they will not be able to read but they will be great activists who hate their families, God, and America,” Pruitt predicted. “What a horrible thing to do to a child.”
Pruitt said “we all breathed a sigh of relief” when the Florida Board of Education banned the teaching of CRT in Florida, “embracing a traditional American education.”
“Wonderful we thought, Florida students will be getting a great education. The entire nation said we must use Florida as an example,” he recalled. “How wrong we were. We must remember that Communists NEVER stop.”
It is the opinion of Pruitt that the curriculum department of the Florida Department of Education is either “incompetent and never reviewed the texts and curricula that they approved” or they’re “undermining Governor DeSantis and Commissioner Corcoran.”
“In either case,” he admonished. “they should be fired.”
Conservatives generally don’t like unelected bureaucrats who hold power in Washington, D.C. In the case of Elizabeth MacDonough, they might not mind so much.
MacDonough is the Senate parliamentarian, the nonpartisan official who calls balls and strikes when it comes to what flies under the upper chamber’s rules. On Sunday, she ruled that one of the Democrats’ major pitches — including sweeping amnesty for illegal immigrants and other immigration reform proposals under the massive $3.5 trillion budget they want to try to ram through — is way outside.
According to The New York Times, MacDonough said the “policy changes of this proposal far outweigh the budgetary impact scored to it and it is not appropriate for inclusion in reconciliation.”
For something to fit into a reconciliation bill, any policy impacts must be secondary effects of a primary budgetary impact. That’s in the Senate’s Byrd Rule, which The Hill notes says “that the provision in question must produce changes in outlays or revenues that are not merely incidental to its nonbudgetary impact.”
Democrats were frustrated with the decision — which, unless they decide to scuttle the parliamentarian’s ruling or eliminate the filibuster, means immigration won’t be on the docket anytime soon.
“We are deeply disappointed in this decision but the fight to provide lawful status for immigrants in budget reconciliation continues,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, said in a statement. “The American people understand that fixing our broken immigration system is a moral and economic imperative.”
He added that he’d be meeting personally with the parliamentarian to see if something can’t be worked out.
At least Schumer accepted MacDonough’s decision for the most part. Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, among others, urged Schumer to ignore the Senate parliamentarian and just do what he wants.
“This ruling by the parliamentarian, is only a recommendation. @SenSchumer and the @WhiteHouse can and should ignore it,” Omar tweeted Sunday night.
“We can’t miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to do the right thing.”
This ruling by the parliamentarian, is only a recommendation. @SenSchumer and the @WhiteHouse can and should ignore it.
We can’t miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to do the right thing. https://t.co/r1T7T7uQIP
It’s always the right thing when norms can be ignored to get one’s own way — particularly when that way involves legalizing as many illegal immigrants as possible in as little time as necessary.
There’s also the fact that, as the Constitution Center notes, the Senate parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of the Senate majority leader — which, in this case, is Chuck Schumer. That said, such a blatant power play would be nearly unprecedented and would open the Democrats to reprisals if and when they lose the Senate.
Schumer instead said he was going to try to find a way to get something through without running into the ire of MacDonough.
“Senate Democrats have prepared alternate proposals and will be holding additional meetings with the Senate parliamentarian in the coming days,” the majority leader said.
It’s not like we couldn’t have seen this coming, especially given McDonough’s previous rulings that stifled Democrat attempts to enact their legislative agenda via reconciliation.
In February, when the Democrats tried to sneak a federal $15 minimum wage into their first major spending bill under President Joe Biden, MacDonough got in their way, saying it wouldn’t be able to make the cut in a bill passed through reconciliation.
Back then, again, the left was “disappointed” in MacDonough. This time, it was Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ turn to express his “[insert adjective here] disappointment” that she didn’t see it their way.
“I was extremely disappointed by the decision of the parliamentarian who ruled that the minimum wage provision was inconsistent with the Byrd Rule and the reconciliation process,” Sanders said.
“But even more importantly, I regard it as absurd that the parliamentarian, a Senate staffer elected by no one, can prevent a wage increase for 32 million workers,” he said.
Wait, unelected appointees shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions that affect millions of Americans? This is indeed news, at least coming from someone who caucuses with the Democrats. It almost sounds like he’s about to call MacDonough a member of the deep state.
And then there was her role in the Obamacare debate in 2017. As The Wall Street Journal noted, she ruled against Senate Republicans when they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate in a reconciliation bill four years ago. However, she allowed them to leave the tax for the individual mandate at $0, effectively rendering it moot for years.
The question, then, is whether the Democrats can manage something similar on immigration. If they can’t, Elizabeth MacDonough will remain an incredibly important person — and perhaps the biggest impediment to the Democrats’ agenda in the upper chamber for a long time to come.
Who would have ever thought there would be an unelected government official the left could loathe so much?
A group of Republican congressmen on Tuesday filed articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden over his handling of the border, his surrender to the Taliban in Afghanistan and the eviction moratorium that he said himself might be unconstitutional.
Republican Rep. Bob Gibbs of Ohio sponsored the resolution to impeach Biden. He was joined by three co-sponsors: Reps. Brian Babin and Randy Weber of Texas and Andy Biggs of Arizona.
Gibbs slammed Biden over his mismanagement of the country in an interview with the Washington Examiner.
“I take this seriously. I don’t think it’s haphazard. I’m not trying to get media attention for myself,” Gibbs said. “[Biden has] done so much damage to this country in less than nine months, which is really scary.”
The congressman concluded Biden is not qualified to lead.
“He’s not capable of being commander in chief, and that’s obvious by the actions since Day One when he took the presidency back in January,” he added. “Maybe something like this makes the White House think twice before they do some of this nonsense.”
One article states that Biden “violated his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President” in his handling of the illegal immigration crisis.
Another article says he violated the separation of powers when he extended the federal eviction moratorium “despite the clear warning from the U.S. Supreme Court” and “with no legislative directive from the U.S. Congress.”
When asked about an extension to the eviction moratorium on Aug. 3, Biden told a reporter: “The bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that it’s not likely to pass constitutional muster. … But there are several key scholars who think that it may and it’s worth the effort. But the present — you could not — the Court has already ruled on the present eviction moratorium.”
A third article of impeachment calls for the president to be removed over his botched exit from Afghanistan. The article states that Biden “failed to act responsibly as Commander in Chief with regard to the withdrawal of United States forces from Afghanistan.”
“Who in their right mind takes troops out before they take out American citizens and our allies?” Gibbs said.
He added that he does not foresee his attempt to impeach Biden going anywhere with Democrats in control of the House, but said he filed the articles in an attempt to hold the president accountable.
“Obviously, it’s not going to go anywhere with Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi,” he said. “It shows that there are some Republicans that think that this president needs to be impeached, he needs to be removed from office one way or another.”
“At some point, they’re gonna be held accountable for their actions, and this is kind of putting them on notice,” Gibbs stated.
The Republican commented on the articles of impeachment on social media on Tuesday and Wednesday.
“It’s clear the President is not up to the job, that his entire administration is willing to thumb its nose at the Constitution,” he tweeted on Tuesday.
“Though Pelosi’s House will not hold [Biden] accountable, it’s incumbent upon House Republicans to call out his egregious violations of his oath of office.”
It’s clear the President is not up to the job, that his entire administration is willing to thumb its nose at the Constitution. Though Pelosi’s House will not hold @POTUS accountable, it’s incumbent upon House Republicans to call out his egregious violations of his oath of office https://t.co/lrQ3xZ75p3
President Biden must be held accountable for clearly unconstitutional actions, including willfully violating the separation of powers in attempting to extend a federal eviction moratorium. https://t.co/8tO4a8Oxfz
“President Biden must be held accountable for clearly unconstitutional actions, including willfully violating the separation of powers in attempting to extend a federal eviction moratorium,” he tweeted Wednesday.
The state of Texas is looking to challenge President Joe Biden’s recently announced COVID-19 vaccine mandate for private businesses by arguing that it is unconstitutional, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said on Friday.
Paxton’s remarks come after Biden on Sept. 9 said businesses would have to impose COVID-19 vaccination requirements or face fines of up to $13,600 per violation.
White House officials have said the order will be implemented through an emergency temporary standard, or ETS, issued by the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The agency has said it is still developing the rule.
The rule “will require all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated or require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work,” an OSHA spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.
In an interview with EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program, Paxton, a Republican, said that he agrees with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s description of the rule as a “power grab” and an “assault on private businesses.” He said he believes that Biden is overstepping his authority with the new vaccination rule.
“The reality is, the president of the United States cannot just make up laws, that’s outside of his purview, outside of his constitutional role. The executive branch implements laws … that’s their job,” said Paxton.
“That’s not the way the constitution works, so we are pretty sure what he’s doing will be unconstitutional, if it is what he said when he made the statement,” he added. “So obviously, that would be for our first line of attack, just to say, look, you didn’t have the authority to do this.”
Many have raised concerns that OSHA’s effectiveness is undermined by its shortage of inspectors and resources. While OSHA is empowered to fine employers up to $13,600 per violation of the new rule, it is spread too thin to catch some violators.
Currently, OSHA has an estimated 800 safety and compliance inspectors to cover the more than 100,000 private-sector companies affected by the new rule.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki has insisted that Biden’s new rule is on strong legal footing, citing a 1970 law that authorizes ETS.
“The law basically requires the Department of Labor take action when it finds grave risk to workers. And certainly, a pandemic that killed more than 600,000 people qualifies as ‘grave risk to workers,’” she said.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki speaks during a press briefing at the White House on Sept. 09, 2021. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
The Epoch Times also reached out to the White House for further comment.
Paxton told The Epoch Times that Biden is not granted these types of powers under the Constitution, insinuating that his conduct is in line with what could be observed under “dictatorships.”
“It’s not just this issue. We allow any president to do this, then we are moving away from the people having a government that they control as opposed to having more of a kingship like England had or like some of these dictatorships have,” he said.
“That’s the direction that Joe Biden seems to be comfortable with, and I don’t think that’s the direction that our founders intended.”
On Wednesday, Biden is set to meet with executives from Walgreens, The Walt Disney Company, and Microsoft to discuss the mandate.
It comes as two major U.S. retail industry groups, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, and the National Retail Federation, on Tuesday asked the Biden administration for at least 90 days before imposing the new rules “to allow retailers and other employers to create the systems necessary.”
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has said that the OSHA rule is expected “in a matter of weeks.”
“The president can’t just overrule individual liberties and constitutional rights … those rights are not from him. Those rights are from God, they’re inalienable, they’re given to us by our Creator, they cannot be taken away by any government,” Paxton said.
He added, “If we don’t stop this now, we will end up with a tyrannical government, much like the rest of the world has, we will not have the government that we were set up with a couple 100 years ago by some very wise founders.”
Texas Gov. Abbott said this month that the state is “already working to halt this power grab.”
Speaking invitations like this that Thomas accepts are few and far between.
Anyone who cares about our country and listens to this address will wish that he would agree to speak more.
His presentation was a brilliant and profound articulation of what America is about at its core.
It is what every American needs to hear in these troublesome and divisive times.
Thomas tells his own story and how his life’s journey led him to understand what America is about.
He grew up poor near Savannah, Georgia, raised by his grandparents, under the tutelage of his grandfather, a devout Catholic and American patriot.
Thomas’ grandfather understood that the injustices of the country were not about flaws in the country but about flaws in human beings in living up to ideals handed down to them. What needed to be fixed were the people—not the nation.
This insight strikes at the heart of the divisions going on today that are so bitterly dividing us.
