New York governor Kathy Hochul has directed state to investigate pro-life pregnancy centers

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D., N.Y.) has for weeks remained silent about pro-abortion activists firebombing a pro-life pregnancy center in her state. But when pro-life activists allegedly disrupted services at a Brooklyn Planned Parenthood, the Democrat condemned the “intimidation” from “anti-abortion extremists.”

“This is a shameful attempt to prevent New Yorkers from exercising their fundamental right to access reproductive care,” Hochul tweeted Thursday after New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) announced that pro-life activists harassed employees at a city Planned Parenthood clinic. “They won’t win.”

That reaction was a stark contrast with her muted response to a June incident in which pro-abortion activists firebombed a Buffalo, N.Y., pregnancy center that does not offer abortion services. The pregnancy center was also vandalized with graffiti that read “Jane was here,” a tagline for the extremist pro-abortion group Jane’s Revenge, which has vowed to attack similar pregnancy centers across the country. The Democrat has yet to comment on the attack. The governor’s office, meanwhile, told a local news outlet that Hochul “condemns violence of any kind.”

Hochul’s statement comes as Democrats look to crack down on the pregnancy centers following the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Just weeks after the Buffalo attack, Hochul signed a bill into law that directs state authorities to investigate pregnancy centers that do not perform abortions. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has accused the facilities of “torturing” women and said the government should “shut them down all around the country.”

Hochul’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

New York Democrats have increased efforts to target pro-life activists in recent years. As attorney general, James filed a lawsuit against a Brooklyn pastor, as well as his followers, who protested outside of an abortion clinic in the city. Her office deployed private investigators and hidden cameras to spy on these pro-life activists but later dropped the lawsuit in November. James has a pending lawsuit against pro-life activists who protested at another Planned Parenthood in the state.

The pregnancy center bill Hochul signed directs the state’s commissioner of health to investigate pro-life pregnancy centers because they do not provide abortions, including a probe into whether these pregnancy centers provide a “comprehensive range of reproductive and sexual health care services.”

Hochul has received $9,750 from Planned Parenthood and its associated PACs between her 2014 campaign for lieutenant governor and her current gubernatorial reelection campaign.

The attack on CompassCare, the pregnancy center in Buffalo, is part of a larger trend of violence against pro-life institutions following the overturn of Roe v. Wade. There have been 93 attacks on pro-life groups since May, according to the Catholic News Agency. A majority of these attacks were against pregnancy centers.

Jim Harden, CEO of CompassCare, said he has received no assistance from his state’s government after the attack on his clinic.

“It appears Governor Hochul and the N.Y. Legislature are only interested in protecting those who agree with them and bullying those who don’t,” Harden said.

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D., N.Y.) has for weeks remained silent about pro-abortion activists firebombing a pro-life pregnancy center in her state. But when pro-life activists allegedly disrupted services at a Brooklyn Planned Parenthood, the Democrat condemned the “intimidation” from “anti-abortion extremists.”

“This is a shameful attempt to prevent New Yorkers from exercising their fundamental right to access reproductive care,” Hochul tweeted Thursday after New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) announced that pro-life activists harassed employees at a city Planned Parenthood clinic. “They won’t win.”

That reaction was a stark contrast with her muted response to a June incident in which pro-abortion activists firebombed a Buffalo, N.Y., pregnancy center that does not offer abortion services. The pregnancy center was also vandalized with graffiti that read “Jane was here,” a tagline for the extremist pro-abortion group Jane’s Revenge, which has vowed to attack similar pregnancy centers across the country. The Democrat has yet to comment on the attack. The governor’s office, meanwhile, told a local news outlet that Hochul “condemns violence of any kind.”

Hochul’s statement comes as Democrats look to crack down on the pregnancy centers following the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Just weeks after the Buffalo attack, Hochul signed a bill into law that directs state authorities to investigate pregnancy centers that do not perform abortions. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has accused the facilities of “torturing” women and said the government should “shut them down all around the country.”

Hochul’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

New York Democrats have increased efforts to target pro-life activists in recent years. As attorney general, James filed a lawsuit against a Brooklyn pastor, as well as his followers, who protested outside of an abortion clinic in the city. Her office deployed private investigators and hidden cameras to spy on these pro-life activists but later dropped the lawsuit in November. James has a pending lawsuit against pro-life activists who protested at another Planned Parenthood in the state.

The pregnancy center bill Hochul signed directs the state’s commissioner of health to investigate pro-life pregnancy centers because they do not provide abortions, including a probe into whether these pregnancy centers provide a “comprehensive range of reproductive and sexual health care services.”

Hochul has received $9,750 from Planned Parenthood and its associated PACs between her 2014 campaign for lieutenant governor and her current gubernatorial reelection campaign.

The attack on CompassCare, the pregnancy center in Buffalo, is part of a larger trend of violence against pro-life institutions following the overturn of Roe v. Wade. There have been 93 attacks on pro-life groups since May, according to the Catholic News Agency. A majority of these attacks were against pregnancy centers.

Jim Harden, CEO of CompassCare, said he has received no assistance from his state’s government after the attack on his clinic.

“It appears Governor Hochul and the N.Y. Legislature are only interested in protecting those who agree with them and bullying those who don’t,” Harden said.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Employees at Google’s parent company are urging the search engine to suppress results for pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, according to a petition sent Monday by the company union to Alphabet Inc. CEO Sundar Pichai.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, more than 650 employees at Alphabet Inc. signed the petition, which demands that Google remove “results for fake abortion providers” and what the union considers “misleading information” about reproductive health care services. The petition also demands that Google stop collecting users’ data on abortion-related searches, saying that users’ data would be “used against them” in states that have banned or restricted abortion.

Abortion providers often vilify pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, which provide counseling, resources, and often medical services to pregnant women. Planned Parenthood calls such centers “fake clinics” that have the “shady, harmful agenda” of talking women out of getting abortions.

The petition, circulated by the Alphabet Workers Union, urges Google to institute data privacy controls for “health-related activity,” such as searches for “reproductive justice, gender-affirming care, and abortion access information.” These data, according to the petition, “must never be saved, handed over to law enforcement, or treated as a crime.”

Big Tech companies such as Facebook and Google have faced political challenges on data disclosure since a draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health was leaked in May. Twenty-one congressional Democrats in June urged Google in a letter to “limit the appearance” or add “user-friendly disclaimers” to search results for pro-life pregnancy centers.

Google states in its Privacy Policy that it must respond to a government subpoena, court order, or search warrant but pushes back on requests for information it deems too broad.

A Nebraska police department this month used legally acquired information from Facebook to prosecute 17-year-old Celeste Burgess for violating Nebraska’s ban on abortions after 20 weeks, the Nebraska Examiner reported.

Google stated in July it will automatically erase visits to abortion facilities from a user’s location history, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Alphabet executives have not yet responded to the petition.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Voters are more worried about Bidenflation than about abortion rights, polls show

Abortion advocacy group Planned Parenthood will pour a record-breaking $50 million into November’s midterm election in an attempt to galvanize voters after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.

The group’s massive spending will go to Senate, House, and gubernatorial races in nine swing states, with the AP reporting that Planned Parenthood wants to “drive turnout by Democratic and independent voters” who support abortion rights.

Democratic strategists have said, however, that abortion is unlikely to drive people to the polls, the Washington Free Beacon has reported, with pollster Josh Ulibarri asking, “Is that more powerful than when a voter looks at their receipt when they check out at Target?”

A majority of mostly pro-choice suburban Phoenix women told Reuters in June that they are more worried about sky-high inflation under Joe Biden than about abortion rights. And multiple polls have shown that Americans still rank inflation as the most important issue facing the country.

Planned Parenthood officials nevertheless say that abortion will energize voters this cycle, with super PAC executive director Jenny Lawson insisting that “abortion access is absolutely one of the defining issues this November.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

CRT is treason, and teacher’s unions are enemies of the state because they are pushing it and should be tried for treason. It only serves to weaken our country. [US Patriot]

To allow schools to be free of Critical Race Theory (CRT) parents must break the unions, parental rights activists say.

This school year, Moms for Liberty leaders Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich have mounted a nationwide campaign to end union control of schools.

“Let’s start the new school year right—by ending the reign of the powerful teachers’ unions who care more about pushing woke ideology and rewriting forms to say ‘birthing parent’ instead of ‘mom’ or ‘dad,’ than they do about improving reading scores or closing the growing learning gaps in our country,” the group’s press release reads.

Teachers have pushed CRT into the classroom at a time when many students are failing to learn how to read, said Justice.

According to nationwide surveys, only about a third of 4th Grade students read proficiently at a 4th Grade reading level in 2019.

At the same time, reports of teachers giving children political instruction in CRT, transgenderism, and other left-wing ideologies have increased greatly.

This push comes from teachers’ unions, said Descovich.

Teachers’ unions like the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have long been bastions of Democratic political power, she said.

Rather than ensuring teachers get good pay while giving children a good education, they have focused on making education ideological, said Justice.

“What we’ve seen over the past 40 years in education in America is a real shift away from giving children practicable skills to making them into social justice warriors,” she said.

Moms for Liberty encourages teachers to leave these unions to stop their promotion of left-wing education, Descovich said.

“It’s vital that teachers understand there [are] options out there, they do not have to be a member of the union,” she said.

For many parents, COVID-19 led to new discoveries about schools, Descovich said. During the pandemic, parents got to see the lessons their kids received. Often, they didn’t like what they saw.

“I think they’ve been shocked to see gender ideology being pushed in the classrooms, the division between race, the Critical Race Theory,” she said.

While the pandemic was a time for parents to learn, now is a time for them to act, Moms for Liberty leaders said.

“The start of the 2022-2023 school year is a perfect time to end the woke union bosses’ death grip on innovation, excellence, and freedom in public education,” the Moms for Liberty press release reads.

Union Busting

Moms for Liberty has a two-part strategy to break union power, according to its press release.

It will encourage teachers to leave unions in states where they can do so, and it will inform parents about school performance.

As unions like the NEA have spread across America, they have allied with school system administrators to protect a bloated bureaucracy, said Justice.

“We see more and more money being spent on public schools,” she said. “And yet, the teachers aren’t being compensated better.”

Although the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s illegal to force teachers to pay union dues if they don’t want to, sometimes unions do so anyway.

In many states, even non-union members have to pay unions for their role in collective bargaining. In other states, social pressure to remain in a union plays a major role, said Descovich.

“The unions will say, ‘If you get in trouble, if somebody accuses you of something, the only person that’s going to be there for you with us,” she said.

Money from union dues gives unions immense political power. The National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers gave $29 million combined to Democrats and other liberal groups.

The unions also play a major role in encouraging a left-wing curriculum, Justice said.

“The unions have become the foot soldiers for the Left in America, the very most progressive fringe Left,” she said.

Justice said she strongly believes American teachers are already breaking from the unions.

“I think that the education curtain has been pulled back, and all of America now recognizes that the union bargains for the people at the table, not for the teachers on the ground,” she said.

Parents can also pressure schools to change their curriculum, said Descovich. But often, schools have pushed back against parents.

In union strongholds, some Moms for Liberty supporters have lost their jobs due to union member harassment of their employers, she said.

One mother got the FBI called on her. It has been a struggle to get school boards to listen to parents.

“It’s been about as nasty as you can imagine where there are union strongholds,” said Descovich.

Moms for Liberty has more than 200 nationwide chapters, Descovich said. Despite these setbacks, many chapters have met with success in placing parental rights advocates on school boards.

“The unions need to understand that teachers in schools, their primary duty is to educate children,” said Justice.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Former Vice President Mike Pence broke with former President Donald Trump and other Republicans and said Wednesday they should stop criticizing the FBI following the bureau’s raid targeting the former president’s home.

“I also want to remind my fellow Republicans, we can hold the attorney general accountable for the decision he made without attacking the rank-and-file law enforcement personnel at the FBI,” said Pence during an event at St. Anselm College.

“The Republican Party is the party of law and order,” Pence stated, according to The Associated Press. “Our party stands with the men and women who stand on the thin blue line at the federal and state and local level, and these attacks on the FBI must stop. Calls to defund the FBI are just as wrong as calls to defund the police.”

Pence also told a crowd he would give “due consideration” if he is asked to testify before the House Jan. 6 committee.

Trump and some Republicans say the FBI has unfairly targeted conservatives and has not done enough to curb left-wing extremists, including those who threatened pro-life groups and pregnancy centers this summer after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Some have also pointed to how some Jan. 6 detainees have been treated while under federal custody.

Two-Tiered System?

Former Trump administration official Kash Patel told The Epoch Times last week, that after the raid, the United States is descending toward the third world and that Americans are suffering under a two-tier system that treats Republicans and Trump less favorably than Democrats.

Examples he gave include the FBI’s apparent hesitance to investigate Hunter Biden’s laptop and overseas business deals as well as the bureau illegally spying on Trump’s former aide, Carter Page.

With his comment on Wednesday, Pence appears to be strategically distancing himself from his former boss. Observers say Pence, with recent speeches and events, is trying to gear up for a 2024 presidential run.

Last month, Pence and Trump appeared at separate rallies in Arizona, with Pence backing GOP gubernatorial candidate Karrin Taylor Robson, who was ultimately defeated by Trump-backed Kari Lake.

Their paths diverged on Jan. 6, 2021, as Trump criticized the former vice president for not objecting to or delaying the certification of the election.  Earlier this year, in February, Pence again claimed that he had no power during the Jan. 6 certification process.

“If the Vice President [Mike Pence] had ‘absolutely no right’ to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats and RINO Republicans … are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election?” Trump said in a statement in February after Pence’s comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The U.S. Army is expected to fall nearly 40,000 troops short of its recruiting goals over the next two years. Fiscal year 2022 is expected to miss the mark by 10,000 troops, while the number in fiscal year 2023 could reach 28,000. These figures mean that this year is on track to be the Army’s worst recruiting year in almost 50 years.

The Army plans to circumvent the problem by offering $1 billion for its recruiting program and placing more emphasis on the use of its reserve units.

The Epoch Times reached out to the U.S. Army Recruiting Command for comment, and Maj. Charles Spears of the Combined Arms Center replied to various inquiries about the state of recruiting. Spears offered several reasons for the Army’s recruiting challenges in the years ahead.

First, he said, “only 23 percent of American youth are qualified to serve without a waiver, [noting that] obesity, addiction, medical, and behavioral health are the top disqualifiers for service.”

The Army is also competing with corporate America, he said, adding that “social media’s virtual public square shapes the values and perceptions of American youth, which is increasingly unfamiliar with the benefits of Army service.”

According to Spears, the American population is “increasingly disconnected” from serving in the Army and military service, Spears said. “Oftentimes, influencers [like parents, teachers, and coaches] do not recommend military service.” He also added that “the share of youth who have seriously considered military service is at a historic low of nine percent.”

Finally, Spears said, “the COVID-19 pandemic severely limited the ability of recruiters to interact with prospects in person, [and] also exacerbated academic and physical fitness challenges, limiting the pool of qualified applicants.” As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, he said, there has been a nine percent decrease in Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) scores as well as increased applicate obesity.

In addition to these factors, servicemembers have expressed other concerns that they say have contributed to the recruitment crisis.

Army Boots on the Ground

The Epoch Times spoke to an active-duty Army soldier with over 15 years of service on the condition of anonymity, fearing reprisals. He is gravely alarmed about the Army falling short on recruitment numbers.

“In the past,” he said, “the Army targeted a specific demographic of people based on their values, [and these recruits] were patriots and loved America.” In today’s general population, he doesn’t see the same interest in patriotism. “Much of the country doesn’t love America like it use to,” he said. “And with a military no longer upholding the values, the oaths, or the creeds it once did, what kind of new recruits should we expect [to join the Army]?” he asked.

“From a macro perspective, we had a significant breach of trust in the last election.” By oath, he said, the military swears to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” But the U.S. military has said nothing about the previous election, according to the soldier. “I’m not saying there is a final answer, but as defenders of the Constitution, they owed open and transparent conversation to the force and to the American people,” he said.

Instead, he said, “they happily encourage mandated vaccines, back the transgender issue, and speak out in opposition to the Supreme Court of the United States in regard to Roe v. Wade—all of which are very political.”

In his opinion, “we now have a Department of Defense [DoD] that has taken various political positions that are very much opposed to the heart of America.”

All the while, he said, the size of battalions is shrinking. “Some are less than two-thirds of where they need to be,” he said. And many of those who remain are not “usable deployables.”

He said, “Much of America is missing the fact that the Army is intentionally kicking people out in a precarious way that it knows is unnecessary, because the data shows that it’s unnecessary.” He is under the impression that “our military is intentionally being weakened.”

Rather than watching the military “decay,” he said, “military leadership needs to take action for the good of the America people.” But he’s not convinced this will happen, because “for the most part, the higher-ups are cowards and they lack the personal courage to take the actions needed to put an end to this sad state of affairs.”

As recruiting woes mount and solutions appear scant for the U.S. Army, service members of the nation’s other military branches are equally concerned.

Mishap for the Marines

Maj. Paul Lewis (a pseudonym), a recognized subject matter expert on personnel retention matters within the Marine Corps who previously sounded the alarm on personnel end-strength issues within the DoD, spoke to The Epoch Times once again.

According to Lewis, military readiness has been impacted in the past few years by “a toxic combination of poor leadership and the politicization of the military.” He said there has been “a steady reduction in readiness due primarily to reckless policies that have eroded the trust of the rank and file service-members.

“It really came to light in the wake of COVID when service members began to see that senior leaders chose to put politics ahead of military readiness,” he said. “Senior officers and senior civilian executives have run the military into the ground in the name of career stability and progression instead of keeping faith with Marines and their families.”

Potential recruits are not signing up to serve in the Marine Corps as they have in previous years, and Lewis attributes this to “a rejection of the bureaucratic leadership.” For American citizens to choose to serve in the “all-volunteer force,” he states, “they want to be able to trust that their leadership has their best interest at heart, and that doesn’t appear to be the case anymore.”

According to Lewis, this erosion of trust can be “manifested in the military loss in Afghanistan as well as how COVID vaccine mandates have been enforced in a draconian and illegal manner,” and this according to him has led to “a complete loss of trust and confidence in the leadership.”

In the years ahead, he said, these issues will have an impact on the national security of the United States. “Within the national security apparatus,” Lewis said, “we need a certain number of troops to man the line, this is known as statutory end-strength and is set by Congress, [because] we have defense obligations all over the world with partners and allies.”

“A small gap in readiness, losing 100 or 200 recruits or unplanned departures from the service might be acceptable,” Lewis admitted. “But when you get into the numbers of 40,000 or more in a single year, it’s no longer just a minor blip on how we deploy our military, but it is an unmitigated disaster,” he said. “It will affect every decision made on how we are going to meet our obligations and ultimately we will be increasingly relying on less troops to do the same job.”

In light of losses associated with the mandated vaccine, Lewis said it has become apparent to him that “our leadership is willing to sacrifice military service members, forcing them out the door in the name of financial reprioritization.” He said, “American people need to be aware that the military is using these personnel cost savings to commit additional resources to yet another round of equipment modernization that is lining the defense industries pocket.

“But all the while, they’re losing the individuals qualified to operate these systems,” he said. “For example, you cannot fly an F-35 with a student pilot; you need an experienced pilot with years of operational flight time.

“When the cards are down and we need to face our adversaries, we need experienced warfighters using this equipment,” said Lewis. “Unfortunately, the defense lobby has just about every congressional office enthralled with the idea of higher defense spending with their companies rather than investing in its people.”

According to Lewis, “the American soldier is the country’s most valuable resource, [but] our leadership and our decisionmakers have devalued their people” who serve in the military. “This is sadly exemplified in the dead Marines on the deck in Afghanistan because of poor politically driven leadership.”

If members of the nation’s military were valued, he said, “these same people should be raising legitimate concerns about vaccine efficacy, but they are failing the American people once again.”

Lewis contends that “generational damage” is being done and the core of rank-and-file service members whose families have traditionally served will no longer choose to do so in the future because of the utter betrayal they are facing from their own leaders.

“It’s reckless, like a child playing with fire,” said Lewis. “Do the math: it is impossible to have an all-volunteer force if you don’t have volunteers.” Moving forward, he questions whether the U.S. military will be able to continue to “meet the expectations of the American people and keep the homeland safe.”

Air Force Mission Ignored

A master sergeant currently serving in the Air Force has been a recruiter for nearly a decade. As the military vaccine mandate began to be enforced, he was “alienated from the service” for refusing to take the shot. “Many in the Air Force have stood up for freedoms our entire career, but when our freedom is on the line, who’s going to stand up for us?” he asked. He has witnessed junior airmen break down in tears over being coerced and threatened into taking the vaccine.

Air Force Recruiting Service is facing its lowest recruiting numbers since 1999 according to senior leadership’s public statements, he said. “While we lose decades of experience to mandates and poor leadership decisions,” he said, “we will be forced to ease standards just to continue the mission.” He further added, “I see firsthand in recruiting that the sentiment towards joining the military has been negatively impacted over the last year.”

What’s more, he said, “there is an imbalanced focus on diversity over performance when deciding the fate of an airman’s career. We’re focusing on the wrong things instead of the mission, which is protecting and serving the nation,” he said. “Wokeism combined with bad policies are destroying the military and if we don’t course correct soon, it could cause irreparable harm, in my opinion.”

Navy is Getting Weaker

A Navy lieutenant said, “the DoD has forgotten the first rule of holes—and that’s when you get into one, you stop digging.” According to the recruiter, “the Navy has probably alienated the majority of its recruiting base that you could have always counted on historically.”

Mandatory vaccines are an issue, he said. But “social experimentation” within the Department of Defense is also a problem. For example, in the digital signature of Rear Admiral Alexis T. Walker, he said, “he has his own little personal font with a rainbow hue for his pronouns.” Walker is the commander of Navy Recruiting Command.

The Clinton administration’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was once “a hot button for the military,” he said. “But fast forward nearly 30 years, and transgenders have been normalized.”

To that end, he said, “The fact that you would set a double standard in terms of military readiness where you would claim an unvaccinated service member isn’t ready, but somebody in the middle of a life-changing transition that’s on hormones is ready and is not a threat to readiness, bothers me.”

By his estimation, senior leadership of the military has “bought into a big lie that somehow the population at large wants a military which reflects the population diversity of the country.” He disagreed, stating that “the public simply wants to know that they have a military that’s capable and lethal, and could successfully defend this nation on a moment’s notice.”

Apart from “a few niche areas, like the special warfare communities, military readiness is questionable at best,” he said. “We’ve gone too far into the weeds politically, which has resulted in a weaker, political military force.”

Coast Guard Gone Woke, Too

Continuing to actively serve in the Coast Guard, a “Coastie” with recent experience as a recruiter is very disturbed that he could be “throwing years of dedicated service down the drain” for refusing to take the vaccine. It’s clear that he’s not the only one impacted, as he said, the Coast Guard will fall far short of making recruiting mission this year. While he said it is hard to pinpoint exactly why, the vaccine mandate is a large part of the issue. “There’s definitely been some young folk who said they’re not going to join because they don’t want to get the COVID vaccine,” he explained.

In addition, he said, “The woke culture has bugged some people.” In one example of wokeness infiltrating the Coast Guard, he said, “When writing awards or performance reviews, I can’t even identify myself as a he, [adding that] I can only identify myself by my name, rank, or by they.” He finds it strange that he cannot assume his own gender. Taking diversity and inclusion to this extreme, alongside the vaccine mandate, has hurt retention in his opinion.

The Coast Guardsman strongly believes that “medical and fitness standards that were once non-negotiable are all on the table right now.” When asked about the reason, he goes on to say, “It seems like the average teenager these days has a much higher likelihood of being prescribed antidepressants, asthma inhalers, or attention deficit medications, all of which used to be a hard stop for someone trying to join.”

“But if recruiters can’t make mission and mission execution suffers, eventually something has to give,” he said. “The question that bothers me is how much does race and gender now play into the likelihood of those medical waivers being granted?”

Each anonymous interviewee emphasized that their views do not reflect the views of the Department of Defense (DoD), the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy, or Coast Guard. The Epoch Times also reached out to the recruiting headquarters for the Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines, and Navy for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Former President Donald Trump on Friday said that the allegedly classified materials the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sought in the agency’s raid of his Mar-a-Lago resort were “all declassified.”

“Number one, it was all declassified,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday, shortly before the court unsealed the search warrant the FBI used for its Aug. 8 raid of his Florida resort.

Trump’s comments directly contradict legacy media news reports following the raid that the documents were top-secret, with The Washington Post citing anonymous sources who claimed that the documents contained information about nuclear weapons. Trump panned the claim, calling it a “Hoax.”

“Nuclear weapons issue is a Hoax, just like Russia, Russia, Russia was a Hoax, two Impeachments were a Hoax, the Mueller investigation was a Hoax, and much more,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday morning.

The nature of the document is important, for it determines whether the FBI’s raid is justified by a cause heavy enough to outweigh the political ramifications of such an action conducted in the home of a former U.S. president.

The Search Warrant

Trump’s comments came shortly before Bruce Reinhard, the magistrate judge who approved the search warrant, unsealed the search warrant following requests from both the Department of Justice and Trump.

While the warrant did not pinpoint what probable cause the FBI established to conduct the raid, it showed the items that federal agents took from the former president’s resort, which included “Various classified/TS/SCI documents,” binders of photos, a “Grant of Clemency” to Roger Stone, a “Confidential Document,” “Miscellaneous Secret Documents,” and “Miscellaneous Top Secret Documents.”

The question becomes whether Trump, by simply possessing any of these documents, would have violated any federal codes listed in the search warrant, which the federal agents pursued:

• 18 USC 2071: Concealment, removal, or mutilation (of public records)
• 18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information
• 18 USC 1519: Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Presidential Declassification Powers

According to Mike Davis, President of the Article III Project and a former law clerk under Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, the president of the United States can declassify records by simply leaving the White House with them.

“The President of the United States has both the constitutional (and statutory) power to declassify anything he wants,” Davis wrote on Twitter on Aug. 11. “If President Trump left the White House with classified records, they are declassified by his actions.”

“As discussed, the Office of Former President Trump—like every other former president’s federal office—is equipped and secure enough to handle these declassified records,” Davis added. “This is a routine dispute with bureaucrats at the National Archives whether these are presidential records.”

Davis cited Department of Navy v. Egan (ruling), a 1988 Supreme Court decision that Davis says shows the president possesses the constitutional power to “classify and declassify” records “regardless of any statute passed by Congress.”