But Thomas left his grandfather’s house and went to college in the midst of the civil rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, and Thomas became filled with bitterness and the sense that America is an irredeemably flawed, racist nation, which is so much in the spirit of the times today.
In his own words, “What had given my life meaning and sense of belonging, that this country was my home, was jettisoned as old-fashioned and antiquated. … It was easy and convenient to fill that void with victimhood. … So much of my time focused intently on our racial differences and grievances, much like today.”
“As I matured,” Thomas continued, “I began to see that the theories of my young adulthood were destructive and self-defeating …. I had rejected my country, my birthright as a citizen, and I had nothing to show for it.”
“The wholesomeness of my childhood had been replaced with an emptiness, cynicism, and despair. I was faced with the simple fact that there was no greater truth than what my Nuns and grandparents had taught me. We are all children of God and rightful heirs to our nation’s legacy of equality. We had to live up to the obligations of the equal citizenship to which we were entitled by birth.”
As he continued work in the federal government, Thomas became “deeply interested in the Declaration of Independence.”
“The Declaration captured what I had been taught to venerate as a child but had cynically rejected as a young man. All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”
“As I had rediscovered the God-given principles of the Declaration and our founding, I eventually returned to the church, which had been teaching the same truths for millennia.”
Despite the strident voices dividing us today, Thomas observes “there are many more of us, I think, who feel America is not so broken, as it is adrift at sea.”
“For whatever it is worth, the Declaration of Independence has weathered every storm for 245 years. It birthed a great nation. It abolished the sin of slavery. … While we have failed the ideals of the Declaration time and again, I know of no time when the ideals have failed us.”
The Declaration of Independence “establishes a moral ideal that we as citizens are duty-bound to uphold and sustain. We may fall short, but our imperfection does not relieve us of our obligation.”
Thomas’ message about the Declaration may be summarized: There are eternal truths; they are true for all of humanity; and it is the personal responsibility of each individual to live up to them.
Thomas’ detractors are those who reject these premises. This defines the culture war that so deeply and dangerously divides America today.
Cheerleaders for gun control have oft-cited Australia as the “gold standard.” Now their government is literally shooting them in the back.
Harrowing footage from Australia reveals police enforcing lockdown laws with all the fervor of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. The images we watched out of China – at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic – are now being replicated on the streets of Western nations.
After 35 people were killed in the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, the Australian government moved swiftly to ban pump-action shotguns and semi-automatic rifles. While – as Matt Palumbo notes – the number of guns in the country actually failed to decline all that much in the proceeding years, the types of guns available to the public along with the groups of people owning them prove the importance of America’s Second Amendment.
Per the University of Sydney, “the proportion of Australians who hold a gun licence has fallen by 48 percent since 1997,” and “the proportion of Australian households with a firearm has fallen by 75 percent in recent decades.”
It’s not much use, in the face of authoritarianism, to have a prevalence of handguns owned by a small section of society. Congressman Matt Gaetz made this point in a Fox News interview in 2019, rattling the cages of the pseudo-fact checkers whose gloating words are now staring them right back in the face.
“Nobody would suggest that in the United States we would want Australia’s solution. There they went and confiscated all the guns. You know who did what Australia did? Venezuela. And now their people can’t fight back when they are having to fight their way out of a socialist dictator.”
– Rep. Matt Gaetz, 2019
Indeed the left media has gloated about disarming Australians for the past 25 years, op-eds in The Atlantic,Fortunemagazine, and studies by left-wing think-tanks have tried to foist Australia’s gun laws on America. The Guardiancalled Australia’s laws a “gold standard.” Vox has been hyping them, too:
“Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were prohibited, with a few exceptions, all firearms were required to be registered, a proof of reason would be required for all gun-licence applicants and gun purchases, with self-defence not considered a reason.”
– The Guardian, April 2021
All this despite Australia’s own Ambassador to America admitting such moves had no place in the United States.
“Australia and the United States are completely different situations, and it goes back to each of our foundings. America was born from a culture of self-defense. Australia was born from a culture of ‘the government will protect me.’ Australia wasn’t born as a result of a brutal war. We weren’t invaded. We weren’t attacked. We weren’t occupied. That makes an incredible difference, even today.”
– Australian Ambassador to the United States Joe Hockey
Now, just 25 years after Port Arthur, Australians are being shot on the streets by their own government.
The bullets may be rubber, or “non-lethal” as they euphemistically call them. But they’re being fired at Australian citizens who have the audacity to want to… go outside. To leave their homes. To live life as normally as they can despite the state’s insistence of locking people in their own homes and creating a culture of fear around the Chinese Communist Party’s virus.
Naturally, The Guardian is now siding with the jack-booted thugs firing into the backs of their own people as they run away. This is the same Guardian that called the police break-up of a violent riot outside the White House a “brutal” dispersal.
Quite the different tone between the Guardian’s headline when police dispersed violent rioters outside the White House and when thugs shot their fellow countrymen in the back for protesting lockdowns.
Of course holding the left to its own standards is a hiding to nowhere. But every American should consider it their duty to hold their fellow citizens to the standards outlined in the nation’s founding document – the Constitution of the United States:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
– Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 1791
Americans, let Australia be a lesson, but not in the way the left has suggested for nearly three decades.
For nearly two decades, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, BEA, has ranked Texas as the No. 1 exporter among U.S. states.
”Texas shipped $279.3 billion worth of goods around the globe in 2020,” said Luis Ribera, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service economist, Bryan-College Station. “The state outperformed all other states, with the value of its exports accounting for 19.5% of overall U.S. exported products for 2020.”
Texas’ 2020 exports amounted to more than the sum total of goods exported by the next three largest exporting states.
Mexico and Canada received the largest portion of Texas’ exports, with Mexico accounting for almost 32% of the total and Canada for just over 8.3%. However, goods from the Lone Star State are exported all over the world.
“The COVID-19 pandemic had a detrimental effect on 2020 exports nationwide, but this impact was less on Texas due to the state’s diverse and resilient economy,” Ribera said.
He also noted while the economic impact of Winter Storm Uri had a negative impact on first-quarter 2021 exports, the state is poised for a quick recovery and to provide not only sufficient commodities and consumables for its own residents but to also export to others.
“Texans saw some supply chain disruptions and temporary shortages of food and other needed supplies during the winter storm and in its aftermath,” he said. “But once issues affecting fuel availability, transportation, workforce availability, stymied agricultural production and other challenges normalize once again, the state more than likely will remain ranked as the top exporting state in the country.”
A resource-full state
Many of the products Texas exports literally come straight out of the ground.
“Natural resources, whether renewable or nonrenewable, are found throughout the world and have been extracted for human use for tens of thousands of years,” said Roel Lopez, Ph.D., director of the Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute, San Antonio. “They are valuable not only in the development of commodities for providing income and revenue, but also for sustaining life and improving the quality of life.”
Texas is a large state with an abundance of natural resources, Ribera said. And from an energy perspective, primary fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas are among the state’s most exportable natural resources.
“Crude petroleum oils account for about 22.2% of total Texas exports,” he said. “Crude oil, along with miscellaneous petroleum-based products and liquified propane, are among the state’s top exports, contributing greatly to our total economic output or real gross domestic product, or GDP.”
Agriculture exports smaller but still vital sector
Ribera also noted that while other items that come out of the ground, specifically agricultural products “don’t crack the top 10” in export sectors contributing the most to the state’s overall economic output, Texas still ranks fifth overall among U.S. states for those exports.
“Our energy resources and agricultural production are of great importance — not only to the state, but also to the nation and to people throughout the world,” he said. “Texas leads the nation in number of farms and ranches. And the fact that it has so much agricultural production, yet agricultural exports are no longer near the top for contributing to the state’s GDP, shows just how diverse and exceptional the Texas economy has become.”
Ribera said while over time agriculture has become a smaller portion of the state’s exports as the Texas economy has evolved and become more diverse, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agriculture Service estimated its agricultural exports in 2020 at an impressive $6.5 billion-plus.
Among U.S. states, Texas is second in total animal product exports and sixth in total plant product exports. In terms of revenue generated, Texas’s top five agricultural products are cotton, beef cattle and veal, feed grain products, dairy products and sorghum.
“We are the No. 1 cotton exporter in the U.S. and rank second in both beef and wheat exports,” Ribera said. “We are also first in sheep and goat production, second in overall animal exports and among the top five U.S. states in exportation of pecans, sorghum, rice and dairy products.”
The leading fruits produced in Texas are watermelon, cantaloupe and grapefruit, which is also the official state fruit. Texas is also a top producer of onions, potatoes and spinach, and is the nation’s No. 1 producer of cabbages.
Ribera said the state also ranks among the top 15 exporters in the nation for animal feed as well as broilers, fruits, corn, pork and vegetables.
“About 37% of our agricultural exports go to Mexico, making it our largest international trading partner for agricultural products,” Ribera said.
Ribera also noted that the state’s food processing sector is the third largest manufacturing sector in the state, producing beverages, baked goods, preserved fruits and vegetables and meat as well as other consumables for export.
Beyond oil and cattle: [Micro]chips with your salsa?
When most people think high-tech, they typically think California and, in particular, Silicon Valley.
“But Texas has also been the No. 1 exporting state for technology products for several years in a row,” Ribera said. “In 2020, we had $44.8 billion in technology-related exports, while California was in second place with $37.5 billion in those exports.”
He said other top 10 exports include aircraft and computer parts, integrated circuits, modems and other reception and transmission devices, and semi-conductor manufacturing equipment.
“Texas has been growing steadily as an exporter of high-tech-related products and equipment,” Ribera said. “Technology is one sector people don’t often associate with Texas because they tend to associate us primarily with oil and cattle. And while those are important to the state and a source of great pride, we manufacture, produce and export of a wide variety of other products and goods needed and desired by consumers worldwide.”
Ribera also noted other reasons for Texas being the leading exporter among U.S. states.
“The size of the state, its business-friendly environment and solid infrastructure, the fact it has no state income tax and boasts the nation’s second largest workforce, as well as the can-do attitude of Texans, all help keep Texas in this enviable position,” he said.
Bowing to the threat of legal action against it, one Alabama hospital has rescinded its requirement that all staff be vaccinated against the coronavirus.
UAB Hospital in Birmingham said it will wait to learn how the federal vaccine mandates announced by President Joe Biden play out before imposing any requirement, according to WBRC-TV.
Last week, the Alabama Center for Law and Liberty said the hospital was violating state law, according to Al.com.
The letter said the state’s ban on vaccine passports means government entities cannot require anyone to disclose vaccine information.
“As the Supreme Court of Alabama has recognized, UAB Hospital is a state-run hospital,” the letter said.
“Consequently, UAB Hospital may not require its employees to disclose whether they have been vaccinated or not. Likewise, the Alabama Attorney General has examined the law and concluded that ‘no government, school, or business in Alabama may demand that a constituent, or customer, respectively, be vaccinated for COVID-19 or show proof of his or her vaccination for COVID-19,’” the letter said.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall also questioned the legality of the Biden administration mandate, saying he had received complaints about privacy violations, according to the Alabama Political Reporter.
“The Attorney General’s Office has received complaints from healthcare employees who believe their COVID-19 immunization status was obtained by their employers through the ImmPRINT registry for the purpose of verifying compliance with the employer’s immunization requirement,” Marshall said, referring to a statewide immunization database.
“In several of those cases, a shared employer specifically acknowledged accessing the state immunization database for this purpose. This privacy violation is unlawful,” he said.
Marshall said other health care providers should also take note and not be asking employees about their immunization status.
He has said that when the vaccine mandate takes place, Alabama will file a lawsuit against it, according to Al.com.
“The vaccine mandate is unprecedented in its audacity and unlawful in its application,” Marshall said. “The Biden administration knows this full well. The State of Alabama will not allow such an authoritarian power grab to go unchecked.”
Dr. Don Williamson, president of the Alabama Hospital Association, said voluntary efforts have produced vaccination rates of 50 percent to 80 percent depending upon the facility.
“It’s not a small issue if we have unvaccinated employees,” Williamson said. “Hospitals have successfully navigated the waters of getting people vaccinated and for the most part, they have been able to do it without mandates.”
The UAB Hospital in Birmingham issued a statement explaining why a mandate imposed one month was scrapped the next.
“The UAB Health System’s policy requiring COVID vaccines for its workers was implemented in August prior to the announcement of forthcoming federal directives,” it said.
“President Biden issued an executive order Sept. 9 indicating that federal rules and regulations will be issued in the coming weeks that will require COVID vaccines for workers at health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid dollars.
“Because UAB Health System must follow federal law, UAB Health System will remove its vaccine policy at this time. UAB Health System will wait for the detailed federal guidance to develop a replacement vaccine policy in order to ensure full compliance with federal law.”
The statement noted that a voluntary incentive that rewards employees who get vaccinated with $400 remains in place.
The state of Texas sued the Biden administration on Sept. 20 over guidance issued this summer requiring employers to make certain exceptions for transgender workers.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit (pdf) against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the commission’s chair Charlotte Burrows, and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Paxton argues that the guidance issued by the EEOC on June 15 this year “misstates the law” and that “Burrows did not even have authority to issue it.”
“Texas and its constituent agencies, including the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), have the sovereign right to set their own policies on bathroom usage, dress codes, and pronoun usage within their workplaces,” the lawsuit states. “The June 15 Guidance is invalid on its face.”
The EEOC and the Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment.
On June 15, the EEOC issued a guidance document related to the recent Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. The Supreme Court ruled that the protections against sexual discrimination in the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to people with subjective gender identities.
Title VII applies to all private employers with 15 employees or more. The EEOC’s guidance went beyond the language in Title VII and staked a position on issues, including transgender access to bathrooms and that “repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee” amounts to harassment.
“States should be able to choose protection of privacy for their employers over subjective views of gender, and this illegal guidance puts many women and children at risk,” Paxton said in a statement.
“If the Biden Administration thinks they can force states to comply with their political agenda, my office will fight against their radical attempt at social change. These backdoor attempts to force businesses, including the State of Texas, to align with their beliefs is unacceptable.”
The lawsuit argues that the EEOC’s guidance is arbitrary and capricious while violating the First and Eleventh Amendments as well as Title VII itself. The plaintiffs further allege that the commission violated its own rules and failed to follow proper procedures before issuing it.
Paxton is asking the court to declare the guidance unlawful, block the defendants from enforcing it, and award the state of Texas attorneys’ fees.
A group of 20 state attorneys general sued the Biden administration in August over the issuance of interpretations of the Bostock v. Clayton County decision. The plaintiffs, led by Tennessee, argued that the EEOC and the Department of Education flouted “procedural requirements in their rush to overreach, issued ‘interpretations’ of federal antidiscrimination law far beyond what the statutory text, regulatory requirements, judicial precedent, and the Constitution permit,” according to the lawsuit (pdf).
Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough on Sunday ruled that Democrats can’t include in their $3.5 trillion spending bill a provision aimed to give millions of illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship.
MacDonough in her guidance said that the Democrats’ provision is “by any standard a broad, new immigration policy,” and that it does not meet the stringent requirements of what can be included in the budget resolution.
“The policy changes of this proposal far outweigh the budgetary impact scored to it and it is not appropriate for inclusion in reconciliation,” she wrote, referring to a parliamentary procedure that allows certain budget bills to pass through the deliberative upper chamber with only a simple majority, bypassing a likely filibuster by opponents altogether.
First used by Congress in 1980, the process allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt-limit legislation. Ultimately, what is allowed under this process is up to MacDonough, whose job it is to protect independent due process.
Earlier this month, Democrats proposed to include in their plan immigration reform measures that would grant amnesty to four groups of nearly 8 million illegal immigrants—former President Barack Obama “Dreamers,” temporary protected status (TPS) holders, agricultural laborers, and essential workers, among others.
“Dreamers” entered the United States illegally as children and were granted amnesty under Obama’s controversial executive order Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
In a statement, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats were “deeply disappointed in this decision but the fight to provide lawful status for immigrants in budget reconciliation continues.”
Schumer added that Senate Democrats have prepared alternate proposals and hope to schedule additional meetings with MacDonough.
In a statement, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) described Democrats’ provision as “inappropriate” and “radical,” adding that he is “glad it failed.”
“Senate rules never contemplated a majority circumventing the filibuster by pretending that sweeping and transformational new policies were mere budgetary changes. Tonight’s ruling confirms that principle,” he said.
“Democrats will not be able to stuff their most radical amnesty proposals into the reckless taxing and spending spree they are assembling behind closed doors,” McConnell added. “This just illustrates how radical Democrats’ aspirations are and how unmoored their far-left wish list has become from the procedures they want to use to ram it through.”
The Epoch Times has reached out to the White House for comment.
CORONA DEL MAR, Calif.—As Americans around the country continue to hold ceremonies in honor of the thirteen fallen soldiers killed during the U.S. retreat from Afghanistan on Aug. 26, members and guests of the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club (BCYC) held a solemn remembrance on Sept. 15, using time-honored maritime and military traditions.
In the days after the tragedy, BCYC volunteers and staff created a fallen soldier tribute with a reserved sign at one of the seats of the club’s bar, with a framed photo of the thirteen fallen soldiers flanked by a glass of beer at the ready, a traditional gesture symbolizing their loss.
A ceremony was then organized and led by BCYC Port Captain, Mark Jensen, himself a veteran who served in the Navy during the Vietnam War.
Jensen was in Portugal at the time the American warriors were killed, and upon hearing the news, he sent an email to BCYC Vice Commodore Kari Konapelsky to whom he reports, requesting that the club fly the national ensign (American flag) at half staff for the next 13 days to honor the fallen soldiers. He also asked if he could organize a special ceremony during the club’s nightly retiring of the colors on Sept. 15.
“I know that a lot of other military personnel have been lost in that (Afghanistan) war,” Jensen told The Epoch Times. “But nevertheless, these were the last. I felt strongly that we needed to do something to honor these soldiers, because those men and women made the ultimate sacrifice at the end. It didn’t need to happen that way, but it did and they deserve our appreciation and respect for their service.”
Konapelsky responded with a photo of the club’s American flag already at half-staff and a thumbs up approval of the remembrance ceremony when Jensen returned home.
BCYC Commodore, Rhonda Tolar, who attended the tribute, told The Epoch Times, “BCYC has long had a proud history of upholding dearly held American maritime traditions. We felt this was an appropriate tribute, particularly because we are so blessed with the freedoms all Americans enjoy each day, thanks to the service and sacrifice of those who died in the name of our country, like the 13 who perished far from home in Afghanistan on August 23rd.”
The Tradition of Colors
The tradition of colors began with the British Royal navy and has continued with the U.S. Navy. Cannons or guns are fired, or a ship’s bell rung, at sunset when the flag is taken down, as a sign of respect.
In the days when sailing ships were armed with cannons, it could take as long as twenty minutes to load and fire a gun. When a ship fired her guns in salute, she rendered herself powerless for the duration. By emptying their guns, the ship’s crew demonstrated to shore batteries and forts that they were no threat.
Over time, this gesture became a sign of respect, with both shore and ship gun batteries firing volleys.
‘Attention on Deck’
BCYC has observed the time-honored naval tradition of the colors—the daily raising and lowering of the American Flag—ever since the club’s founding in 1958.
Tradition calls for the colors to be hoisted smartly each morning and lowered ceremoniously at dusk. Colors is a tradition observed at many yacht clubs throughout the U.S., and at all military bases throughout the world.
During colors, members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute, and any service person present in uniform should render a salute.
Each evening at BCYC, as the sun sets over the harbor and the Pacific Ocean, a ship’s bell is rung, and the command “Attention on Deck” is announced to staff, members and their guests. All those on club property in sight of the flag stand and face the flag in silence, with their hands over their hearts, until the flag is fully lowered. Many veterans stand at attention and salute the flag as it is lowered each evening.
At sunset on the 15th, Jensen, with the help of BCYC Tradition’s Committee Chair, Elizabeth Barden, asked members and their guests to rise and silently face the flag. Barden began the remembrance with what is referred to as a death knell, the ringing of a ships bell twice three successive times during the silence.
“This is a solemn occasion for this evening during our colors ceremony,” Jensen told the crowded room after the bells tolled. “Tonight, we remember and honor our 13 fallen American Warriors.”
Jensen then read the names of the fallen soldiers after a single bell toll was rung for each.
“These are the 13: Marine Corps Lance Cpl. David Espinoza, 20 of Rio Bravo, Texas. Marine Corps Sgt. Nicole Gee, 23, of Roseville, California. Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Darin Taylor Hoover, 31, of Utah. Army Staff Sgt. Ryan Knauss, 23, or Corryton, Tennessee. Marine Corps Cpl. Hunter Lopez, 22, of Indio, California. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Rylee McCollum, 20, of Jackson, Wyoming. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Dylan R. Merola, 20, of Rancho Cucamunga, California. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Kareem Nikoui, 20, of Norco, California. Marine Corps Cpl. Daegan William-Tyeler Page, 23, of Omaha, Nebraska. Marine Corps Sgt. Johanny Rosario, 25, of Lawrence, Massachusetts. Marine Corps Cpl. Humberto Sanchez, 22, of Logansport, Indiana. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Jared Schmitz, 20, of Wentzville, Missouri. Navy Hospital Corpsman and Marine medic Max Soviak, 22, of Berlin Heights, Ohio.”
Jensen finished the brief but moving remembrance. With tears in his eyes and choked voice, “Please remain silent and at attention while the colors are retrieved.”
He then gave the final command concluding the ceremony when the flag is raised from half-staff to full and then brought down. “Raise the colors to full staff. Retrieve the colors,” and a final two ship’s bells rang out among the silent crowd.
My career has taken me around the world, including the combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan to support our troops. These travels have helped me appreciate how fortunate I am to have been born in America—home of the free because of the brave.
On the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, people across our nation gathered in remembrance of the lives lost and the heroes who selflessly gave their lives to save others. On Sept. 11, 2001, I was in Washington, D.C., and saw the hole in the Pentagon. Later, I traveled to New York City and saw the massive hole where the Twin Towers once stood. Those are images I will never forget.
In 2002, I was recruited into government service to lead necessary change and transformation in the intelligence community (IC), including better integrating our imagery and signals intelligence enterprises—America’s eyes and ears. I was sworn in as a senior executive in defense intelligence and was a civilian peer to general and flag officers. After the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was established, I was sworn in as the first IC deputy chief information officer at ODNI. In that role, I worked across the 17 agencies that comprise the U.S. IC and regularly met with the leadership of both the IC and the Department of Defense.
Through my 25 years of service in the national security community and study of history, I have become aware of the techniques, tactics, and procedures that our enemies use. Though the Cold War ended 30 years ago, our nation is still in a war that has been brewing for decades—a war for America’s soul.
Nikita Khrushchev, who ran the Soviet Union from 1958 to 1964, openly predicted the destruction of the United States and said that it would happen in the way that every society eventually collapses. He said, “We will take America without firing a shot. We do not have to invade the U.S. We will destroy you from within.” Khrushchev was talking about an entire system of Marxist indoctrination and takeover that they had refined and executed in country after country during the 20th century.
Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, a former KGB operative, and high-level Russian propagandist, escaped to the West in 1970. He warned America about the KGB tactics used to subvert a nation that he witnessed firsthand in the Soviet Union. This is a planned process of altering the way people think for a particular purpose, which is to affect a regime change. It’s effectively the brainwashing of society—a slow, methodical transformation. Those who conduct this ideological subversion are very patient to employ the tactics over decades.
Ideological subversion has four stages and follows the Hegelian dialectic, a tactic long exploited by Marxists and Fascists to control people.
Stage 1: Demoralization. This is the destruction of faith in the government and society. Believing that society is broken, systems are failing, and patriotism is evil are three key beliefs that are promoted to create guilt. This leads to the acceptance of radical new ideas because the current structure is believed to be harmful. Traditional Judeo-Christian morality, classical education, and American patriotism are discarded.
Stage 2: Destabilization. With the decision-making ability of Americans negatively affected through demoralization, the next step takes a foothold—destabilization of the nation’s foundations. Destabilization causes citizens to believe the worst of what they hear about their nation and form of government. Supporters of traditional values and foundational structures in the nation are ostracized and even demonized.
Stage 3: Crisis. The altered values of Americans cut to the root of the current systems. Upheaval presents opportunities for change. Once a society is destabilized, it begins to collapse into chaos. At this point, citizens want the government to provide stability. We saw this recently as a demoralized and destabilized society responded with fear and panic when a “pandemic” faced our nation. Americans are willingly trading civil rights and freedoms for authoritarianism and overreach that they believe will keep them safe. Messaging in all of this is key. The mainstream media and their tell-a-vision programming play a key role in framing the prescribed narrative as truth.
Stage 4: Normalization. The “new normal” is a term we have heard constantly lately, and it’s an accurate description of what the normalization stage is all about. When the government and societal structures have changed to restrict liberty, citizens are told the radical transformation is “the way it has to be.” Ironically, it’s described as normal when it’s not normal at all. Normalization creates a new baseline for what a nation will accept, value, and promote. The cycle is complete.
These steps are repeated over and over, bringing a greater result with each cycle until there’s a controlled collapse. America could be on the verge of collapse right now unless we collectively wake up to reality and take a stand to stop tyranny.
The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding people’s thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead them to a predetermined solution. The enemies of America are using this tactic to create fear, turn citizen against citizen, and divide our nation. A house divided cannot stand. If people do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes their perceptions of the world, then they do not know how they are helping to implement the agenda, which ultimately is to advance humanity into a dictatorship—whether by the fascists, the communists, or the globalists and their New World Order. We must step outside the dialectic so that we can be released from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.
The most important thing about America is liberty. America is what has stood between power-hungry people and their goals of world domination. The true enemies of America are trying to convince us that we are each other’s enemies and that big government and control of the lives of the many by a few is the solution to cure what ails us. We must all recognize that they are weaponizing the crisis and this narrative is a lie. Government bureaucrats are now labeling anyone who thinks they have overstepped their constitutional bounds as enemies of the state—“patriot terrorists.” What liberty-loving people are now combating is pure evil.
All it takes for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing. As we reflect back on Sept. 11, 2001, one thing that stands out about that time following the terrorist attacks is that we forgot the things that divide us. We united as Americans. There’s no better example than what we saw in New York City. We were united together in support of one another fighting a common enemy.
So many have sacrificed so much to secure our liberty and preserve it for future generations. Many of us have lost a loved one on a foreign battlefield or from a service-connected illness after they returned, or in the line of duty here at home. How do we honor their sacrifice and that of so many others in our nation’s 245-year history? We stand and fight to uphold liberty and our unalienable rights enshrined in America’s founding documents. If liberty is to be lost, it won’t be on our watch.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) is calling on President Joe Biden to speak out against China’s assault on democracy in Hong Kong, after nine activists in the Chinese-ruled city were given months-long sentences for commemorating victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
“Once a thriving democracy, Hong Kong is now fully under the oppressive rule of General Secretary Xi Jinping and the Communist Chinese government. These unwarranted and unjustifiable arrests are just the latest proof of Hong Kong’s sad transformation,” Scott said in a statement.
Among those sentenced to prison on Sept. 15 was Albert Ho, former chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, which has organized the annual candlelight vigil since 1990.
Hong Kong authorities banned the vigil in 2020 and 2021, citing concerns about the spread of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, the pathogen that causes COVID-19.
On Sept. 15, Ho was sentenced to 10 months in prison. Several former pro-democracy lawmakers, including Leung Kwok-hung and Eddie Chu, were given six-month prison terms for participating in the vigil.
Ho, who’s already serving 18 months for his role in protests in 2019, will serve the new sentence concurrently.
In December 2020, U.S.-based organization Human Rights First awarded Ho its 2020 Roger N. Baldwin Medal of Liberty Award in recognition of his decades-long achievement as a human rights defender.
In all, the nine activists received sentences ranging from 6 to 10 months. Three other activists were given suspended sentences.
Participants hold candles as they take part in a memorial vigil in Victoria Park in Hong Kong on June 4, 2020. (Anthony Kwan/Getty Images)
“As the world’s dictators continue their assaults on democracy, free speech, and human rights, Joe Biden is silent,” Scott said.
“As the leader of the free world, Joe Biden should be the loudest voice condemning Communist China’s transgressions, but he is again missing in action.
“Instead of continuing his failed appeasement, it’s time for Biden to clearly and unapologetically stand for the rights of Hong Kongers and the protection of freedom and democracy around the world.”
The 12 people who were dealt sentences on Sept. 15 were among a total of 26 activists charged in connection with the vigil in 2020. Nathan Law and Sunny Cheung fled the city before they were summoned to court in September 2020.
Prominent young activists Joshua Wong, Lester Shum, Tiffany Yuen, and Janelle Leung, were given jail terms in April after they pleaded guilty to unlawful assembly charges. In May, Wong was sentenced to an additional 10 months in jail.
The remaining eight defendants who face charges will stand trial in November, including Lee Cheuk Yan, the leader of the Alliance. They’ve pleaded not guilty.
On Sept. 16, 61 Hong Kong and international human rights groups—including Freedom House, Hong Kong Watch, Human Rights Watch, and Safeguard Defenders—joined together to call on the Hong Kong government to drop all charges against the leaders of the Alliance.
“By arresting vigil organizers, Beijing and Hong Kong authorities are telling the world they’re not only afraid of the most peaceful protests, but also of their own brutal past,” said Sophie Richardson, Human Rights Watch’s China director.
“They should end this political persecution and immediately drop the charges and release the vigil organizers.”
Over 383 million Chinese have quit the Chinese Communist Party
Three Chinese who are living in the United States quit the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its affiliated organizations, joining over 383 million Chinese who have registered a public statement of withdrawal from the CCP.
From cradle to the grave, Chinese citizens are indoctrinated to be loyal to the CCP. They are also forced or asked to join CCP-affiliated organizations. As young children, they are enrolled in the Young Pioneers. In middle school, they can join the Communist Youth League. As an adult, they may choose to join the CCP.
When joining these organizations, members are required to raise their fists and swear an oath to the CCP that they will fight their whole life for the communist party, give their blood for the communist party, and never betray the communist party.
Gebi Dong, a U.S.-based economist, and an independent columnist said of the CCP, “Its evil is all-encompassing, all its manifestations are demonic, and the extent of its evil can be said to be ‘unprecedented, unparalleled in the world.’”
“The CCP’s persecution of the Falun Gong practice group is the greatest humanitarian disaster in the world: live harvesting of human organs is an unprecedented evil in human history. Only the CCP can commit this terrible crime that has never happened before in human history, and 1.4 billion people are controlled by the CCP, which is also unprecedented in the history of mankind,” he said. Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is a spiritual practice that teaches people to follow the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance, and it has been persecuted by the CCP since 1999.
Since 2004, when The Epoch Times published the editorial series “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party,” hundreds of millions of Chinese people have quit the CCP by making a public declaration that the oaths they gave to the CCP are null and void. Quitting the CCP is called “Tuidang” in Chinese.
As of Sept. 13, the number of Chinese people who have quit the CCP has reached 383,504,922.
The Global Service Center for Quitting the CCP (Tuidang Center), writes on its website, each person who publishes a statement to quit the CCP at the Tuidang Center will receive a certificate as a testimony.
Chinese Economist: Quitting the CCP Is a Way to Save Your Life
Dong recalled that when first visited Los Angeles in 2011, he heard about the Tuidang movement from a volunteer at the Tuidang Center near the East West Bank.
After settling in the United States, he gained a deeper understanding of “quitting the CCP.” Later he not only made his declaration to quit the CCP, but he also began to persuade other Chinese people to cut their ties with the CCP.
“It is a worldwide consensus that the CCP is the most evil regime of mankind,” he said. “Quitting the CCP is actually a way to save your life. If you hesitate and wait and see because of your personal interests, once the CCP dies, it would be a big regret to accompany the regime that is bound to die, falling into the grave with the mark of the CCP.”
In ancient China, society had a deeply spiritual foundation that contained moral values from Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Chinese people believed that a person should not make bad vows at will, because it would bring disaster to oneself, Dong said. Today, if a person has dedicated his life to communism, then the mark of communism—the scythe and the ax—will remain on that person as a sign of communist membership.
“Therefore, no matter how good your reasons are and how much fear you have in your heart, I suggest that you must cut ties with CCP!” he said.
“Chinese have an old saying ‘Heaven’s way is hard to violate,’ once you ‘lose your conscience’ or ‘violate heaven’s principle,’ you will be punished by heaven. So it’s absolutely right that ‘Heaven will eliminate the CCP.’”
A poster printed with the characters “Heaven will eliminate the Chinese Communist Party. Quit the CCP for safety,” on a wall in a city of northern China’s Jilin Province, in May 2015. (Minghui.org)
Chinese Student: Don’t Be Fooled by the CCP
Zhang Yuchang, a Chinese citizen, was astonished to learn of the crimes committed by the CCP while he studied abroad as an international student.
After returning to China, one day in May 2020, Zhang went to the CCP’s branch office in his local community, demanding to withdraw from the CCP organization.
He wrote a formal statement of withdrawal and signed it with his fingerprints.
The staff at the party branch were surprised and even a bit incredulous as if this had never happened before. They at first excused him, saying that the leader was not in and asked him to come back later to make an inquiry, and then said that a meeting was needed to decide how to proceed.
The staff recognized Zhang’s withdrawal from the party after his third visit but did not issue any receipt or proof to Zhang.
Now back in the United States, Zhang told The Epoch Times, “If you don’t want to be a foolish person that is fooled by the CCP, but you want to have the right to be a real human being and live in a better environment—I urge people to quit the CCP as soon as possible.”
Chinese Christian: The CCP Regime Won’t Stand Long
On July 11, a group of Chinese people living in New York held an event in front of the New York Public Library denouncing the crimes of the CCP on the occasion of its centennial.
At the event, Yang Shisong, a Christian, told The Epoch Times, “I want everyone who knows me and doesn’t know me to be able to testify to me, and I solemnly declare that I am free from the ideology of the CCP and that I will always stay at the opposite stance to the CCP, that [the CCP] will always be my enemy.”
While in China, Yang said he discovered through his own observations and reflections that all the suffering, injustice, and inequality in modern Chinese society came from the CCP.
Yang was able to obtain the firewall-breaking software Freedom Gate, a software that allows people inside China to access websites that are blocked by China’s internet blockade.
He soon sent an email to quit the Communist Youth League, to which he had automatically been enrolled in school when he reached an age set by the CCP.