“The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,’” The Supreme Court ruled at the time. “His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.”

“When President Trump had the records sent to Mar-a-Lago, they were declassified,” Davis explained. “Former presidents don’t have this power. But Trump did this as the president.”

Trump: It’s a Political ‘Witch Hunt’

Trump and his allies have characterized the raid as a “witch hunt” driven by political motives, especially considering no former presidents had been prosecuted for the reason that the FBI allegedly told sources close to Trump that motivated the raid; namely, Trump was nominally required by the Presidential Records Act to return the materials to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) upon the conclusion of his term, but allegedly didn’t.

“NARA’s singling out of President Trump’s handling of official records stands starkly in contrast to the way NARA has treated far clearer violations committed by politicians and officials who are not Republicans,” 20 Republicans, including numerous Committee ranking members, wrote in an Aug. 10 letter addressed to U.S. Acting Archivist Debra Wall, first published by Politico. The lawmakers cited reports that point to recent U.S. administrations’ violations of the Presidential Records Act, listing Bill Clinton as an example.

“The seeming weaponization of the federal government against [Joe] Biden’s political rivals cannot go unchecked, and if NARA is working to further these efforts, it will be only the latest agency to lose its credibility in the eyes of the American people under the Biden Administration,” the Republican lawmakers wrote.

Meanwhile, Trump revealed earlier this week that the FBI had recently been given a tour of where the records were stored, with the FBI only suggesting that Trump further secure the storage space.

“In early June, the DOJ and FBI asked my legal representatives to put an extra lock on the door leading to the place where boxes were stored in Mar-a-Lago – We agreed,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Aug. 10.

“They were shown the secured area, and the boxes themselves,” Trump added. “Then on Monday, without notification or warning, an army of agents broke into Mar-a-Lago, went to the same storage area, and ripped open the lock that they had asked to be installed. A surprise attack, POLITICS, and all the while our Country is going to HELL!”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Law professors warned that proposal would encourage illegal race discrimination

The American Bar Association on Monday axed a proposal to require law schools to “diversify” their student bodies after more than a year of warnings from law professors that the plan would force schools to violate federal law.

The proposal, first released in May 2021, would have required law schools to submit annual progress reports on minority enrollment to the American Bar Association. Law schools that failed to boost the enrollment of “underrepresented groups” would have been at risk of losing their accreditation.

The proposal underwent three rounds of revisions before finally being withdrawn by the association’s house of delegates, which did not rule out revisiting the proposal at a later date. An early draft had warned that U.S. anti-discrimination laws were “not a justification” for “non-compliance” with the diversity standard, a line that drew criticism from many in the legal community, including from elite universities.

Ten Yale Law School professors said in a public comment filed in June 2021 that the proposal “instructs schools to risk violating state or federal law in order to retain certification.” As late as February 2022, law professors were raising “legal concerns” about the “use of racial balancing or quotas,” according to a memo from the bar association summarizing the feedback it received.

The decision to withdraw the proposal comes as the Supreme Court is gearing up for oral arguments in a landmark affirmative action case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, that could outlaw racial preferences throughout higher education. It also comes as something of a surprise given the association’s relentless focus on diversity.

The association, which accredits almost every law school in the United States, has made noise about eliminating the LSAT, a test some say disadvantages minority applicants. And in February, it voted to require law schools to educate students “on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism,” over the objections from law professors who said the requirement would threaten academic freedom.

The curricular mandate was nonetheless popular among law school administrators, with 150 deans calling on the American Bar Association to implement it. There has been much less administrative agitation for rules about minority enrollment, which law schools have long struggled to boost.

There has also been little consensus on what sort of diversity the American Bar Association should prioritize. Some comments on the now-scrapped proposal said it gave “priority to racial and ethnic diversity at the expense of LGBTQ+ and disability diversity,” according to the February memo, creating a “two-tiered DEI system.” Others attacked “the phrase ‘underrepresented groups,’” which “may exclude individuals of groups that have been limited by a history of discrimination.”

The American Bar Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Sen. Maggie Hassan plays up her appeal to independents. NH voters say she’s a reliable vote for the Biden admin.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Sen. Maggie Hassan’s reelection campaign ads tout that the Granite State Democrat is the “most bipartisan” lawmaker in the Senate. But state residents across the political spectrum say they consider Hassan a reliable vote for the Biden administration.

Sean Chambers, a 43-year-old construction worker and registered independent, said Hassan’s time in the Senate has been “nothing but broken promises.” He said he has yet to decide on whether he will vote Republican in November but refuses to back Hassan.

“She says she’s for the worker but hasn’t done anything,” Chambers told the Washington Free Beacon. “I don’t buy the bipartisan talk. There’s a big divide and nothing is getting done.”

Hassan won her seat in 2016 by just about 1,000 votes in a $120 million campaign battle largely focused on her appeal to independents, who make up roughly 40 percent of the state’s registered voters. Her reelection campaign is set to be equally competitive as residents grow frustrated with the Biden administration’s handling of the economy—only one-fifth of state residents want Joe Biden to seek reelection in 2024, according to a University of New Hampshire poll released last month.

Hassan has attempted to distance herself from the Democratic Party establishment, but New Hampshire voters who spoke to the Free Beacon, including Republicans, Democrats, and independents, share the view that the Democratic senator is a reliable supporter of the White House’s agenda.

Al Macaloan, a retired project manager and an independent who voted for Biden in 2020, said he will vote for the New Hampshire Democrat, who has voted with the president 96 percent of the time, for just this reason.

“In the present environment I don’t think you can be bipartisan,” Macaloan told the Free Beacon. “I would like to see it, but it’s not possible.”

Democrats and their allies are prepared to make the race a top spending target: Hassan has raised $26 million, including $3.2 million in individual contributions between April and June alone—88 percent of which came from out of state. These funds helped her launch a series of campaign ads in recent weeks that tout her “bipartisan” record on issues such as small businesses and federal budgets. Hassan declared in one campaign ad that “fiscal responsibility is the New Hampshire way.”

The ad comes after the senator voted to pass Biden’s American Rescue Plan and infrastructure bill, which total more than $3 trillion in spending. She also backed the $739 billion climate spending bill that gained traction with Democrats in recent weeks. Many economists point to these price tags as sources of the four-decade-high inflation rate—an issue that led two-thirds of voters in the state to disapprove of Biden’s economic policies.

Hassan said in another ad that she is “taking on members of my own party to push a gas tax holiday” and “pushing Joe Biden to release more of our oil reserves.”

But as governor, Hassan signed a gas tax increase in 2014 and proposed a budget in 2015 to increase taxes and fees by $100 million, the New Hampshire Journal reported. As a senator, she voted against former president Donald Trump’s tax cuts in 2017, which saved an average of $1,400 for New Hampshire residents.

The Hassan campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

T.J. Duffy, a 26-year-old U.S. Postal Service driver, plans to vote for Republicans up and down the ballot in November. Hassan’s campaign message, he said, is a desperate reversal to appeal to blue-collar workers in the state.

“If you’re going to vote one way for the majority, it’s pretty unfair to say you’re bipartisan,” Duffy told the Free Beacon. “The people who don’t see gas prices as an issue don’t drive to work every single day.”

Hassan’s campaign message relies in part on her award from the Lugar Center, which in May crowned her the “most bipartisan” senator in 2021. The organization noted that Hassan rallied a Republican cosponsor on all 48 bills she introduced last year. Only two of these bills passed, though, both of them directing the Department of Health and Human Services to bolster public health programs.

Danielle Ovellette, a 32-year-old waitress, wore a “fuck Trump” bracelet as she served several Trump supporters last week at Ryan’s Place, a veteran-themed diner in Epping, N.H. Ovellette supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) in the 2020 presidential primary and refused to vote for Biden in the general election. She said she plans to vote for Hassan because of her support for a progressive agenda.

“You vote for what’s best for you,” Ovellette told the Free Beacon.

Polling data show Hassan has a narrow lead against her potential Republican challengers. Hassan ran a series of campaign ads that criticize the Republican candidates’ pro-life records after the overturn of Roe v. Wade in June. The New Hampshire primary is not until Sept. 13—a little more than a month before the election.

Paul Lessard, a 58-year-old former New Hampshire Department of Transportation employee born and raised in Manchester, N.H., said Hassan’s bipartisan message will fall flat come Election Day.

“She’s full of shit,” Lessard, a registered Republican, told the Free Beacon. “She only sides with Democrats.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Georgia governor Brian Kemp (R.) and the state’s Department of Revenue unveiled policies this week aimed at supporting pregnant women and children in the foster care system. The move comes amid accusations from Democrats in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade that Republicans d0 not prioritize the well-being of mothers or children after they are born.

Georgia’s Department of Revenue updated its guidance Monday to allow women to claim their unborn children as dependents on their tax returns. Per Georgia state law, this entitles pregnant women to a $3,000 tax exemption for each additional dependent. Georgia defines an unborn child as a fetus that is at least six weeks old and has a heartbeat.

The next day, Kemp announced that the state would pay for a marketing campaign “to help recruit and retain more foster parents” in Georgia.

“Our state believes in protecting life at all stages,” Kemp said in a statement. “And we’re committed to achieving this goal. We hope this new campaign reaches more who are ready to answer this call.”

Georgia’s new slate of pro-family policies comes following criticism from progressives alleging that Republicans who support regulation of abortion do not care to support pregnant mothers or children in the foster care system.

“Not only do [Republicans] want to force women to have children if they are pregnant,” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) said, “but when they do have them, they don’t want to provide any support for them.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) similarly argued that “Republicans don’t care about helping children after they’re born with child tax credits, affordable education, or removing guns that kill kids in schools. They’re more focused on controlling women’s health care choices through government mandated pregnancies.”

Nationally, the GOP has advocated measures that would extend benefits to pregnant mothers. Congressional Republicans introduced a bill in July, for instance, that would require men to pay child support starting at conception. 

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Democrats continue to say that “democracy is in danger” if voters don’t give liberals the majority in November, but violence by the left has defined the summer politically so far, conservative observers have told The Epoch Times.

As Democrats continue to use the Jan. 6 Committee hearings over the summer to make a special case that somehow conservatives pose a danger to the country, the violence from the left has been ongoing, one victim told The Epoch Times.

The issues affronting progressives are numerous, including the reversal of Roe v. Wade, non-action on a climate change scheme, and the lack of momentum of progressive policies under Joe Biden, which stand out as sources of anger and mounting frustration for leftist activists.

In June, a pro-life pregnancy center in Buffalo, New York, was burned out, allegedly by the radical leftwing, pro-abortion, militant group Jane’s Revenge, said the health pregnancy center called CompassCare, which helps women keep their babies rather than abort them.

“We actually saw the type of [violent] Jane’s Revenge activity happening around our Buffalo location that they were fomenting with their followers” prior to the firebombing of the clinic Rev. James Harden, CEO of CompassCare, told The Epoch Times.

“So we reported it to local law enforcement as well as the FBI two weeks in advance of the firebombing,” added Harden, who said Molotov cocktails were used to set the blaze to the CompassCare clinic.

Harden blames local and national progressive politicians for the violence, calling measures that the state of New York have taken under Democratic Gov. Kathleen Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James to investigate crisis pregnancy centers like CompassCare as “essentially joining Jane’s Revenge in attacking pro-life pregnancy centers.”

Jane’s Revenge

The Jane’s group said that they were also responsible for attacks on pro-family clinics in Dearborn, Michigan, Asheville, North Carolina, and more than a dozen other sites around the country in response to the Supreme Court’s repeal of Roe v. Wade.

“You have seen us in Madison WI, Ft. Collins CO, Reisertown MA, Olympia WA, Des Moines IA, Lynwood WA, Washington DC, Ashville NC, Buffalo NY, Hollywood FL, Vancouver WA, Frederick MA, Denton TX, Gresham OR, Eugene OR, Portland OR, among others, and we work in countless locations invisibly,” said the group in a manifesto published on Abolition Media, an anarchist website.

So far, no arrests have been made in connection with any of the acts claimed by Jane’s Revenge manifesto, although the Catholic News Agency has reported that some youths have been arrested in acts of vandalism not associated with Jane’s Revenge.

Jason Rantz, a conservative talk show host in Seattle, told The Epoch Times that several churches and pro-life crisis pregnancy centers have been attacked in Washington state as well, with no arrests other than one that doesn’t seem to be connected to the abortion issue.

Like CompassCare’s Harden, Rantz makes no bones about pointing the finger for the violence at some progressive politicians, but not all.

“We had a story that I broke several weeks ago where a Democrat state Senator up for reelection … she produced a video that was celebrating the vandalism” against a pro-life billboard in Gorst, Washington.

The video was subsequently posted on Instagram.

“They don’t really hide their intent to promote this kind of violent response when they don’t get their way politically,” said Rantz.

2020 Redux?

Seattle was the scene of some of the worst violence during the Black Lives Matter protest and riots of the summer of 2020, with sections of the downtown area made unhabitable and unpoliceable for over a month.

While stopping short of calling the 2020 riots a dress rehearsal for today’s more targeted and politically-motivated violence, Rantz does think the violence in 2020 and today are connected in that Democrats think they are best served by allowing the violence to continue.

“I also think that as with the case in 2020, that a lot of the Democrats thought that they would benefit politically from the violence so they don’t want to get too involved” in calling for more rational means of political opposition.