After arriving in the United States, Yang publicly posted the certificate of withdrawal issued by The Global Service Center for Quitting the CCP.
Yang said he tries to tell his friends and family, and everyone, everywhere he goes, about the CCP’s deception of the Chinese people.
“The CCP persecutes Buddhism, Christianity, and Catholicism to almost extinction, and the evilness has never stopped since the CCP established its regime. The persecution of Falun Gong has been particularly cruel,” Yang added.
Yang said he believes: “The CCP will not stand long. If you look over history, no regime that persecuted religion has lasted long.
“It is inevitable that the CCP will destroy themselves because they are against the will of heaven, just a matter of time. This is the way of heaven.”
Yang said that Chinese people should state their position clearly and quickly, and keep a distance from the CCP: “Quitting the CCP is a shortcut to avoid being dragged down with the CCP. Separate yourself from all crimes of the CCP, or else your fate will surely be tied to it.”
As a Christian, Yang believes that those who have already quit the CCP differ from those who are still with the CCP in spirit: “[Quitting the CCP] is a group of people with a spirit of fraternity and equality, and we can live in peace and love with people of all nationalities and ethnicities,” he said.
Twenty-seven Republican governors or attorneys general have vowed to fight the latest executive order issued by President Joe Biden mandating that over 80 million private employees receive COVID-19 vaccinations or undergo weekly testing, or their employer will be fined.
The executive order directs the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to require private businesses with more than 100 employees mandate that their workers receive both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine or undergo weekly testing. Noncompliance would result in fines of $14,000 per violation.
The governors who’ve expressed opposition include those from Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Republican attorneys general from states with Democratic governors who also vowed to fight include Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, with whom Biden has sparred over mask mandates and vaccine passports, said Florida would fight back.
“When you have a president like Biden issuing unconstitutional edicts against the American people, we have a responsibility to stand up for the Constitution and to fight back, and we are doing that in the state of Florida,” he said. “This is a president who has acknowledged in the past he does not have the authority to force this on anybody, and this order would result potentially in millions of Americans losing their jobs.”
Texas, which is already embroiled in several lawsuits with the Biden administration, vowed to sue. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said after hearing Biden’s announcement that “Texas is already working to halt this power grab” and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Texas would be suing the Biden administration “very soon.”
Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said, “OSHA cannot dictate personal health care decisions for Missourians. Missouri is not under an OSHA state plan, and Parson will not allow state employees to be used to enforce this unconstitutional action.”
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster vowed to fight Biden, saying, “The American Dream has turned into a nightmare under President Biden and the radical Democrats. They have declared war against capitalism, thumbed their noses at the Constitution, and empowered our enemies abroad. Rest assured, we will fight them to the gates of hell to protect the liberty and livelihood of every South Carolinian.”
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey said, “Governors don’t report to Joe Biden. Governors don’t report to the federal government, the states created the federal government, and Joe Biden has stepped out of his reach,” Ducey said. “These mandates are outrageous. They will never stand up in court. We must and will push back.”
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita indicated he was working with a group of AGs to file a lawsuit. “My team and I, along with other like-minded attorneys general, are reviewing all legal action on how to stand against these authoritarian actions by the Biden administration,” he said in a statement.
The Republican National Committee also announced it was suing “to protect Americans and their liberties” if the proposed rule change were to go into effect.
In response to Republican pushback, White House senior adviser Cedric Richmond, a former Democratic congressman from Louisiana, told CNN the White House expected the opposition.
He said, “… those governors that stand in the way, I think, it was very clear from the president’s tone today that he will run over them. And it is important. It’s not for political purposes. It’s to save the lives of American people. And so, we won’t let one or two individuals stand in the way. We will always err on the side of protecting the American people.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law on Sept. 13 that requires cash bail for suspects who have allegedly committed violent crimes.
The measure, Senate Bill 6, was approved in the Texas House and Senate in August, following a delay that was triggered by dozens of House Democrats fleeing the state to deny Republicans a quorum over a Republican-backed election overhaul bill.
Known as the Damon Allen Act, the legislation was named after a Texas state trooper who was killed in 2017 during a traffic stop by a suspect who was free on $15,500 bond. The law now mandates that people accused of committing violent offenses can’t be released on personal bonds, which don’t require a defendant to pay money, but require other measures such as monitoring.
Suspects believed to be involved in violent crimes will now have to post cash bail set by a court, the text of the legislation reads. They can also pay a percentage to a bail bonds company to be released.
“The Damon Allen Act makes it harder for dangerous criminals to be released from jail on bail,” Abbott, a Republican, said on Sept. 13 before signing the bill.
Some cities that are controlled primarily by Democrats, including Seattle, Minneapolis, and Portland, Oregon, have enacted bail reform laws that have rescinded cash bail. Critics of such measures, including police unions, have said such laws increase the violent crime rate in an area.
“Texas cities will not follow the lead of Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis; Texas will remain a law-and-order state and continue using every tool available to preserve the safety that Texans deserve,” Abbott said. “That is why I am proud to sign the Damon Allen Act into law, which will reform our broken bail system in the Lone Star State.”
The law will go into effect on Dec. 2. Other measures included in the measure will create a new system of court officers to review a defendant’s criminal history before bail is set.
Before signing the legislation, Abbott suggested that an overall decline in morality is the reason why crime is on the rise, arguing that Texas needs “better parenting,” and it needs to “restore God in our communities.”
“If we do that, we will be able to reduce crime in this region,” he said.
Democrats and left-wing organizations have largely opposed the measure and say that it will lead to overcrowded jails.
“SB 6 is built on right-wing hysteria that violates Texans’ rights, not on public safety,” Laquita Garcia with the Texas Organizing Project said in a statement. “If implemented, this bill will lead to more overcrowding in jails and further criminalize poverty in our state.”
However, family members of victims who were killed by offenders who were released on personal bond praised the move.
“I am beyond pleased that the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 6,” Melanie Infinger, the mother of Caitlynne Infinger Guajardo, whose estranged husband allegedly killed her right after he was released on personal bond, said in a statement to the Texas Tribune.
Guajardo was pregnant with a child when she was killed.
“Since my daughter Caitlynne’s murder in 2019, I vowed to do whatever possible to save other families from the excruciating preventable pain of losing a loved one in the manner in which I lost my girl and her unborn child,” Infinger said.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is taking his fight against what he calls the “patently unconstitutional practice” of proxy voting in the U.S. House of Representatives to the Supreme Court.
In the early days of the pandemic in May 2020, the House approved a resolution allowing members to cast votes on the House floor by proxy on the theory that it was advisable to limit attendance in Congress to combat the spread of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said at the time the new absentee voting protocol was needed because the virus posed a “mortal danger.” House Democratic leadership said when the policy began that it would be temporary but it is still in effect today.
This “unprecedented” proxy voting resolution permits a single member to vote on behalf of up to 10 absent members, according to the petition for certiorari, or review, from McCarthy.
“Today, we are asking the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution by overturning Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi’s perpetual proxy voting power grab. Although the Constitution allows Congress to write its own rules, those rules cannot violate the Constitution itself, including the requirement to actually assemble in person,” McCarthy said in a statement.
“Since its adoption 14 months ago, proxy voting has shattered 231 years of legislative precedent and shielded the majority from substantive policy debates and questions, effectively silencing the voices of millions of Americans,” he said. “It was a raw abuse of power … [and its] continuation is an insult to hard-working taxpayers who are back at work safely while members of Congress get a pass to skip work but still get paid.”
“The Founders wisely rejected proxy voting because they knew Congress cannot adequately ‘do the business’ of our chambers without deliberating, and we cannot adequately deliberate without assembling in person. The Senate has managed through the whole pandemic without proxy voting because they know, as we do, that it is unconstitutional.”
The petition in the case of McCarthy v. Pelosi, an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was reportedly filed with the Supreme Court on Sept. 9 but had not yet appeared in its online docket as of press time.
The appeals court held that the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause states that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [members] shall not be questioned in any other Place,” has the effect of preventing courts from reviewing the constitutionality of proxy voting.
“That decision takes a radically broad view of the Speech or Debate Clause,” McCarthy’s petition states. “The court concluded that any acts related to voting were privileged—including here, the Clerk’s collection of proxy letters from absent Members or declarations by the Speaker and Sergeant-at-Arms that proxy voting should continue. By that logic, there would be no stopping any voting rule adopted by the House.”
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer issued a warning on Democrats wanting to remake the Supreme Court, including expanding the institution with justices, suggesting that Republicans will exploit Democrats’ agenda.
Breyer, in a wide-ranging interview with NPR, said he will not kowtow to calls from progressive lawmakers to retire due to his age.
“I’m only going to say that I’m not going to go beyond what I previously said on the subject, and that is that I do not believe I should stay on the Supreme Court, or want to stay on the Supreme Court, until I die,” the 83-year-old justice told the partially publicly funded broadcaster. “And when exactly I should retire, or will retire, has many complex parts to it. I think I’m aware of most of them, and I am, and will consider them.”
When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died last year and Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the top court, left-wing Democrat lawmakers called for the expansion, or “packing,” of the Supreme Court with several more justices. In April, President Joe Biden signed an executive order that established an investigatory body to determine whether more seats should be added to the Supreme Court or whether term limits should be established for justices.
“There is no question that Justice Breyer, for whom I have great respect, should retire at the end of this term,” Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) told news website Cheddar in April, referring to Ginsburg’s death. “My goodness, have we not learned our lesson?” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has issued similar statements.
But Breyer, who dismissed such calls earlier this year, again said that such notions haven’t had an impact on the justices.
“What goes around comes around. And if the Democrats can do it, the Republicans can do it,” Breyer told NPR while promoting his upcoming book, “The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics.”
During the interview, Breyer also said that he welcomes in-person oral arguments after the court went virtual due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“I think it’s better to be there where you can actually see the lawyer and see your colleagues, and you get more of a human interaction,” he said to NPR.
“We’re not automatons. We’re human beings,” Breyer also said. “And I believe when human beings discuss things face to face … there’s a better chance of working things out. That’s true with the lawyers in oral arguments, and it’s true with the nine of us when we’re talking.”
A couple of boys in Indiana made their neighbor proud when—while out riding their bikes—they heard a military funeral procession, stopped, and stood at attention while Taps played.
Batesville local Jacqi Hornbach was dog-sitting at her friend’s house, which is across the street from a cemetery, when the procession pulled in on Thursday, Sept. 2.
“The boys rode up on their bikes and immediately stopped when they saw the funeral,” she told The Epoch Times. “They got off their bikes, put down their backpacks, and waited quietly together for a minute or two.
“The respect these two young boys showed for the deceased military man was so heartwarming.”
(Courtesy of Jacqi Hornbach)(Courtesy of Jacqi Hornbach)
Jacqi was so moved that she snapped a few pictures of them as they stood there. She later took to Facebook and shared the photos with the world—despite her initial hesitation.
She wrote in a caption: “I debated whether or not to post this, but with all the negative things going on, I thought this was needed.”
Jacqi told the newspaper she wanted to spread some positivity in a world where the “news can be so negative.”
“I had to snap a pic as I was so proud of these two young men,” she wrote. “Their parents should be so proud, and I’m sure the serviceman was in heaven smiling down on them.❤️”
One of the boys’ fathers, Sean Moody, said he raised his son Lane, 8, to have “honesty, respect, and to be polite and respectful.”
(Courtesy of Sean Moody)
“When he heard the 21-gun salute and Taps he knew it was important,” Sean said. “When I got home from work, they told me what they had done and I was proud to hear they had done that!