Targeted Assassination Attempt

The Buffalo center of CompassCare was burned out just days after a California man was arrested near the house of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in an alleged aborted effort to kill the conservative jurist.

Nicholas John Roske was arrested with a black tactical chest rig, and a tactical knife, along with a Glock 17, clips, ammunitions, and zip ties, according to the probable cause statement filed with the court.

The FBI said that Roske traveled cross-country in what they are now saying was an attempt to kill as many as three Supreme Court Justices.

Roske, 26, said that he was upset over the Supreme Court decision that reversed Roe v. Wade which returned the question of abortion back to individual states.

Roske also expressed concern that upcoming decisions by the nation’s highest court would tend to favor conservative views on the Constitution, said an FBI warrant obtained by Fox News.

‘Democracy in Danger’

According to talk show host Rantz, Democrats have become obsessed with the idea that merely having differing views on political issues of the day from those of Democrats somehow threatens the fabric of democracy.

That message was conveyed by Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-Va.), whose re-election campaign sent a handwritten postcard to at least one constituent warning that “Democracy is at stake this election day. Republicans are the problem.”

The postcard, obtained by The Epoch Times, appeared to have no identification, such as a signature, but just referred to the need to re-elect Wexton or democracy will be in danger. The flip side of the postcard was marked as having been sent by “Jennifer Wexton for Congress.”

Wexton is being opposed by GOP nominee and Vietnamese refugee, Hung Cao.

Cao, a retired special forces operator who left the Navy as a captain—one rank below the flag rank of admiral—took umbrage at the apparent suggestion by Wexton’s campaign that he would endanger democracy.

“Jennifer Wexton should immediately apologize for her campaign’s claims,” said a Cao campaign spokesman in a statement to The Epoch Times.

“Hung Cao has fought for our country honorably for 25 years. He’s put his life on the line for his fellow Americans to protect our constitution. Wexton ought to be ashamed of her campaign slandering an immigrant to this country who wore our uniform in combat,” added the campaign.

Congress Targeted

The Capitol Police stepped up security for this year’s Congressional Charity baseball game, citing threats by leftist climate activists who have threatened to disrupt the game if climate bills aren’t passed by Congress, or at least are on the verge of passing.

“The real violence being committed at this baseball game is by Congress, by Manchin, by his Republican allies and by everybody in Congress who’s failing to take action on climate change, therefore consigning millions of people to die and millions more livelihoods to be destroyed,” said Dan Sherrell, an organizer for the protest at the baseball game.

The threats came years after the game was targeted by a left-wing gunman in 2017, who opened fire on a practice field for the Congressional baseball game, critically wounding then-House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and three others before being killed by Capitol Police.

The 66-year-old former construction worker and Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, attempted to kill Scalise and others because he “hated Republicans,” according to a report by the Los Angeles Times.

Accepting Political Violence?

A pre-print of a study published in July, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, found that “[s]ubstantial minorities of the [US] population endorse violence, including lethal violence, to obtain political objectives,” with nearly 8 million people in the United States at least “somewhat willing” to kill others to advance their political goals.

Published at MedRxiv, the paper concentrated on concepts like QAnon, Donald Trump, stolen elections, and Western European traditions as justifications by conservatives who find political violence acceptable.

Yet the paper also found that the largest minority of people who feel political violence is justified are those who find race-based violence justifiable.

“More than a third of respondents (36.2%) reported that violence was at least sometimes justified ‘to prevent discrimination based on race or ethnicity,’” with nearly 10 million Americans saying that violence was always justified to prevent racial discrimination.

With the contemporary expansion of the meaning of words like “discrimination,” to encompass concepts such as “microaggressions,” it’s much easier to see how violence is becoming more commonplace in a future that appears bleak, observers say, even as progressive seek to further expand definitions to widen their dispute on conservatives.

“When you have Joe Biden, two weeks ago, asking Merrick Garland to investigate crisis pregnancy centers for fraud, it’s an all-out war on these pregnancy centers,” said Harden, who points out that they provide their services for free so fraud would be impossible—unless you redefine the meaning of the word fraud.

Harden was referring to a provision in a July 8 executive order “to protect people seeking reproductive health services from fraudulent schemes or deceptive practices.” Biden has appointed Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta to head up the Department of Justice’s task force on abortion. Gupta has been accused in the past of calling crisis pregnancy centers like the one Harden runs “fake clinics,” raising worries that the DOJ will try to shut down pro-life clinics under an expanded definition of fraud.

“It’s like a dystopian novel,” said Harden.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the White House and Hochul, James, and Wextons’ offices for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

She was only 16, pregnant, and scared.

It was 1972. That teen was Christie Ballor.

Now 67, Ballor still lives in Alliance, Ohio, where she was born. She recalled her road to recovery from having an abortion at a young age—and now witnessing Roe’s historic overturning a full 50 years later.

Her parents didn’t know better. Lacking guidance, Ballor conceived out of wedlock with her then boyfriend and, fear-driven, she visited a Canton Planned Parenthood where she was told her unborn baby was just a “lump of cells,” like a “tumor.”

She now agonizes over how foolish she was.

“I look back and I think, ‘How could I believe something like that?’” she told the newspaper. “This was not something that was sometimes said; it’s been said over and over and over. They stopped saying it publicly so much because there’s so much science that they have to refute, but one-on-one? Oh yeah.”

Tossing in the words “and no one will ever know” feigned the escape she (like other scared young women) was looking for.

Crossing State Lines at 16 for an Abortion at Dobbs Ferry Planned Parenthood

Ballor fielded the idea to her boyfriend. He said it was entirely her choice. She felt no fatherly commitment from him should she carry the pregnancy through, but he paid for her flight to get the abortion out of state, at the Dobbs Ferry Planned Parenthood facility in New York. Abortion wasn’t illegal in Ohio then, but facilities were lacking.

Looking back, the idea of a minor crossing state lines for an abortion sounds crazy—possibly even criminal. But Planned Parenthood didn’t care.

“They didn’t care that someone of age took me across state lines to have an abortion,” she recalled. “I was 16 years old; I was a minor. They could care less.”

He joined her on the flight, but was relieved when he had to wait at the airport upon the clinic station wagon’s arrival to pick up Ballor—with 5 or 10 other women who made the trip for the same reason. She envisioned her boyfriend chasing her, pleading for her not to go through with it. But as they pulled out, there was no turning back.

“I suddenly felt like I was moving along a conveyor belt with other silent, sad, and hopeless women,” she told Live Action. “From that point, I simply moved like a robot through the process, suppressing any thoughts and feelings. Looking back, I really didn’t need the sedative they gave me; my mind was already sedated with hopelessness.”

The Dobbs clinic, she described, was a “huge facility,” “like a hospital” for abortions. Neither she nor the others got counseling like they were supposed to before the procedure.

“Somebody asked, ‘Do you have any questions?’ Well, who’s going to ask a question?” she said. “And who’s going to say, ‘I’m not sure I want to do this?’ I just flew in from Ohio.”

Ballor tried to tune out the sounds and smells inside that cold, sterile room. The doctor told her, “Relax, this won’t take long.” And it didn’t. Afterward, she heard the weeping of other women in the waiting room. Her own tears started rolling down her cheeks.

“I never felt such emptiness and despair in my life,” she said. “I had been deceived into thinking my baby was just a blob of tissue. But I immediately wiped my eyes, gritted my teeth, and told myself not to cry because I had chosen to do this. Nothing could bring my baby back. I vowed to pretend this never happened. So, I walked out of that place of death and despair the same way I walked in, like a robot going through the motions. I lived in denial for a long time.”

In her own words, Ballor had killed her child. She knew it immediately. “I’ve heard this from other women too,” she said. “You don’t feel empty after you’ve just had a tumor removed.” She shut down emotionally and spent decades in denial, suppressing the demons plaguing her for what she’d done.

Falling Into Despair Before Finding Faith, Healing, And Becoming Pro-Life

Through college and her career as an elementary teacher, she sought intimate relationships out of wedlock, as sexual promiscuity was accepted, “the normal thing,” she said. “Today, it’s even harder to consider the consequences of having sex;” our bodies are precious vessels not to be thrown away “because some guy tells you he loves you.”

Subconsciously, she sought callous and abusive partners, to the extent that her former fiancé broke into her apartment and raped her at gunpoint. Out of guilt, she felt “unworthy,” like she deserved this awful treatment.

“That’s the kind of path that I was on, and I was abusing alcohol and drugs,” she shared. “I was still keeping [appearances] outward, I was able to start teaching … but nothing was satisfying. I wore a good face; I was a good actress: ‘everything fine.’”

Snowballing into the breech of utter desperation, holding a bottle of tequila in one hand, a handful of Seconal in the other, she prayed, “God, if you exist and if you think my life is worth anything anymore, please, please help me!”

What came next was a miracle.

“The answer pierced my soul not in words but in the form of an instant knowledge that I was loved by an indescribable, unfathomable love that seemed almost impossible,” she told Live Action. “I felt wrapped in a warmth and peace I cannot describe. Yes, God loved me, and my life had meaning. My parents had not provided a religious upbringing, so I would spend three decades searching to know this God who told me He loved me.”

For Ballor, it was a turning point. She described divine forces leading her toward pro-life activism, first in Washington D.C. (where nobody knew her) where she joined a protest impromptu, asking to carry a sign saying “I regret my abortion.”

Ballor’s converting to Catholicism, joining the abortion healing program “Heart,” and becoming a pro-life “defender of life” were all bricks she laid on her path of healing in the years that followed.

An activist role took shape: as educator, imparting to women the truth she so needed as a teen; as walker in the March for Life; and as speaker with the Silent No More Awareness campaign, offering her testimony on the steps of the Supreme Court.

Then, on June 24, 2022, came another miracle.

A Decision 50 Years In The Making Opens a New Pro-Life Chapter

The Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade—a full 50 years after Ballor’s abortion. She was “jubilant.”

“I was praying outside of Planned Parenthood that day, I just happened to be there—that was my regular day to go and pray at Planned Parenthood,” she said. “My prayer partner and I—our phones started going off, and I just fell to my knees.

“I was crying, I fell to my knees, and started praying, thanking God for this.”

The landmark decision is just the beginning, she admits. “But it was a gift.”

The end of Roe dethrones the protected status of abortion under the federal government; the matter of legality now falls into the hands of individual states and the people.

Now, “the fight is going to be in the states,” she said, changing hearts and minds while warding off federal pro-abortion challenges.

Far from the acts of vandalism and disturbing demonstrations initiated by abortion advocates like Jane’s Revenge, Ballor’s activities involve education, telling her story, and revealing the truth of what abortion really is.

It’s time for the groundwork for replacing abortion facilities with pro-life health centers to expand, said Ballor. And whom does she credit for this?

“Our pregnancy centers outnumber all the Planned Parenthoods and the abortion facilities,” she added. “I truly believe God’s timing was to give the pro-life movement and especially pregnancy health centers a chance to really build up … and take care of those people after abortion becomes illegal.”

Share your stories with us at emg.inspired@epochtimes.com, and continue to get your daily dose of inspiration by signing up for the Inspired newsletter at TheEpochTimes.com/newsletter

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Pennsylvania Department of State counts 4 million registered Democratic voters in the state and 3.5 million Republicans as of May 2022. But even with 550,000 more Democrats than Republicans, Pennsylvania is not quite a blue state. It is more purple, with 1.3 million registered voters who call themselves libertarian, Green, or “other.” These are the less predictable voters, who make Pennsylvania a swing state, capable of going Democratic or Republican.

And with 19 electoral votes, it is a must-win for presidential hopefuls.

Many, but not all Pennsylvania Republicans, believe Donald Trump is still the person for the job. They say it is vital to regaining the power of the Oval Office.

“It’s absolutely central to our survival,” Schuylkill county author Russell S. Hepler told The Epoch Times. “And 2022 as well. I don’t want to underemphasize this upcoming election, because that’s going to lay the foundation for 2024, for good, or for bad.”

Hepler, a pastor was speaking as an individual, not for his congregation. His book is titled “Yes! We Can Turn This Nation Around!: A Practical Guide for Christian Political Involvement.”

Hepler says the United States is going in the wrong direction.

“If they keep pushing this radical leftist, economic, environmental, and cultural agenda, there isn’t going to be much left to America. When you’ve got a Supreme Court nominee who can’t even define a woman, we know this nation is in serious trouble,” Hepler said. “You can’t survive if you deny reality. That has been the basis for Marxism since its beginning. It’s always based on lies. It’s based on, ‘whatever I say the truth is,’ as the government, as the party, as the big brother.’”

Rick Rathfon, chairman of Clarion County Republican party, agrees that winning is critical for Republicans.

“Look at the mess that Biden has got us into in just 18 months. I mean, we need to take both the House and Senate back in November and to try to restore sanity and dignity in Washington,” Rathfon told The Epoch Times adding that if former President Donald Trump runs, he would support him.

But it will be ugly.

One Party, Two Views

Democrats will be out to destroy Trump from day one, Rathfon said. “They’ve never quit trying to destroy him. Trump did a lot of good things for our country. He absolutely did. But I think it would be a mistake for him to run, just because of the hatred that the Democrats and the mainstream media have for him.”

“I love Governor Ron DeSantis from Florida. I hear that in my travels, and from a lot of state committee people.”

The Pennsylvania Republican Party did not respond to requests for comment in this story.

Sam Faddis is a retired CIA operations officer and author of “Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA” and “Willful Neglect: The Dangerous Illusion of Homeland Security.” Faddis has spoken to many Republicans as an organizer of a coalition of more than 75 patriot groups across Pennsylvania that are working together on election reform and other issues.

The majority of Pennsylvania’s Republican voters consider themselves “Make America Great Again/America first” people Faddis said, and they are 100 percent behind Donald Trump on the issues, even if they sometimes have questions about his tactics.

Issues are the center of gravity overwhelmingly for the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, he says.

“There is a gap about the size of the Grand Canyon between those [MAGA] people and a very large number of established Republican politicians sitting in Harrisburg,” Faddis told The Epoch Times.

“While I know the establishment does not want to recognize that fact—they want to continue to pretend like that issue doesn’t exist—for the base, that is kind of the issue.”

The base does not feel like establishment Republicans are representing people and what they stand for, he said.

“We’re over here with Donald Trump again, at least on all of the issues, and you guys want to pretend like 2016 never happened.”

Trump is Different

The problem is that Trump is fundamentally different from any president that came before him in recent memory, Republican or Democrat, Faddis said.

“He’s totally outside the system. He’s not part of the uni-party.”

The establishment in both parties have a general consensus on how America’s government is going to be run, Faddis said. That is, always bigger, always more expensive.

“Donald Trump is a wrecking ball, so of course he has to be destroyed as far as the establishment is concerned,” Faddis said.

If the Republican who runs is not MAGA, their campaign is dead-on-arrival in Pennsylvania, Faddis said. And he believes it would be a waste of time for another MAGA-minded candidate to challenge Trump.

“If Donald Trump runs, he will, head and shoulders, without any question, be the choice,” Faddis said. “There’s no question. I can’t imagine that another MAGA-type person could challenge him in the primary in Pennsylvania and have any hope of winning. That’s not possible.”

If Trump decides not to run, Faddis believes DeSantis would be the number one person that the most voters would instantaneously coalesce around.

“I think that, frankly, would be a smart political move, because in some ways, I think DeSantis is a less controversial guy than Trump, for the middle,” Faddis said.

“I can’t conceive of anybody, even a dyed-in-the-wool guy like Ron DeSantis, beating Trump in Pennsylvania. I mean, DeSantis is very popular here. And I love his policies. But you could not possibly convince the base to walk away from Donald Trump as it stands.”

Primary Fight

Several Republicans indicated that they don’t want to see DeSantis and Trump battle in a primary. For many, it would be like watching parents fight when you love them both and don’t want to choose a favorite.

Toni Shuppe, founder and CEO of Audit the Vote PA, has been investigating anomalies in the 2020 election since right after it happened.

“I personally believe, based on what I found through Audit the Vote, that Donald Trump won in 2020,” Shuppe told The Epoch Times. “I feel like he won the first time, he deserves his second term. I would vote for him if he runs. But I also really like Ron DeSantis.”

For most folks in this story, the dream ticket would be Trump and DeSantis, although not everyone is convinced DeSantis would be willing to take a vice presidential role when he could govern Florida instead.

For Shuppe, the dream ticket would be Trump and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem. “DeSantis is young. He’s doing such a good job in Florida. I would like to see Trump and Kristi, and then potentially, eight years of DeSantis,” Shuppe said. “I think, in order to get the country back on track, restoring our constitutional republic, it’s going to take a long time. And I think that that is why a Trump-and-somebody-else ticket makes sense first, followed by eight years of someone like Ron DeSantis. That could really get things moving in the right direction.”

Kurt Dock, a Lancaster Township Republican Committee member, would like to see Trump run, but if he doesn’t, Dock believes the Republican party has strong candidates in Noem and DeSantis.

He says the Democrats have moved too far left.

“When the pendulum swings one way and goes so extreme, it usually comes back just that hard the other way,” Dock said.

“I would like to see someone a little bit more centrist. Not so much to the right. Instead of continuing the alienation, try to get some of the people that are very center, or center-left to come to our side. I don’t think it would be that tough to do.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

‘Religious liberty is fragile, and religious intolerance and persecution have been recurring features of human history’

The Supreme Court justice who drafted the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade decried a “growing hostility” toward religion in the West in his first public appearance after the ruling.

“The problem that looms is not just indifference to religion, it’s not just ignorance about religion,” Alito said, starting his keynote address at the 2022 Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit in Rome on July 21. His 37-minute speech was released on July 28.

“There’s also growing hostility to religion or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors,” the justice said.

The keynote address marks the top judge’s first appearance after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion in the United States, with a ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It came as a defiant comeback as lawmakers in the United States and across the world voiced opposition to the ruling, with some even calling the June ruling an “assault” on democracy.

‘The Proud Civilization’

Alito, a Roman Catholic, reflected on the parallels between the United States and Rome, as once a “proud” spiritual civilization, nonetheless proved “no human achievement is ever permanent.”

“I find myself thinking about the proud civilization that was centered here two millennia ago,” he said. “As I think back, I also think ahead, and I wonder what historians may say centuries from now about the contribution of the United States to world civilization.”

“One thing I hope they will say is that our country, after a lot of fits and starts, and ups and downs, eventually showed the world that it is possible to have a stable and successful society in which people of diverse faiths live and work together harmoniously and productively while still retaining their own beliefs,” Alito added, noting that the fact that Americans can exercise religious liberty has been “truly a historic accomplishment” for the country.

In this United States, the Justice said, where religious liberty goes hand-in-hand with many other rights, a “growing hostility” towards religion is threatening the protection of this sacred right across the country.

“And the problem that looms is not just indifference to religion, it’s not just ignorance about religion. There’s also growing hostility to religion, or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors,” the justice added.

Yet, according to Alito, this hostility to religion and religious freedom threatens a range of other fundamental rights.

“The exercise of religion very often involves speech, a spoken or written prayer, the recitation of Scripture, a homily, a religious book or article these are all forms of speech they are also forms of religious exercise. If this sort of speech can be suppressed or punished, what is to stop the state from crushing other forms of expression?

“We consider the relationship between freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. A religious service in a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple is a form of assembly. If a government can ban those assemblies, will it hesitate to outlaw others?

“On the other hand, if religious liberty is allowed, it will be harder for the state to restrict other speech and other assemblies,” Alito said.

While most legal academics nowadays believes that “religion doesn’t merit special protection,” Alito added, “the Constitution of the United States provides a clear answer” to the question of whether religious liberty warrants protection.

“Constitution protects the free exercise of religion … And for judges like me, who think to the belief that it matters what the Constitution says and what it does not say, that is enough,” the justice said. “It’s the law, and don’t ask me why.”

‘What Really Wounded Me’

In what he described as an “unusual” sense of “diplomatic impulse” in him, Alito responded to foreign lawmakers and celebrities who “felt perfectly fine commenting on American law.

“One of these was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson—but he paid the price—post hoc ergo propter hoc right?” Alito said, applying the “after this, therefore resulting from it” fallacy to the fact that the UK PM resigned after voicing opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.

But the justice did not stop there.

“What really wounded me—what really wounded me—was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision—whose name may not be spoken—with the Russian attack on Ukraine,” Alito said, referring to Prince Harry, who claimed the overturn of Roe v. Wade was a part of “a global assault on democracy and freedom” in a speech in July.

Religious Liberty

The justice went further to reflect on religious persecution across the world—such as in Nigeria, Egypt, and India—and, most prominently China, but all were not successful.

“During my lifetime, the People’s Republic of China did its best to eradicate religion completely. And yet it failed. Just as the Roman emperors who spent centuries trying to destroy Christianity failed,” the justice said.

As an example of this, Alito added, was that “the Cultural Revolution did its best to destroy religion, but it was not successful. It could not extinguish the religious impulse.”

The cultural revolution was a tumultuous period between 1967 to 1977, during which the Chinese Communist Party sought to eradicate traditional beliefs and values.

Alito’s speech came after the highest court made multiple rulings on cases pertaining to religious liberty in the United States, including a June ruling that ruled in favor of a football coach who petitioned for his right to pray and another ruling in the same month that struck down Maine’s ban on religious school funding.

China’s Long-Arm Persecution

Currently, plaintiffs in another high-profile religious freedom case before the Supreme Court is seeking in what they describe as China’s long-arm religious persecution in the United States.

Twenty-three attorneys general (AGs) across the nation, in a joint amicus brief, described the point of law in the case as “an issue of national importance,” supporting the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs’ complaint (pdf) describes around 40 incidents of threats or physical assault against them for participating in parades representing Falun Gong, handing out flyers about Falun Gong, or managing a booth with Falun Gong-related literature in the United States.

Falun Gong is a spiritual practice consisting of meditative exercises and moral teachings centered on the tenets of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance. It became widely popular in China in the 1990s. In 1999, the communist regime, perceiving that popularity to be a threat, began nationwide persecution targeting the practice and its adherents.

Millions of practitioners have since been held in detention centers, jails, and labor camps across China, where they are subject to physical torture, forced labor, and forced organ harvesting.

With respect to one incident in July 2011, two plaintiffs describe in graphic detail an attack by Li Huahong, head of the Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, a CCP-affiliated organization that targets religious dissidents overseas with violence and harassment.

According to two witnesses, a mob of 20 to 30 people then surrounded two Falun Gong practitioners. One of them was held for about 30 minutes until the police arrived, while a mob yelled “kill her” and “beat her to death.”

“In this case, a religious group known as the Falun Gong, which originated in China, experienced persecution and harassment on American soil,” according to a statement from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office on June 29.

“The group started in China under a Communist regime hostile to religious pluralism,” the AGs wrote. “Many Falun Gong practitioners have thus fled to America. Yet even after coming here, Petitioners allegedly continue to face persecution and abuse from Communist sympathizers.”

The AGs, in their amicus brief, said the 2021 ruling of a lower court dismissing the case is “wrong on an issue of national importance that stands at the center of our constitutional tradition”—namely, religious liberty.

In doing so, the court “unduly narrowed a statute meant to bar the worst acts of violence in many of America’s sacred places,” the AGs said.

“America’s commitment to religious freedom is ‘essential.’ … It constitutes ‘one of our most treasured and jealously guarded constitutional rights,’” the AGs wrote, quoting previous court opinions.

“Our hearts are restless until we rest in God,” Alito said in his speech.

“And, therefore, the champions of religious liberty who go out as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves can expect to find hearts that are open to their message,” the justice said.

Eva Fu contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

What’s Happening:

Have you been rooting for Senator Joe Manchin? The man has almost singlehandedly stopped his own party from blowing up the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court and spending recklessly.

Well, it looks like it’s about time to stop rooting for the rogue Democrat.

For months, Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin refused to support Biden’s radical spending plan.  But, with just months until the midterms, the “moderate” is suddenly in favor of massive spending and higher taxes.

From The Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Wednesday said they had struck a climate, health and tax package deal.

It seems Mitch McConnell was going to oppose the semiconductor deal if Manchin supported the spending bill. But it seems McConnell moved too quickly and was tricked by the Democrat.

From The Hill:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who voted for the chips and science bill, had vowed to block the legislation if Democrats stuck to their plans to pass a reconciliation bill that raised taxes and spent hundreds of billions of dollars on climate-related programs.

Why did McConnell trust a man like Manchin, who consistently folds when the heat is on?

From Twitter:

Absolute scumbag move. Manchin waited until Rs moved CHIPS, giving up their leverage and then reversed course the very minute they passed it.

Should be a lesson for every R not work with Dems. https://t.co/IMagnbiXFF

— Mike Palicz (@Mike_Palicz) July 27, 2022

Absolute scumbag move. Manchin waited until Rs moved CHIPS, giving up their leverage and then reversed course the very minute they passed it.

Should be a lesson for every R not work with Dems.

But where McConnell failed miserably, House Republicans might have a chance to strike back.

From The Hill:

In a memo to all House GOP offices Wednesday night, leadership recommended that Republican lawmakers vote against the CHIPS-Plus bill…

“The partisan Democrat agenda has given us record inflation, and now they are poised to send our country into a crushing recession,” the office added.

After McConnell foolishly voted for the CHIPS bill and was tricked by Manchin, House Republicans are urging its members to vote no on the semiconductor package.

The Republican leadership in the House is compelling members to vote against the package because of how Senate Democrats—namely Manchin—went back on their word.

If Republicans in the House all vote no on the CHIPS bill, it will require every last Democrat to vote yes to pass it.

It’s unclear, as of right now, if Democrats have enough votes. A number of progressive Democrats might not want to pass a bill that hands billions to big companies.

Not to mention the fact that this CHIPS bill is supposed to rival China, a country many Democrats seem to love more than America.

If House Republicans are able to stall the CHIPS bill, they might be able to block the reconciliation package.

Either case, this episode reveals just how untrustworthy both McConnell and Manchin are.

McConnell should have stuck to his guns and waited for the reconciliation bill to fail, before voting on the CHIPS bill.

He trusted Manchin, a Democrat who is easily pressured by his radical party to do what they demand.

Manchin might come from a conservative state but, at the end of the day, he’s going to do what Schumer wants.

This might cost him support back home, but keep him in the good graces of the D.C. swamp.

And it’s another lesson to Republican lawmakers: don’t trust the left.

Key Takeaways:

• Joe Manchin tricked McConnell and is supporting Biden’s massive spending bill.
• McConnell voted for the CHIPS bill, paving the way for “BBB.”
• House Republicans are now trying to block the CHIPS bill.