“It wasn’t until I’d seen the pictures of the boys that had a whole different feeling with it!”
The soul-stirring pictures of the boys went viral on Facebook, garnering hundreds of reactions, shares, and patriotic comments.
Facebook user Julie Zacher wrote: “What a tribute to our fallen soldier but also to their parents!”
A U.S. Army vet from Arkansas, Clif Arnold, commented: “I’m as patriotic as they come, and I’m not sure if my boys would have done the same.”
Republican gubernatorial candidate Larry Elder on Wednesday vowed to “save California” shortly after he was forced to prematurely end a walk-through of his planned campaign stop at Venice Beach, when over 10 hecklers harassed him, throwing projectiles.
Elder, who is vying to replace California Gov. Gavin Newsom if he is recalled this month, was touring Venice Beach’s homeless encampments with campaign team members when he was harassed.
Footage of the incident uploaded to social media shows two hecklers repeatedly shouting racial slurs at Elder. A lady in a pink gorilla mask, riding a bike, appeared on video throwing an egg that appeared to narrowly miss Elder’s head.
One of Elder’s security staff attempted to separate the woman from the crowd, to keep her from continuing to throw projectiles.
In videos surfacing on Twitter, the woman slapped the security staff in the face. Another protester hit the same security staff member seconds later.
A white SUV drove up to the crowd, which was walking down Hampton Drive towards Sunset Avenue.
Elder’s team escorted him to his vehicle and drove away.
“Today I kicked off the Recall Express bus tour. Before we even left Los Angeles, my security detail was physically assaulted, shot with a pellet gun, and hit with projectiles. The intolerant left will not stop us. We will recall Gavin Newsom. We will save California,” Elder said in a statement on Twitter late Wednesday, responding to the attacks.
Elder, 69, is an Epoch Times contributor and host of “Larry Elder with Epoch Times” on EpochTV.
The conservative talk radio host first announced in July that he will run in California’s recall election of Democratic Gov. Newsom, which has been set for Sept. 14.
He said in a statement on his campaign website that he’s running for governor “because the decline of California isn’t the fault of its people,” adding: “Our government is what’s ruining the Golden State.”
On his website, Elder calls for “returning to the bedrock Constitutional principles of limited government and maximum personal responsibility.”
Other top Republican candidates include businessman John Cox, former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, and state Rep. Kevin Kiley. Nine Democrats are running, including financial analyst Kevin Paffrath and actor Patrick Kilpatrick.
The recall election of Newsom, a first-term Democrat, follows mounting criticism from within his party and across the aisle over his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and other issues.
He faced intense backlash after he was seen dining at the French Laundry restaurant with lobbyists after telling Californians to stay home. Newsom apologized for his actions.
The last time a governor was recalled in the state was Gray Davis in 2003. Residents voted “Yes” on recalling Davis by 55.4 percent and selected one of 135 candidates on the ballot to replace him.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, California is one of 19 states where recalls are permitted.
Last month, President Joe Biden publicly backed Newsom, saying in a statement that he the Democratic governor “is leading California through unprecedented crises—he’s a key partner in fighting the pandemic and helping build our economy back better.”
“To keep him on the job, registered voters should vote no on the recall election by 9/14 and keep California moving forward,” Biden added.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Larry Elder on Wednesday vowed to “save California” shortly after he was forced to prematurely end a walk-through of his planned campaign stop at Venice Beach, when over 10 hecklers harassed him, throwing projectiles.
Elder, who is vying to replace California Gov. Gavin Newsom if he is recalled this month, was touring Venice Beach’s homeless encampments with campaign team members when he was harassed.
Footage of the incident uploaded to social media shows two hecklers repeatedly shouting racial slurs at Elder. A lady in a pink gorilla mask, riding a bike, appeared on video throwing an egg that appeared to narrowly miss Elder’s head.
One of Elder’s security staff attempted to separate the woman from the crowd, to keep her from continuing to throw projectiles.
In videos surfacing on Twitter, the woman slapped the security staff in the face. Another protester hit the same security staff member seconds later.
A white SUV drove up to the crowd, which was walking down Hampton Drive towards Sunset Avenue.
Elder’s team escorted him to his vehicle and drove away.
“Today I kicked off the Recall Express bus tour. Before we even left Los Angeles, my security detail was physically assaulted, shot with a pellet gun, and hit with projectiles. The intolerant left will not stop us. We will recall Gavin Newsom. We will save California,” Elder said in a statement on Twitter late Wednesday, responding to the attacks.
Elder, 69, is an Epoch Times contributor and host of “Larry Elder with Epoch Times” on EpochTV.
The conservative talk radio host first announced in July that he will run in California’s recall election of Democratic Gov. Newsom, which has been set for Sept. 14.
He said in a statement on his campaign website that he’s running for governor “because the decline of California isn’t the fault of its people,” adding: “Our government is what’s ruining the Golden State.”
On his website, Elder calls for “returning to the bedrock Constitutional principles of limited government and maximum personal responsibility.”
Other top Republican candidates include businessman John Cox, former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, and state Rep. Kevin Kiley. Nine Democrats are running, including financial analyst Kevin Paffrath and actor Patrick Kilpatrick.
The recall election of Newsom, a first-term Democrat, follows mounting criticism from within his party and across the aisle over his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and other issues.
He faced intense backlash after he was seen dining at the French Laundry restaurant with lobbyists after telling Californians to stay home. Newsom apologized for his actions.
The last time a governor was recalled in the state was Gray Davis in 2003. Residents voted “Yes” on recalling Davis by 55.4 percent and selected one of 135 candidates on the ballot to replace him.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, California is one of 19 states where recalls are permitted.
Last month, President Joe Biden publicly backed Newsom, saying in a statement that he the Democratic governor “is leading California through unprecedented crises—he’s a key partner in fighting the pandemic and helping build our economy back better.”
“To keep him on the job, registered voters should vote no on the recall election by 9/14 and keep California moving forward,” Biden added.
Violent criminals in the United States were less likely to be rearrested if they spent more time in prison before release, a large, long-term study has shown.
Nearly 77 percent of people imprisoned for a violent crime were arrested again within 10 years of release. The rate was lower, though, for those who served harsher sentences than for those who served lighter ones, according to the study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BLS).
Of those who spent less than the median time in prison prior to release, 78.3 percent got rearrested. For those who served more than the median time, 66.4 percent were rearrested. Among those with the harshest sentences of more than 80 months, 57.5 percent were rearrested, according to the recently released report on the study (pdf).
The study followed a sample of 76,000 state prisoners selected from more than 400,000 released in 24 states in 2008. It saw more than four in five arrested again within a decade, recording nearly 2.2 million rearrests. Among those released, about a quarter were serving time for violent crimes.
The study also looked at sentencing data in 18 states, concluding that more than 60 percent of those released in 2008 ended up with another sentence within 10 years.
Among violent ex-cons, the most common reason for a rearrest was a public order offense, such as illegal gun possession, driving under the influence, probation or parole violation. Nearly two in three were busted for such a crime within a decade.
The second most common reason was a drug offense (36.3 percent) and the third was assault (35.4 percent). The distant fourth was car theft (22.1 percent).
Murderers were about twice as likely than others to be rearrested for murder, but overall, they were much more likely to get rearrested for a different, lesser offense.
Drug offenders were more likely than others to be rearrested for a drug offense, but 75 percent of them ended up rearrested for a different crime, more than a third of them for a violent crime.
Those who managed to avoid arrest in the first few years after release were progressively less likely to fall off the wagon later on. Among those not arrested in the years 1-3 after release, less than 15 percent were arrested in year 4. The percentage kept dropping to about 4 percent for those rearrested for the first time in year 10.
Prior to their release in 2008, nearly four in five of all the tracked prisoners were already arrested five times or more. The average number of prior arrests was over 12.
Most likely to be rearrested were those with the most prior arrests and those youngest (under 17) when first arrested in their lives, nearly 90 percent for both groups. But even among those with two or fewer prior arrests, nearly 60 percent were rearrested.
The study covered nearly 70 percent of prisoners released in 2008 and included all five of the most populous states, California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania. It didn’t include some other states with large populations, such as Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Tennessee.
Every once in a while, I’d love to write you and just tell you about how nice of a day it was and send you pictures of my puppies, but nooo, some idiot always has to try and ruin my day.
But this one is pretty funny.
Rick Wilson is a co-founder of the Lincoln Project – the group of “Republicans” who spent tens of millions of dollars against President Trump and America First candidates last year.
When asked about my race, here’s what this so-called “Republican strategist” had to say: “Loomer may be vile, personally repugnant, wildly immoral and crazier than a latrine rat, but Republican primary elections now reward rather than punish that kind of behavior.” There is some truth to Wilson’s quote if you apply it to his work with the Lincoln Project.
Acting vile, immoral and betraying principles for profit is ABSOLUTELY admired and rewarded on the left.
Before Wilson and shady friends formed the Lincoln Project, Rick Wilson’s career was at an obvious low point.
As the New York Post reported, before finding financial success stabbing President Trump in the back, Wilson owed $389k in federal taxes and in 2016, his bank started to foreclose on his home.
Even American Express went after Wilson after he couldn’t pay the $25,729 he racked up on his card.
I’d bet that Wilson is out of financial problems now that the Lincoln Project has raised nearly $100 million from the radical left.
That’s just a guess, because the left loves and rewards a turncoat.
But as they say, “easy come, easy go,”
Wilson and his Lincoln Project buddies took a hard crash when one of their co-founders, John Weaver, got caught making sexual overtures to a young man.
No, wait, I’m sorry.
Rick Wilson’s friend and Lincoln Project co-founder was accused by TWENTY-ONE young men of inappropriate sexual conduct – even pressuring them for sexual favors in exchange for jobs!
So sure, the “Republican” Lincoln Project guy can call me and any other woman a “crazy latrine rat” all he wants, it just goes to show the hypocrisy and the lack of character that has infected so many so-called leaders in our party.
Many RINO turncoats like Rick Wilson have always lacked the moral foundation to lead. They’re not fit to be men, much less Republicans.
Others like my oppenent Dan Webster lack the energy to fight and lead in these perilous times. They slip in, cling to power and sit back for decades or more hoping no one notices they have done nothing to protect or serve our nation.
While we can’t do much for Rick Wilson except pray for the man, we can do something about the Dan Webster’s of our party . . . replace them.
Paid for by Laura Loomer for Congress IncCONTRIBUTIONS TO LAURA LOOMER FOR CONGRESS INC ARE NOT TAX DEDUCTIBLE FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CORPORATIONS, LABOR UNIONS, FEDERAL CONTRACTORS, AND FOREIGN NATIONALS ARE PROHIBITED.
Laura Loomer for Congress Inc 720 Lucerne Ave, #1465 LAKE WORTH, FL. 33460
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) likely put a smile on President Joe Biden’s face on Sept. 7, with an extraordinarily ambitious schedule for completing the key panel’s part of the president’s $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” spending plan.
“On Thursday, Sept. 9, 2021, and Friday, Sept. 10, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., the committee will mark up measures spanning from universal paid family and medical leave and access to child-care to strengthening retirement savings and trade programs that prioritize American workers,” the committee said in a statement.
“This is our historic opportunity to support working families and ensure our economy is stronger, more inclusive, and more resilient for generations to come,” Neal said in the statement.
What followed in the statement were 16 promises to create new benefits, greatly expand existing ones, and increase funding for a host of federal programs targeted by Biden to combat global warming, the CCP virus (also known as the novel coronavirus), the affordable housing shortage, and homelessness, among many other issues.