SOURCE: The Patriot Journal

The man accused of conspiring to murder Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh asked the internet for assassination tips weeks before he flew to the nation’s capital loaded with weapons.

Nicholas Roske searched on Google for the “quietest semi auto rifle” and the “most effective place to stab someone” before he arrived outside Kavanaugh’s home in June, according to an FBI warrant obtained by Fox News. The 26-year-old also said in an online chat forum he was going to “remove some people from the supreme court” to “stop roe v wade from being overturned.”

“I could get at least one, which would change the votes for decades to come,” Roske said, “and I am shooting for 3.”

Kavanaugh’s brush with death came amid efforts from congressional Democrats to stall legislation meant to beef up security for Supreme Court justices. Additional protections for the judges were provided promptly after the threat to Kavanaugh’s life.

The High Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June—and the leaked draft preceding it—prompted a wave of left-wing violence and intimidation. At least 60 crisis centers, which counsel women on alternatives to abortion, have been firebombed or vandalized since May.

Threats have also been made to other branches of government. Progressive activists are agitating to shut down Thursday evening’s congressional baseball game due to the government’s alleged lack of action on climate change. In 2017, a former campaign volunteer for socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) shot five people, including Rep. Steve Scalise (R., La.), at a Republican practice event for the baseball game.

Roske, who called the police on himself, was apprehended by law enforcement outside Kavanaugh’s home in possession of a handgun, knife, pepper spray, and burglary tools. He has pleaded not guilty to attempted assassination.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

After a long week of constant violence, the Portland, Oregon, police chief took to Twitter with what amounted to a plea to criminals in the community to stop their behavior.

“The violence shown last night toward officers and over the weekend is shocking and reprehensible. In the last four days, officers have been shot at, had suspects fight with them, run over by a vehicle and another almost run over,” Chief of Portland Police Chuck Lovell posted to Twitter on Tuesday.

Several violent acts overwhelmed the city’s police department last week, Fox News reported.

One such incident involved a suspect hitting two police cruisers with his truck and almost running over a cop. The suspect, who was confronted by police for reports of gunshots nearby, escaped in his vehicle.

A separate incident saw an officer get hit by a vehicle during a stolen vehicle investigation. The officer was rushed to the hospital for their wounds, according to KGW-TV.

Portland cops were also involved in an altercation with a domestic violence suspect, resulting in the criminal’s death after he pulled out a gun.

Lovell continued his Twitter post by trying to remind the city — including its criminals — that his officers “deserve to go home at night” alive. Law-abiding citizens don’t need to be told that.

Officers are answering 911 emergency calls trying to help people. They deserve to go home at night to their loved ones. They deserve and need the community’s support as they continue to help make a difference in this city.

— Chief Chuck Lovell (@ChiefCLovell) July 26, 2022

Rank-and-file members of the department aren’t happy either.

“It’s beginning to get frustrating for the officers and hopefully members of the community are getting frustrated, as well,” Portland police Officer Derek Carmon told KGW.

Crime in the liberal city has gotten worse over the past two years, especially after the death of George Floyd in May 2020. Because of this, Portland has seen its fair share of “defund the police” and other social justice movements.

The coronavirus pandemic did not help matters either as citizens were told by the federal and state governments to coop up inside their homes for several weeks.

Despite the City Council’s attempt to appease activists by cutting funding for the Portland Police Bureau in 2020, the city did not see a decrease in violence.

In fact, continued violence forced the city council to add $5.2 million worth of funds back into the police department in November 2021, PBS reported.

Just a month ago, the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling led riotous protesters to damage local businesses.

Worst Rioter of 2020 Busted After Leaving the Price Tag on His Own Botched Molotov Cocktail

Last week’s incidents only added to this ongoing issue for the Oregonian city.

A network of progressive prosecutors boosted by the left-wing billionaire George Soros is rushing to defend a Virginia prosecutor who lied to reduce a career criminal’s prison sentence.

The Soros-funded group slammed circuit court judge James Plowman for removing Loudoun County commonwealth’s attorney Buta Biberaj (D.) from a robbery case. Plowman took the unprecedented step of throwing the progressive prosecutor and her team off the case after discovering she had withheld information about a 19-year-old burglar’s criminal record in order to “sell” a lenient prison sentence. In an amicus brief to the Virginia Supreme Court, Fair and Just Prosecution said the judge trampled on the prosecutorial discretion of Biberaj, whom voters elected “to reverse the course of mass incarceration.”

The missive is the latest instance in which Fair and Just Prosecution has waved off attacks on its left-wing prosecutors. Biberaj in 2020 signed on to defend Arlington County commonwealth’s attorney Parisa Dehghani-Tafti (D.) after a circuit judge demanded she submit written justification for the charging, dismissing, or settling of cases. Biberaj last December also joined dozens of progressive prosecutors to support Los Angeles County district attorney George Gascón (D.), who is facing a recall and a lawsuit from his deputies over his radical sentencing policies. Gascón and Dehghani-Tafti returned the favor and this month signed on to Biberaj’s appeal.

Soros has donated more than $40 million since 2014 to help elect liberal prosecutors who have moved to lighten bail and sentencing guidelines in half of America’s largest jurisdictions. But voters are turning on progressive prosecutors as crime rates skyrocket across the country. Biberaj, who ran with nearly a million dollars of aid from Soros, has come under fire for her handling of child endangerment and domestic abuse cases, freeing offenders who are a danger to the public. Her prosecutorial approach has generated a recall effort.

Kevin Enrique Valle was initially charged in Loudoun in May 2021 with two felony burglaries, a crime that carries a minimum five-year prison sentence in Virginia. But he had been arrested the same month for 10 other burglaries. Given the charges and his past convictions as a minor, Valle could have faced decades in prison. But those charges were not written up, and Valle entered into a plea agreement with Biberaj’s office, which sentenced him to just six months in prison. Plowman called the plea deal “an overt misrepresentation by omission.”

In its amicus brief, Fair and Just Prosecution painted Plowman’s court order as political retaliation, since he had formerly held Biberaj’s office as commonwealth’s attorney in Loudoun County. Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares (R.) said in a letter that the Loudoun County Court “has rightfully lost confidence in Ms. Biberaj, her deputies, and her office’s ability and willingness to effectively seek justice in this matter.” Biberaj responded by telling Miyares to “stay in your lane.”

In addition to campaign support, Soros has thrown tens of millions of dollars at justice reform groups that provide professional development to progressive prosecutors. The Tides Center, a criminal justice reform group, since 2016 has received more than $30 million from Soros’s Open Society Foundations, funneling its donations to third-party entities like Fair and Just Prosecution.

Biberaj has participated in three Fair and Just Prosecution-sponsored trips since her election. She joined Dehghani-Tafti and Fairfax County commonwealth’s attorney Steve Descano (D.) at the group’s annual convention in Durham, N.C., shortly after the three progressive Virginia prosecutors won their elections in 2019. One year later, she traveled with the group to New York City along with Philadelphia district attorney Larry Krasner (D.). Many of the same prosecutors, including recently recalled San Francisco district attorney Chesa Boudin (D.), attended a symposium months later in Los Angeles, though Biberaj was not present. This May, she attended a Fair and Just Prosecution junket in Washington, D.C.

Virginians for Safe Communities told the Washington Free Beacon it is “fast approaching the signature threshold” to trigger a recall election for Biberaj.

“We expect to file with the court by Labor Day and put Buta Biberaj on trial for her negligence, misuse of office, and incompetence in her duties,” said Sean Kennedy, the group’s president. “Buta Biberaj has alienated everyone in Loudoun County, including law enforcement, Democratic Party officials, and even her own staff, so she has to rely on her Soros-funded travel buddies to defend her.”

Top Democrats in Loudoun County have signaled they are ready to back a prosecutor other than Biberaj in the next election, whether through a recall or during the next commonwealth’s attorney election in 2023, the Free Beacon reported in June.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The Department of Justice’s third-ranking official has a history of calling crisis pregnancy centers “fake clinics,” a false, inflammatory description employed by terrorist groups that have recently attacked the pro-life organizations.

Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta deployed the rhetoric in a 2020 letter urging senators to vote against a Trump judicial nominee. Nearly 60 crisis centers, which counsel women on alternatives to abortion, have been firebombed or vandalized over the past two months. An anarchist group that has claimed responsibility for many of the attacks, Jane’s Revenge, has used the same “fake clinic” rhetoric as Gupta.

The Biden administration has repeatedly accused Republicans of causing acts of violence through their rhetoric. The White House baselessly claimed a GOP-backed bill in Florida to restrict teaching about sexual orientation to young children “encourages bullying and threatens students’ mental health, physical safety, and well-being.” Democrats tried to link Rep. Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) to a mass shooting in Buffalo, N.Y., in May that left 10 people dead. They claimed that Stefanik’s opposition to mass illegal immigration echoed the Buffalo shooter’s writings about “great replacement theory.”

Gupta’s remarks carry new significance after she was appointed this month to lead the Justice Department’s reproductive rights task force, formed to protect access to abortions in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Gupta also supervises the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which prosecutes attacks against reproductive health facilities, a classification that includes crisis pregnancy centers.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.), who introduced a bill this month to expand criminal penalties for attacks on the centers, said Gupta’s remarks are “no surprise” given the Justice Department’s “disregard” for the assaults on pro-life organizations.

“It’s shameful that Joe Biden’s Department of Justice—responsible for enforcing our laws—is ignoring the epidemic of violent attacks against organizations that are just trying to provide health care to women in need,” Hawley told the Washington Free Beacon.

While it has moved to protect abortion clinics, the Justice Department has largely ignored the violence against pro-life centers. Gupta and other DOJ leaders met with civil rights and pro-abortion groups this week to update them on the task force’s work. The Justice Department does not appear to have met with pro-life groups that have sought meetings with the agency over the firebombing.

Gupta slammed crisis pregnancy centers while opposing the nomination of Judge David Dugan because of his affiliation with a center in Illinois. At the time, Gupta led the civil rights group Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

The head of one pro-life group that has sought a DOJ meeting says Gupta’s remarks make her “unfit” to lead the task force.

“Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta’s attacks on pregnancy resource centers which help pregnant women in need are shameful and utterly irresponsible,” said CatholicVote president Brian Burch.

“Ms. Gupta should be investigating and prosecuting the radical criminals who are vandalizing and firebombing pregnancy resource centers nationwide,” Burch told the Free Beacon, adding that Attorney General Merrick Garland should “immediately rescind” Gupta’s appointment.

Gupta is not the only high-ranking DOJ official to attack crisis pregnancy centers. Kristen Clarke, the head of the agency’s civil rights division and a task force member, called the centers “harmful” and “predatory” after a 2018 Supreme Court ruling in favor of the facilities in 2018, the Free Beacon reported.

As part of its work, the task force is centralizing information about the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a federal statute that makes it a crime to threaten or attack reproductive health centers. The Justice Department has brought multiple cases against activists who blocked the entrances of abortion clinics, but none so far against people who firebombed pro-life organizations.

The Justice Department did not address questions about Gupta’s comments. The agency provided comment from the FBI, which said it is investigating “a series of attacks and threats targeting pregnancy resource centers, faith-based organizations, and reproductive health clinics across the country, as well as to judicial buildings, including the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“The incidents are being investigated as potential acts of domestic violent extremism, FACE Act violations, or violent crime matters, depending on the facts of each case,” an FBI representative told the Free Beacon.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Ashli Babbitt, the 35-year-old Air Force veteran who was fatally shot outside the U.S. Capitol Speaker’s Lobby by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on Jan. 6, 2021, was “murdered … under the color of authority,” a use-of-force expert has concluded after reviewing video footage of the incident.

Just before 2:45 p.m. on Jan. 6, 2021, Babbitt began climbing through a side window leading into the Speaker’s Lobby and was shot in the left anterior shoulder by Byrd. She was pronounced dead a half-hour later at MedStar Washington Hospital Center.

Stan Kephart, who has testified in court more than 350 times as an expert witness on policing issues, reviewed the shooting in the new Epoch TV documentary, “The Real Story of Jan. 6,” which is streaming on Epoch TV.

“My conclusion … based on what I saw and observed in the video clips is that Ashli Babbitt was murdered,” said Kephart, a 42-year veteran of law enforcement and former director of security for the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics. He has testified on topics that include excessive force, police discipline, officer safety, and crowd control.

“She was shot and killed under color of authority by an officer who violated not only the law but his oath and committed an arrestable offense.”

Kephart said he saw nothing in the video evidence to indicate that Byrd should have felt his life was in danger or that he was at risk of serious harm from the 5-foot-2, 110-pound San Diego woman wrapped in a Trump flag.

“In order for lethal force to be authorized, the officer has to be able to articulate that he or she was in fear of losing his life, was about to be killed, or grievously injured,” Kephart said in the documentary. “There is nothing I saw in that film that would indicate that was possible or probable from what unfolded.”

Byrd’s attorney, Mark Schamel, in a statement to The Epoch Times, called Kephart’s conclusion “unsupported and erroneous” and said the lieutenant was justified in the use of force.

“When Ms. Babbitt entered through the broken window and entered the inner protected area, wearing a backpack and refusing the verbal commands of multiple armed federal officers with weapons drawn, the threat she posed was clear and Lt. Byrd, as the first officer in the final line of defense, was absolutely justified in his use of force.”

Aaron Babbitt, Ashli’s husband, said Kephart reached the same conclusion as other law enforcement experts, including former New York City police commissioners Bernard Kerik and Ray Kelly.