Other Democratic committee chairmen who head panels with mark-up roles on the spending plan are following similar paths. The fact that virtually all House members are back home in their districts on recess and won’t return until Sept. 20 is just one of a host of problems Democratic leaders must confront.
Much of the markup work will be done via virtual committee meetings.
The biggest of the problems, however, are likely to be Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). The Senate is split 50-50 between the parties, meaning Democrats have no margin for error in counting votes. The House is only slightly more favorable to Democrats, with a 221–213 margin, meaning Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can lose no more than four votes.
Manchin and Sinema have both expressed reservations about the massive spending and expansion of government in the $3.5 trillion Biden plan. Lose either one, and Vice President Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is no longer the Senate’s tie-breaking vote for Democrats unless at least one Republican crosses the aisle.
The next big obstacle is how to pay for the biggest expansion of federal spending since the Great Society in the 1960s at a time when inflation is increasing, employers can’t find workers, small and medium-sized businesses are struggling to stay afloat, and only one in three Americans thinking the country is headed in the right direction.
Republicans such as Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), the ranking minority member of Neal’s committee, sees nothing but bad economic news being generated by the Biden plan, especially in the area of tax increases.
Brady issued a scathing statement just before the Labor Day weekend, in which he predicted Democrats will have to raise taxes on middle- and lower-class taxpayers due to the Biden plan.
“The left-leaning Tax Policy Center found that Biden’s tax plan will raise taxes on 75 percent of middle-class families next year, rising to 95 percent of middle-class families by 2031—contradicting his pledge not to raise taxes on middle-class Americans.
“The Joint Committee on Taxation says that within 10 years of a corporate tax increase, 66.3 percent of the corporate tax burden would be borne by lower- and middle-income taxpayers.
“Studies show that the capital gains tax alone would shrink the economy, and the left-leaning Tax Policy Center finds that Biden’s proposal raises taxes far past the amount necessary to maximize revenue. Past analyses by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation agree.
“Democrats’ second death tax will destroy more than 1 million jobs over the next 12 years, slash paychecks for workers, and shrink our economy by $100 billion over the next decade.”
If Democrats don’t raise taxes and choose instead to fund the new spending with bigger deficits, they will add an estimated $4.3 trillion to the national debt that now approaches $30 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That estimate includes the $1.1 trillion infrastructure bill that’s a companion to the spending plan.
In such a scenario, there is no guarantee that Democrats will be able to force through Congress an increase in the national debt ceiling by Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year.
Democratic campaign strategists know that a contracting economy with spiraling consumer prices and fewer jobs being created could move voters to restore Republican control of either or both chambers of Congress in November 2022.
Then there is the planned Sept. 18 protest demonstration at the Capitol in support of the Jan. 6 detainees being organized by a group known as Look Ahead America (LAA), which is led by former Trump campaign strategist Matt Braynard.
The LAA has previously organized protests that included a few conservative Republican House members, but multiple senior House Republican aides speaking on background told The Epoch Times they don’t expect any to be present for the Sept. 18 event.
Congressional correspondent Mark Tapscott may be contacted at mark.tapscott@epochtimes.nyc. Follow him on Twitter at @mtapscott and on Parler at @Mtapscott.
A COVID-19 vaccine mandate that was handed down by the Tucson government for its employees was deemed unconstitutional by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s office, according to a Tuesday news release.
The mandate, he said, violates state law and goes directly against a law—Senate Bill 1487—passed by the Arizona Legislature earlier this year, meaning Tuscon must amend or repeal the ordinance or lose state funding. The law bars local and state government entities from imposing COVID-19 mandates on employees, although it does not go into effect until Sept. 29, creating what Brnovich described as a loophole that was exploited by Tucson’s government.
“The Legislature’s intent was clear when it passed S.B. 1824 earlier this year—government entities from the local to state level cannot mandate COVID-19 vaccines,” said his office, adding that the “City of Tucson could subject itself to potential liability claims if it were to take adverse action against an employee who relies on” the state law or an executive order handed down by Gov. Doug Ducey (R-Ariz.) to refuse the vaccine.
What’s more, Tucson has 30 days to rescind or amend the ordinance otherwise the attorney general’s office will notify the Arizona Treasurer to withhold funds from the city, which is located in Pima County, the release said.
The announcement from Brnovich comes about three weeks after Tucson’s government adopted the ordinance that required public employees to give proof of vaccination against COVID-19, the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, by 4 p.m. on Aug. 24. Those who refuse or cannot provide vaccination proof will face a five-day suspension without pay, the city said.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich speaks at a news conference in Phoenix, Ariz., on Jan. 7, 2020. (Bob Christie/AP Photo)
As a result, Ducey issued an executive order to stop cities from imposing vaccine mandates until Senate Bill 1824 goes into effect later this month. However, Tucson has continued to mandate employees to either get the vaccine or face a suspension without pay.
Private businesses in Arizona have to allow medical or religious exemptions for employees when it comes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates, the attorney general’s office said in an opinion issued last month.
“A sincerely-held religious belief includes a moral or ethical belief against receiving a COVID-19 vaccination that has the strength of a traditional religious view. The sincerity of that belief should be judged based on the employee’s words and conduct at the time the conflict about the COVID-19 vaccine arises and not based on prior words or conduct,” said Brnovich’s office on Tuesday.
The Epoch Times has contacted the City of Tucson for comment. The city hasn’t issued a public response to Brnovich’s Tuesday announcement.
When the ordinance was handed down, Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat, said the government has a “legal duty and legal obligation to provide and maintain a safe and healthy workplace for its employees” and claimed that unvaccinated people “unjustly” expose COVID-19 to others.
A Pima County judge in August rejected a request by the Tucson police union to stop the city’s vaccine mandate. Tucson’s city attorney previously has said that Ducey’s executive order doesn’t block the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
A large statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee in Richmond, Virginia, will come down on Wednesday, coming months after Gov. Ralph Northam ordered its removal.
The Civil War statue “will come down this week,” the Democrat governor said in a statement. “This is an important step in showing who we are and what we value as a Commonwealth.”
The statue, which was made in France, weighs more than 10 tons, stands about 21 feet tall, and has been on a 40-foot-tall pedestal for about 130 years.
Over the years, various groups have filed lawsuits with the aim of taking the Lee statue down. A contract signed in 1890 gave the state of Virginia control of the property and effectively prevented it from being removed.
During last year’s riots and protests that were sparked by George Floyd’s death, the monument became the center of protests in the city. Vandals and rioters last year often sprayed graffiti with protest slogans on the statue.
William Gregory, a descendant of the family that donated the Lee statue, has fought its removal, arguing that the original deeds from more than 100 years ago viewed the ground it stood on as “perpetually sacred,” according to reports.
In a GoFundMe statement, Gregory said that his “great-grandparents gave the land where the Monument now sits to the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the condition that the state agree to faithfully guard and affectionately protect the statue perpetually—conditions to which the Commonwealth agreed, and which were expressed clearly in the 1890 deed signed by Virginia’s then-governor.”
Northam, he said, issued the order to remove the Lee statue with no regard to “promises made to my great-grandparents on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia,” adding that’s why he filed a lawsuit to prevent its removal.
But last month, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled that there is no evidence that Gregory has any ownership interest in the statue or the land on which it rests. Gregory, the court said, “has no property right related to the Lee monument,” meaning that it can be torn down. The documents that controlled the statue’s location were outdated and unenforceable, the court also ruled.
“The statue was installed in 1890, a generation after the Civil War, during the historical movement that sought to undo the results of the war by other means,” Virginia state officials said in a news release on Monday. Preparations for its removal will start Tuesday before it will be taken down on Wednesday, the officials added.
Other lawsuits seeking to block the removal were filed by nearby residents who said they had a property right to keep the statue in place and it should be left alone.
The Lee statue won’t be destroyed but will be kept in storage until a decision is made about what to do with it.
About 10 days after Floyd’s death and rampant widespread riots and protests, Northam announced plans to remove the monument.
Some of us are old enough to recall a time when freedom of speech was regarded as essential to the maintenance of a functional democracy.
In democratic nations like Canada and the United States, we once understood that in contests of cultural or political will, all citizens, especially candidates for political office and other leadership positions, should be permitted to have their say and test their ideas against the arguments of others.
Throughout our national history, government censorship was generally limited to preventing the disclosure of sensitive military secrets or forbidding the publication of pornographic material that violated customary moral standards and had no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
In schools, universities, and public forums, we once sought to examine all sides of civic issues. We regarded it as unfair and counter-productive to collude with some in order to exclude the opinion of others.
As free citizens, we were at liberty to form judgements regardless of the dictates of the conventional wisdom. We actually valued debate and taught the art of debating in our schools.
The Temptation to Censor
Today, the disposition toward freedom of expression appears to have been reversed. Pornography is ubiquitous and readily available to anyone of any age with access to a computer or cellphone.
On the other hand, advocates of free speech, freedom of the press, and academic freedom are generally relegated to the margins civil discourse. This is especially true when speakers are regarded to be on the conservative side of the political spectrum.
In Canada, the state-funded media agency sets the tone for almost all network news and opinion programming, while cosmopolitan newspapers dominate the print media, and social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook act as surrogate censors for progressive policymakers.
Canada’s prestige media often depicts the very idea of free speech and full truth-telling as tenants of the extreme-right. News outlets inclined to take conservative editorial positions are portrayed as unworthy of attention and frequently denied access to public figures or important political events.
More than ever, Canada’s prestige media flies on a single wing. Opinions on the right have been jettisoned. Balance is no longer required. The craft is kept aloft by a powerful re-centred cultural engine fuelled by plenty of public money, government regulatory advantage, and a proclivity for censorship.
Free Debate and the Election Campaign
In our present cultural straitjacket there was never much hope that freedom of speech and the spirit of open-ended debate would regain traction in the 2021 federal election.
Last week, TVA, a media group that boasts of having the capacity to reach every household in the country, broadcast the first French-language leaders’ debate of the campaign. TVA’s designated “main party” leaders were Justin Trudeau (Liberal), Erin O’Toole (Conservative), Jagmeet Singh (NDP), and Yves-François Blanchet of the Bloc Québécois, a party that fields federal candidates only in one province.
Almost all of the debate revolved around the ever-increasing role of government in the lives of ordinary Canadians.
The first half of the event was dominated by talk of government policy related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Other matters raised throughout the evening, like government childcare, medical assistance in dying, gun control, and climate change, framed the discourse almost entirely around progressive talking points.
Trudeau presented himself as the nation’s vaccine champion, pushing mandatory shots for public servants and the travelling public.
As Canadians pour into city streets in opposition to mandatory vaccination passports and lockdowns, O’Toole parried with an alternative “federal government plan” for rapid testing of Canadian travellers.
Regarding the longstanding debate over re-introducing for-profit medical services in Canada, Trudeau pointed accusingly at O’Toole’s past support for private care options. When Trudeau pressed O’Toole to say whether or not he favoured introducing a so-called “two-tiered” system into the country, the Conservative leader declined to take up the debate or give a direct answer. Mr. O’Toole could only say that he wanted to see more private “innovation” in health care, but supports the system we have.
With regard to the left’s signature issue, climate change, it was business as usual. The imagined environmental horrors connected with Harper-era oil and gas development were invoked against present Conservative proposals to modestly roll back carbon emission regulations. At the same time, Singh, the socialist New Democratic Party leader, noted that over recent years Canada has had the worst results on emissions of all G7 countries and even accused the country’s climate warrior-in-chief, Justin Trudeau, of not delivering on his environmental promises.
No one on the debate stage dared to challenge the orthodox progressive assertion that “climate change” is the most critical issue of our times.