“I loved hearing that from him. He’s obviously well-versed in the use of force,” Babbitt told The Epoch Times, referring to Kephart. “He’s clearly a very smart man who has been in that business for a long time. He should be listened to.”

Babbitt disputed Schamel’s claim that his wife “refused” verbal commands from Byrd or anyone else. He questioned why Byrd was wearing a COVID face covering if he hoped to be heard shouting instructions.

“Witness testimony I’ve read, police included, said they heard no warning,” Babbitt said, adding that if they thought the situation was serious enough for deadly force, “the mask should probably come off your face. Complete disregard for human life and not following the use-of-force continuum.”

Video shot by political activist John “Jayden X” Sullivan through the Speaker’s Lobby windows shows Byrd had his finger on the trigger of his Glock pistol before Babbitt ever appeared in the window. He then removed his finger from the trigger for a short time before advancing on the open window and firing as Babbitt began to lean through.

Babbitt’s killing still hangs like a dark cloud over the events of that day. Questions remain about her death, even after the June release of a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) report that concluded there was insufficient evidence that Byrd used excessive force when he shot the unarmed Babbitt as she attempted to climb through the broken window.

Kephart said Byrd should have written a firearms discharge report immediately after the incident. Byrd declined to give a statement to Internal Affairs detectives and was never formally interviewed before eventually being cleared of wrongdoing.

According to the June DOJ report, Byrd agreed to a “voluntary debrief and walk-through of the scene” with his attorney in late January 2021, in which he stated if the “mob of rioters” outside the Speaker’s Lobby gained entry, “it wasn’t going to go well.”

‘I Had No Clue’

In a 2021 interview with Lester Holt on NBC, Byrd said he couldn’t see into the Speaker’s Lobby hallway through the glass, didn’t know if the person climbing into the window was male or female, and couldn’t tell if the person had anything in their hands.

“It’s impossible for me to see what’s on the other side because we had created such a barricade, and it was high enough that the visibility was impossible,” Byrd said. He said he didn’t know there were three Capitol Police officers standing with their backs to the entry doors.

Byrd said police “were essentially trapped” in the lobby, and “there was nowhere to retreat” because entrances were barricaded.

“It sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door,” he said.

Byrd said he repeatedly shouted for people to get back—”I was yelling at the top of my lungs”—but added it was possible that he couldn’t be heard in the hallway.

When Holt asked Byrd if he knew whom he had shot, Byrd replied: “I had no clue. I didn’t even know it was a female until hours way later, sometime later on that night.”

He said he only found out later that Babbitt had no weapon.

“There was no way to know that at that time,” Byrd said. “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions of—

“I know, based on my training and my policy, what I did was appropriate.”

Kephart said the shooting should have been evaluated using a litmus test from the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor: whether force was ever needed and appropriate in the situation, the extent of the injury, and “whether the force was applied in a good-faith manner to maintain and restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically.”

The DOJ report on the shooting was released in June by Judicial Watch, which sued the DOJ for Jan. 6, 2021, case records.

“After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances in this case, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lt. Byrd violated Ms. McEntee’s [sic] civil rights by willfully using more force than was reasonably necessary, or was not acting in self-defense or the defense of others,” the undated 14-page document reads. The report referred to Babbitt by her previous married name. She married Aaron Babbitt in 2019.

Kephart said the standard set by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor doesn’t refer to “willfully” using more force than necessary.

“They inserted willfully above knowingly, which is at best contradictory, and worst, disingenuous,” Kephart told The Epoch Times in an email.

Although Byrd refused to give a formal statement to investigators, the DOJ concluded that his apparent belief that Babbitt posed an imminent, potentially deadly threat was “reasonable.”

About five hours after the shooting, Byrd met with Internal Affairs detectives from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, which investigated the shooting on behalf of the U.S. Capitol Police; he said he wanted to consult an attorney first. Byrd never made a formal statement to Internal Affairs investigators.

In his statement to The Epoch Times, Schamel, Byrd’s attorney, said that “actual experts who train federal agents and officers in the use of force have described Lt. Byrd’s conduct as exemplary.”

Investigative Reports

A Metropolitan Police Department Internal Affairs investigator who reviewed video footage from Capitol security cameras from just before Babbitt was shot reported, “Ms. Babbitt does not appear to be carrying anything in her hands,” according to an internal police report released by Judicial Watch.

One U.S. Capitol Police sergeant who was in the Speaker’s Lobby when Babbitt was shot told Internal Affairs investigators at the time of the shooting “there was a lot of screaming” and “I heard somebody screaming, ‘Get back, get back,’” an Internal Affairs report said.

A Capitol Police officer who was in the Speaker’s Lobby with Byrd said before Babbitt appeared in the window, various officers were shouting for the crowd to get back. After Byrd fired his weapon, the officer said, Byrd was “shaky” and “teary-eyed.”

“You know, you can just tell, like, I ain’t gonna say when somebody regrets to do something, when somebody just is just nervous, you know, they’ll rub their head, their [sic] pace back and forth,” the officer told an Internal Affairs agent.

However, one of the three officers stationed on the outside of the Speaker’s Lobby doors, where Ashli Babbitt and other protesters were gathered, told an investigator “he did not recall hearing any verbal commands being given from inside the Speaker’s Lobby,” according to a Jan. 6, 2021, police report.

One of the other two officers stationed outside the doors and facing the angry crowd also was asked if he heard anyone inside the Speaker’s Lobby saying anything.

“No, sir,” he replied. When asked if he considered using his firearm on rioters, he said, “So, you’re accountable for every round in, in your service weapon; obviously, you can’t shoot into an empty crowd. That’s so wrong.”

The third officer stationed at the doors also told investigators he didn’t hear any communications from police inside the Speaker’s Lobby, according to a Jan. 6, 2021, Internal Affairs report.

A Metropolitan Police Department Internal Affairs Division summary from Babbitt’s Jan. 7, 2021, autopsy said the medical examiner determined “the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the left anterior shoulder and the manner of death was ruled a homicide.”

Kephart said he was shocked at a photograph from the House floor earlier on Jan. 6, 2021, showing Byrd with his gun drawn and aimed in the direction of Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) and two other men.

“This man [Byrd] should be directed to submit to a fitness-for-duty examination immediately by his chief of police,” Kephart said. “Based on this photo alone, he is not qualified to possess a firearm. He is clearly demonstrating a conscious disregard for where he is. His firearm should be at a ‘low ready’ position until target acquisition.

“Any qualified firearms instructor would be horrified at this photo in view of what transpired after the picture was taken, where he shot and killed Ashli Babbitt, disregarding officers in the backdrop, and did not advance and assess the shot or provide first aid and take control of the crime scene—all of which he has been taught, trained, and certified to do.”

Nehls has spoken repeatedly of his belief that the shooting was murder. Nehls served as sheriff of Fort Bend County, Texas, from 2012 until 2020.

“The video was quite clear,” Nehls told Newsmax in 2021. “It was murder.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

As more voters across the country turn toward the Republican Party, retired Army Brig. Gen. Don Bolduc is closing the margin of an expected Democratic victory in the New Hampshire Senate race.

In the 2020 Republican Senate primary, Bolduc carried almost 60,000 votes as the runner-up. According to a poll taken in April, only one point separated incumbent Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) and Bolduc, one of 11 candidates for the Republican primary scheduled for Sept. 13.

Bolduc says he’s very concerned about the future of the United States.

“Currently, there is a plan for top-down governance and the abandonment of America’s values and principles,” he told The Epoch Times, describing it as a plan to “undermine” the United States.

Bolduc said “America is weak” at the moment, and there are a variety of issues it must continue to confront if the nation ever wants to recover its strength. These include, but aren’t limited to, abortion, gun control, the southern border, and the economy.

Abortion Violence 

On the issue of abortion in the United States, Bolduc said, “The Supreme Court made the right decision by sending it back to the states.”

Regardless of which side of the issue women find themselves on, he said that “[they] have more control at the state level than they would ever have at the federal level.”

As a pro-life candidate, he considers the narrative that many on the left are pushing to be “very dangerous.”

While resident Joe Biden calls upon “pro-choice senators and a pro-choice House to codify Roe as federal law,” Hassan and colleagues are urging the president to “defend Americans’ rights to abortion” by executive order. In a recent 30-second television ad, she also said she would “fight and never back down” to protect the “personal freedoms” of women seeking an abortion.

Bolduc said the position of Biden and Hassan not only devalues life but has also created a climate for violence by claiming the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. To that end, Heidi Matzke, executive director of the Alternatives Pregnancy Center in Sacramento, shared at a Senate hearing on July 12 that “pregnancy care centers from coast to coast are being targeted for violent assaults of vandalism and hateful attacks online and in the media.”

For example, “fund abortion; abort God” was recently spray-painted on the Pathways Pregnancy Care Center in Littleton, New Hampshire. Police are investigating the incident as a hate crime.

According to Bolduc, violent assaults and vandalism are “just indicative of the divisiveness and the disunity promoted by the left.” These issues are “at the heart of why we have the problems that we have here in this country.”

Gun Control Confusion

Bolduc said the number of shootings across the country is also an indicator of an increasingly disgruntled and violent society.

“That’s not a problem with guns,” he said.

For example, Illinois has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, yet Chicago is one of the deadliest U.S. cities.

“It’s less about gun laws, and more about securing vulnerable areas, allowing police to do their jobs and have a good response, and being able to go after people who are the threat,” Bolduc said.

According to Bolduc, the culture of violence can be attributed to the U.S. justice system, which increasingly releases violent criminals back onto the streets while hamstringing and defunding the police. Support for police and community involvement are important to ensuring crime stays low, according to Bolduc. Rather than allowing divisiveness to creep in, people need to be brought together to solve the problem, he said.

The Southern Border

The ability to provide safer communities across the nation extends beyond the local community, Bolduc said. The southern border of the United States is out of control, as the country is currently failing to control the flow of drugs—particularly opioids such as fentanyl—and illegal weapons across the border.

“The southern border is now the most dangerous border in the world, and it’s essentially wide open under the Biden administration—it’s hurting America,” he said.

Bolduc said it has to be ensured that border patrol has what it needs to protect the country, such as adequate personnel, air and technology assets, a border wall, the enforcement of immigration laws, and more. Without these things, “America has vulnerabilities.”

“No country in the world would mimic what the United States is doing right now on its southern border,” he said, calling the Biden administration’s border policies “a disaster.”

“The sheer insecurity of America is frightening.”

The Economy Crunch

In addition to the security issues of the country, Bolduc said, “We are witnessing the worst economy in our nation’s history in terms of inflation, in terms of energy dependence, in terms of how it’s hurting Americans.”

Inflation has caused Americans to spend an extra $5,000 per year, as the cost of fuel, food, and other basic essentials climb to historic levels, he said.

“And while government spending is out of control,” many Americans “are cutting into their medical costs, cutting into their groceries, and just simply trying to make ends meet,” Bolduc said.

“It’s a dangerous place to be, and it has to change.”

Hassan has referred to her Republican challengers as “a group of really extreme opponents.” She didn’t respond to multiple inquiries from The Epoch Times to share her views on the issues facing the country. White House officials also didn’t respond to a request for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

‘You cannot call him Uncle f—ing Tom on my watch!’

Glenn Loury is sick and tired of the racially charged assault on Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas. The Brown University professor ranted on his podcast last week about the virulence of left-wing attacks on Thomas following the justice’s vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Loury, who is black, was particularly outraged at Samuel L. Jackson and others who invoked the racist “Uncle Tom” trope to denigrate the justice as a traitor to black Americans—an egregiously offensive thing to say, Loury argued, about a black man who grew up “a step from slavery” and rose to become one of the most accomplished jurists in the country. By defining Thomas solely by his conservative political views, his critics were denigrating “the value of this man’s contribution” to black history.

“Come on, man. Let’s stay in touch with reality,” Loury said. “I’m sorry, you cannot call him an Uncle fucking Tom on my watch!”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

In a 10-page executive order issued on June 15, resident Joe Biden declared war on conversion therapy and pledged to defend the LGBT community from various forms of discrimination.

The order, which was accompanied by a seven-page explanation, is one more salvo in the clash of rights that has arisen in recent years over transgender issues.

The order describes conversion therapy as “efforts to suppress or change an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”

Keeping a campaign promise he made to the LGBT community, Biden called for an administration-wide push to eliminate the use of conversion therapy by therapists across the nation. He described it as a “harmful” and “discredited practice that research indicates can cause significant harm, including higher suicide rates…”

“My administration must safeguard LGBTQI+ youth from dangerous practices like so-called ‘conversion therapy,’” said Biden.

The Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that there were two million Americans identifying themselves as transgender in 2021—about six-tenths of one percent of the nation’s population.

Twenty states and over 100 municipalities have banned conversion therapy for minors.

To further protect the rights of LGBT individuals from encroachment by other states, Biden is marshaling the resources of 10 departments of the federal government, along with numerous supporting agencies. The list includes the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development.

Biden said in his order that the Federal Trade Commission “is encouraged to consider whether conversion therapy constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice, and to issue such consumer warnings or notices as may be appropriate.”

Such a designation by the FTC could expose therapists to prosecution.

The aggressive promotion of these and other LGBT policies has provoked a backlash around the country.

In the first quarter of 2022, 238 bills that would “limit the rights” of LGBT  individuals were proposed by legislatures across America—half of which involved transgender people, according to NBC News.