Silenced by Omission
At the outset of the 2021 campaign, the Leaders Debates Commission selected five parties to participate in the official election debates. Unsurprisingly, they were the Trudeau Liberals, O’Toole Conservatives, Singh New Democrats, Paul Greens, and Blanchet Bloc Québécois.
The most notable candidate to be left out was former Harper government cabinet minister Maxime Bernier. Bernier’s more recently formed People’s Party of Canada is a committed coalition of former Harper conservatives, libertarians, and populists who describe their founding principles as “Freedom, Responsibility, Fairness, and Respect.”
Reviewing the PPC platform, one is struck by elements which have deep roots in classical liberal traditions as well as populist elements similar to the American MAGA movement. The PPC takes clear and unequivocal positions on controversial issues like freedom of speech, immigration, trade, supply management, and national health care.
Bernier himself is a trained economist in the tradition of Adam Smith, Frédéric Bastiat, and Friedrich Hayek. Like them, he believes that the prosperity of society is driven by creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation, which are possible only in a society with free markets and limited government.
Open-minded citizens seeking to cast an informed vote might be well-served by debates that include Bernier’s point of view. But according to the rules of the Leaders Debates Commission, at the outset of the campaign the PPC fell short of a 4 percent threshold of public polling required to qualify for a place on the stage.
In mid-campaign, the PPC is actually polling above 4 percent and ahead of the Green Party. But for Canada’s Woke Laurentian establishment, “rules are rules”—especially when they support the silencing of an articulate political opponent.
These days, one is inclined to conclude that a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which supposedly guarantees “freedom of expression,” is worth about as much as the paper it’s printed on.
Lawmakers in a conservative western New York county voted unanimously late last month to become a “constitutional sanctuary” where the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights will be protected. Even the lone Democrat legislator voted in favor of the measure.
Under the legislation, Cattaraugus County declared itself to be a “Constitutional County, unwavering in its commitment to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.”
As part of that, the county legislature vowed to use “all legal means at its disposal” to oppose unconstitutional efforts to infringe on the rights of citizens, whether those attacks come from the federal or state level. Gun rights in particular received special treatment.
Among other elements, the measure declares that no county employees, public money, resources, or buildings would be used to infringe on the rights of citizens or to help other levels of government enforce such unconstitutional restrictions.
Even the county’s mission statement was updated to pay homage to the Constitution and declare the legislature’s vision of protecting its constituents from “excessive and oppressive” governmental mandates.
“If state or federal government continue to overstep their bounds and intrude into the lives of our citizens with unconstitutional mandates, our legislature will step up and challenge that,” said Cattaraugus County Legislator Ginger Schroder, an attorney in private practice who drafted and pushed the resolution in response to pressure from the community.
In a phone interview with The Epoch Times, Schroder said constituents in her county were fed up with what they view as the increasingly extreme abuses and violations of the Constitution coming from Albany and Washington, D.C.
During the CCP virus pandemic, for example, state lawmakers and even courts “allowed all power to be assumed by an autocrat—and not a benign autocrat,” explained Schroder, referring to recently departed New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
“It was devastating to our community,” she continued, “and that’s why we decided we simply had to do something about this.”
According to Schroder, the time has come for Americans and their elected officials to resist.
“I’m even willing to engage in civil disobedience,” she declared. “Sometimes you have to stand up to government. That’s what our forefathers did. If there’s an unconstitutional mandate that comes down, I may choose not to comply with that, and I’ve encouraged others to do so as well.”
Rifles are offered for sale at Freddie Bear Sports on April 8, 2021 in Tinley Park, Illinois.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Protecting Gun Rights and More
In the resolution, all of the county legislators reiterated their intent to protect the enumerated rights of citizens including, but not limited to, “rights to freedom of expression, speech, association, religion, press and petition, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to protection of person and property from government overreach and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
The act also vows to protect rights not listed in the Constitution, as stipulated in the 9th amendment.
Concerns over escalating infringements on gun rights were a primary motivation behind the measure, multiple legislators from the county told The Epoch Times.
The resolution makes that clear too. “The Cattaraugus County Legislature wishes to express its profound commitment to the rights of all citizens of Cattaraugus County to keep and bear arms and proclaim that it is determined to stand as a Constitutional County that recognizes, respects and upholds Second Amendment rights,” the measure states.
Additionally, the county legislature vowed to “use all legal means at its disposal to oppose, within the limits of the Constitution of the United States and the Civil Rights Law of the State of New York, any efforts to unconstitutionally restrict such rights in order to assure that its citizens will be able to keep and bear arms and use the same in defense of life, liberty and property, whether in a well-regulated militia, or individually.”
The Big Picture: Dark Times Ahead
But while the right to keep and bear arms was a key motivation behind the move, it was hardly the only right the lawmakers had in mind.
“We were hearing from a lot of our constituents about how unhappy they were with state and federal government, and that government no longer respects the founding principles our government was based on,” explained Schroder, who received a standing ovation after an impassioned speech in support of the measure.
“We wanted to let our people know that we have their back and we’re going to stand up for their rights,” she added in the interview with The Epoch Times.
Among the concerns she highlighted were COVID mandates, the eviction moratorium that was recently struck down as unconstitutional, “vindictive” efforts by state officials to target those who resist, vaccine mandates being imposed on so many categories of people, attacks on the rights to free speech and assembly, and many more.
“We are headed toward very dark times, and that was all in the backdrop in my thinking about what we as legislators need to do,” Schroder continued, praising state government in Florida while lambasting New York’s state government.
The local grassroots group “We The People” and its regular letters to legislators were instrumental in getting the measure drafted and passed, she said.
Citizens were overwhelmingly supportive, with Schroder receiving just one negative phone call from a woman upset that people were not wearing face masks at the county legislature’s meeting.
Looking southward down North Main Street (NY 353) from the corner of Jefferson Street in the Village of Cattaraugus, New York on July 28, 2018. (Andre Carrotflower via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0)
New and Expanded Mission for County Government
One key element of the resolution noted that the current mission statement on the county’s website failed to recognize the county legislature’s “Constitutional, historic, and rightful” role of serving as a check on local executive and judicial power, and even as a check on the state government itself.
The previous mission statement also failed to point out the legislature’s role as the voice of the people of Cattaraugus County and a “guarantor of their liberties,” the measure declared.
As such, the new mission statement adopted under the resolution included significant changes. “The goal of the Cattaraugus County Government is to support and respect the Constitution of the United States of America and its amendments,” the newly adopted version of the county’s mission statement starts off.
The mission statement continues: “Also, it is to establish an environment in which the citizens of Cattaraugus County can pursue life, liberty, and happiness unencumbered by excessive and oppressive governmental mandates and intrusions into their day-to-day lives. The goal of the government of this County is to uphold the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The County Legislature recognizes that governments in the United States of America—at all levels—are to be restrained and limited and that the power of government resides in the people.”
The role of the legislature as the protector of the people’s rights is enshrined in the new version, too.
“The Legislature stands as a protector between the citizens of this County and the tendency of governments at state and federal levels to advance into territory not their own and consume, rather than secure, the liberties endowed to the people by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” the new mission statement declares, echoing similar measures being adopted and considered nationwide. “The County’s guide and standard will be the Constitution of the United States and the Founding Documents upon which our Nation, our State, and the local communities of Cattaraugus County are built.”
Chairman and Vice Chairman Agree: Constitution is Key
In an interview with The Epoch Times, County Legislature Chairman Howard VanRensselaer explained that citizens from across the county have become increasingly concerned about the direction of state and federal authorities.
“They asked to be assured that their constitutional rights will be protected, so our legislature decided to go forward and pass this,” the chairman said. “Basically, they don’t want their rights taken away as it relates to the Constitution and we are going to honor that.”
While it is too early to tell what effect the measure may have, VanRensselaer said it would become clearer as time went on.
In the meantime, he said legislators hope it will increase public awareness and let government agencies know where the people of Cattaraugus County stand.
VanRensselaer, who represents District 4 in the county and lives in the town of Randolph, said he hoped the measure would encourage other policymakers across the state and beyond to consider similar constitutional resolutions protecting their jurisdictions.
One thing is clear: The public is fired up. “We’ve had tons of emails and phone calls, all positive,” he said. “Not a single person I’ve talked to has expressed opposition. All of the legislators have been receiving phone calls and emails daily, especially after it was passed. There are so many emails coming in thanking us for doing this to protect the people.”
When asked why he thought becoming a “constitutional county” was necessary, County Legislature Vice Chairman Andy Burr, another key player in getting the measure passed, echoed the chairman, but was even more blunt.
“Because we live in New York State,” he said.
Among other concerns expressed by the public and his fellow legislators, Burr warned that state authorities had become increasingly hostile to gun rights. CCP virus mandates, meanwhile, have decimated many small businesses. The vaccine mandates with no religious exemptions have stirred widespread opposition, too, Burr explained.
“It’s scandalous what’s going on in this state,” he added, expressing hope that Cattaraugus County’s stand would embolden people and encourage other counties to take similar action.
Support from the public for standing on the Constitution is “very robust,” Burr said, noting that everyone he has spoken with so far firmly supports the “constitutional county” concept.
Cattaraugus County is very conservative, he said. In the last election, the legislature went from having 12 out of 17 seats occupied by Republicans to having 16 out of 17 filled by GOP legislators.
“Taking a knee and social justice does not play well here,” Burr said. “We believe in getting up and going to work. We believe in not whining about things, but in doing things to make it better.”
Legislator David Koch, the only Democrat currently serving in the county legislature, also voted for the measure, though fellow lawmakers said it was a reluctant yes vote. Koch did not respond to e-mails and phone calls requesting comment by press time.
Pro-Gun activists protest at Richmond, Va. on Lobby Day, the day on which Virginia citizens come to the Capitol to petition legislators at the start of the General Assembly session, on Jan. 18, 2021. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
State and National Efforts Growing
Resistance to state and federal policies perceived to be unconstitutional is nothing new, even in New York.
In 2013, 52 out of 62 counties in New York passed resolutions against gun control following the passage of strict measures adopted in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, according to an analysis published by Pew Charitable Trust.
Responding to public pressure and perceived constitutional obligations, more than a few sheriffs across the state and beyond have also vowed not to enforce new gun-control measures.
Indeed, many states have become “sanctuaries” for gun rights, with laws aimed at nullifying federal gun-control efforts proliferating in conservative jurisdictions nationwide.
More liberal jurisdictions, by contrast, have focused on nullifying federal marijuana laws, immigration controls, and other policies.
The history of nullification goes back all the way to America’s Founding Fathers, some of whom worked to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts not longer after the Constitution went into effect. Anti-slave states such as Wisconsin later nullified federal statutes such as the Fugitive Slave Act.
The Cattaraugus measure from last week, which was inspired by homegrown grassroots activists and members of the community, comes amid a fresh wave of local, county, and state resistance to perceived attacks on gun rights and other constitutionally protected freedoms.
As reported by The Epoch Times in June, two counties in Nevada approved measures declaring themselves “Constitutional Counties” in which any effort to infringe on constitutional rights will be treated as “criminal activity” — even if done by state or federal officials.
As part of that effort, the two counties also joined the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), a nationwide organization of lawmen dedicated to educating sheriffs on their constitutional role as protectors of the rights of their constituents.
“This is the peaceful and effective solution millions of Americans have been praying for to take back America county by county and state by state,” CSPOA Founder Sheriff Richard Mack (Retired), who won a landmark victory at the Supreme Court against the federal government, told The Epoch Times at the time.
When contacted by phone for comment on the new measure in Cattaraugus County, New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s office requested an e-mail. The governor’s press office did not respond to the email by press time.