The state proposals aim to limit LGBT curriculum in schools, affirm parental rights, defend religious liberties, and restrict Gender Affirming Care (GAC).

The World Health Organization defines GAC as psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity when it conflicts with the gender the person was assigned at birth.

Biden’s order has aroused strong opposition from former gays and lesbians, clients and their therapists, and civil liberty legal foundations, who say that individuals have the right to voluntarily seek help to be free of unwanted same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria (an uncomfortable state of confusion).

Brothers Road is a Virginia peer support fellowship made up primarily of men seeking to align their sexual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors with their personal values, beliefs, faith, commitments, and life goals.

Rick Wyler, the group’s founder, told The Epoch Times, “Many of us have been harmed, sometimes deeply, by therapists who demand that we embrace a gay identity and engage in gay relationships as, supposedly, the only possible path to peace, even if doing so would mean leaving otherwise satisfying marriages or cutting ourselves off from faith communities, beliefs, and traditions that we greatly value.”

Elizabeth Woning of California is a co-founder of the Changed Movement, an international network of people who no longer identify as LGBT.

Woning told The Epoch Times, “So-called ‘conversion therapy’ is a pejorative phrase that is being used to promote state-sanctioned viewpoint discrimination. LGBTQ-identifying people deserve the right to follow their conscience, even when it means receiving support to diminish unwanted sexual feelings.

“Such bans dramatically oversimplify the lived experience of anyone who identifies as LGBTQ. They offer only one route for people to follow, no matter their faith or conscience.

“And so, anyone who doesn’t endorse Gay Pride for their own life is disallowed counseling that addresses trauma and emotional distress related to their sexual identity,” she said.

“In the end, counseling bans cause harm and simply limit everyone’s freedom.”

Nevada therapist Robert Vazzo told The Epoch Times, “Don’t ban anything that is poorly defined and can lead to a witch hunt among therapists whose world view regarding homosexuality is different from the mainstream.”

Vazzo questioned the ability to determine at what point during a counseling session the therapist can be said to be actually practicing therapy and attempting to change a client’s sexual orientation.

“The desire to change one’s sexual orientation is often linked to one’s religious views and having thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are congruent with those views,” he said.

“How a person expresses their sexuality and deals with attractions is a very personal thing, and we especially don’t need Joe Biden and the federal government telling us what we should like, dislike, or try to change in ourselves.”

Vazzo said the courts have consistently affirmed a therapist’s right to give his opinion during a session as part of free speech.

He described Biden’s order as “an assault on both personal and religious freedom.”

Tampa, Florida, recently lost a case that challenged the city’s ordinance banning conversion therapy on First Amendment grounds.

New York City recently ended its ban on conversion therapy because of a civil rights lawsuit.

In a July 13, 2022, statement to The Epoch Times, Family Watch International, an organization which promotes and defends marriage and family values, said of Biden’s executive order, “Elite leftists are seeking to prohibit parents and children from obtaining necessary, and demonstrably successful, care [while] the Biden administration is pushing ‘gender-affirming therapy’ as normative treatment. This ‘therapy’ includes such horrifying procedures as blocking normal adolescent development, administering cross-sex hormones, and performing mutilating surgeries that result in permanent sterilization.

“Federal bureaucrats should not be micromanaging matters of health and wellness, especially as it relates to children. It is the role, responsibility, and right of all parents to determine the upbringing of their children, especially as it relates to their healthy development,” the organization said.

Attorney Mathew D. Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a non-profit organization that provides legal assistance in cases dealing with religious liberty and family issues, told The Epoch Times in an email, “I am confident that litigation will eventually doom these counseling bans … To deny a client the right of self-determination is both unconstitutional and dangerous.”

“The ultimate goal of this movement is to prohibit change-exploring therapies and counsel, and to abolish the Judeo-Christian ethic regarding human sexuality, and even the very understanding of God,” he said.

He pointed out the irony in a system of laws where it is not considered harmful to take puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones, or undergo life-changing surgeries,  yet it is regarded as harmful to learn about the causes of gender dysphoria and how to become comfortable with one’s birth sex.

Staver said that, under some laws banning conversion therapy, or what he calls “change counsel,” a counselor must either tell the client the type of counseling he may desire is not permitted; or even though the client wants to change, the counselor must, by law, override the client’s decision and counsel the client to accept unwanted attractions, behaviors, and identities.

“These laws unconstitutionally restrict only one viewpoint—change—on the subject matter of same-sex attractions, behavior, or identity. The U.S. Supreme Court has never upheld viewpoint discrimination. … Such viewpoint discrimination violates both First Amendment rights of the client and the counselor … [the] government must not censor the viewpoint of any subject matter the client wishes to receive and what the counselor or therapist may provide.”

California therapist Joseph Nicolosi told The Epoch Times in an email, “In a client-therapist relationship, the client is in the driver’s seat. They set their own goals, which the therapist helps them achieve. Politicians have no business telling people that their therapy goals are illegal.

“Everyone should be free to choose a life consistent with their values … no government should bar access to another person’s choice to live consistent with their faith and their values.”

Medical Experts Divided

The American Psychological Association, in a report released in 2009, said therapies used to try to change sexual orientation can be harmful and that most do not succeed.

In a 2018 position statement on conversion therapy and LGBTQ patients, the American Psychiatric Association recommended that “ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation” and “respect the identities of those with diverse gender expressions.”

The psychiatric association said it encourages “psychotherapies which affirm individuals’ sexual orientations and gender identities.”

In a 2018 policy statement, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) stated, “Conversion therapies’ (or ‘reparative therapies’) are interventions purported to alter same-sex attractions or an individual’s gender expression with the specific aim to promote heterosexuality as a preferable outcome…

“These interventions are provided under the false premise that homosexuality and gender diverse identities are pathological. They are not; the absence of pathology means there is no need for conversion or any other like interventions.”

The American Psychiatric Association ceased classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973.

The AACAP statement warned that “there is evidence that ‘conversion therapies’ increase risk of causing or exacerbating mental health conditions in the very youth they purport to treat.”

Biden’s executive order and the current narrative of the professional psychiatric and psychological guilds upon which it is based; have received strong criticism from other medical quarters.

“The habitually misquoted American Psychological Association’s Task Force’s 2009 report (on page 43) stated specifically that modern change-allowing therapy ‘since 1978’ was ‘nonaversive,’ meaning free of infliction of pain or shame,” wrote Dr. Andre Van Mol, MD. in an email to The Epoch Times.

Van Mol, a Board-certified family physician and co-chair of the Committee on Adolescent Sexuality of the American College of Pediatricians, said the Task Force’s report explicitly states on pages 43 and 82, that research meeting scientific standards did not allow attributing harm or help, inefficacy or efficacy, to change-allowing therapy.

“Banning counseling choice for gender dysphoria condemns already at-risk sexual minority youth to experimental and unproven hormonal and surgical gender-affirming therapy (GAT), which permanently and prematurely medicalizes children for a condition that overwhelmingly resolves by adulthood,” he said.

Van Mol stated that GAT has not been proven safe and effective. It does not reduce suicides and is not the international standard of care for gender dysphoric minors.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) have introduced legislation that would allow adults who undergo body-altering gender-transition surgeries as minors to sue surgeons for damages for up to 30 years after the procedure.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A coalition of 17 attorneys general is threatening Google with an anti-trust investigation if it censors pregnancy crisis centers from search results related to abortion.

Pregnancy crisis centers are different from abortion centers in that they provide resources for women who choose to carry their babies to full term.

The attorneys general of Virginia and Kentucky, Jason Miyares and Daniel Cameron, respectively, are leading the group, which sent a letter to Google on July 21.

In the letter, the group asks whether the tech giant has taken any steps to treat crisis pregnancy centers differently in search results since Roe v Wade was overturned.

Google, Miyares, and Cameron did not respond to requests for comment. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said he joined the effort because he did not want to see Google succumb to political pressure.

The AGs’ joint correspondence was in response to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Congresswoman Elissa Slotnick’s (D-Mich.) June 17th letter asking what steps Google CEO Sundar Pichai will take to limit the appearance of anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers in Google search results when users search for “abortion clinics” or “abortion pills.”

“Google should not be displaying anti-abortion fake clinics or crisis pregnancy centers in search results for users that are searching for an abortion clinic or abortion pill,” Warner and Slotnik wrote. “If Google must continue showing these misleading search results and in Google Maps, the results should at the very least be appropriately labeled.”

An additional 12 Senators and nine members of Congress, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), signed the letter.

“Senator Warner believes that users who search for “abortion services” should receive results that are relevant to their searches,” said Valeria Rivadeneira, a Warner spokesperson. “Crisis pregnancy centers—which routinely misinform and mislead clients about their reproductive health—make every effort to appear in these search results in order to deceive individuals into thinking they offer a full range of reproductive health services.”

Rivadeneira added that Warner has not yet received a response to his June 17th communication to Google and that Google should apply appropriate labels to all organic search and map results.

Curtis Hill, former Attorney General of Indiana, said the cadre of Democratic politicians want Google to act as an arm of the government in suppressing information.

“It’s a typical sidestep that some government officials try to create, and we’ve seen it in other areas,” he said. “So, it’s highly appropriate for the state’s attorneys general to call it for what it is…possible antitrust violations for which they would face sanctions.”

Because Google operates in all their states, the company falls under the jurisdiction of each AG’s consumer advocacy responsibilities.

“They have the right to investigate companies that are operating within their state on information that consumers are being duped or otherwise are having difficulty being treated fairly,” Hill told The Epoch Times.

He commended his former colleagues for demanding to know whether Google intends to comply with the request made by members of the Senate and Congress.

“I’d want to know if the algorithms had been changed by a particular date and if any differences or distinctions seem to be in compliance with the request that was made,” Hill added. “It’s been suggested that some of the searches be limited. So, I would want to see the searches.”

Pregnancy crisis centers like the Crisis Pregnancy Support Center (CPSC) in Texas City, Texas, don’t just rely on Google for clients.

Instead, it’s word of mouth that brings pregnant women to their doorstep, according to Christy Anne Collins, CPSC executive director.

“Most of our referrals come from people in the community who are involved in social service type of work and know the services we offer,” she said. “We’re not competing with the abortion listings, and we don’t want to.”

Collins thinks it’s appropriate that Texas AG Ken Paxton is among the Generals who signed the letter.

“Google or anybody else shouldn’t be stifling free speech, not on this issue or any other issue,” she said.

Serving up to 170 individuals per month ranging in age from 9 to 52 years old, CPSC has been in existence since 1992.

“If somebody is interested in alternative information or they are interested in crisis pregnancy centers, we shouldn’t be blocked out,” Collins told The Epoch Times. “I’m very concerned that that kind of thing could happen very easily.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The U.S. Supreme Court gave Texas and Louisiana a temporary legal victory in the border states’ attempt to strike down a September 2021 Biden administration immigration guideline.

The Supreme Court, in a ruling without explanation on Thursday, allowed a federal judge in Texas to block the Biden Administration’s immigration guideline that, according to the border states’ prosecutors, limits the ability of border agents to detain and deport illegal aliens.

The ruling is a political setback for the Biden administration as it tries to juggle an unprecedented surge in illegal immigration, overburdened Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and an agenda to replace the Trump administration’s more stringent border policy amid bipartisan criticism.

Dissenting justices include Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—marking Jackson’s first vote since the start of her tenure last month.

DHS Guidelines

The DHS issued the new immigration enforcement guidelines in late September 2021, directing immigration authorities to exercise “discretion” and prioritize detaining or deporting illegal aliens who “pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security.”

Put into practice, the September 2021 guideline designates that an illegal alien’s lack of legal authorization to stay in the United States “should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them.”

This guidance is in direct contrast with the Trump-era DHS policy, which guides immigration authorities to detain and deport illegal aliens in a non-discriminatory manner, except in certain limited cases, such as those who came to the United States as children or are parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

The high court’s ruling, which upheld a federal court’s ruling in June 2022 vacating the Biden administration’s September 2021 DHS guidance, gives Texas and Louisiana a temporary victory, at least until the Supreme Court hears the case in the December 2022 argument session.

‘Uncontroverted Evidence’

According to Trump-nominated Judge Drew Tipton from the Texas District Court for the Southern District, it is “difficult to deny” that the DHS’s September 2021 memo inflicted harm on the state of Texas.

Tipton sided with the border states in saying that “uncontroverted evidence” shows that the September 2021 memo led to an increase in the flow of illegal immigrants into Texas, with the state needing to spend more money on prosecution, detainment, healthcare, and administration. 

The district court continued by saying that while the DHS argues that some immigration data showed an increase in the number of arrests and expulsions following its guidance to “prioritize” criminally convicted aliens, the increase is disproportionate considering the “unprecedented surge of illegal aliens pouring over the border.”

“Given that the number of encounters with illegal border-crossers is ten times what it was in April 2020 … an increase in arrests and expulsions is far from impressive, especially if … roughly three-fourths of the illegal aliens that cross the border go undetected by DHS entirely,” Tipton wrote.

Border States Sue

The ever-escalating legal clash between the border states and the Biden Administration began two days after Biden took office.

Texas, on Jan. 22, 2021, sought a court injunction on a January 20 DHS memorandum that the state attorney general said suspended the deportation of the “vast majority of illegal aliens without any consideration for individual circumstances.”

As the case spiraled in the courts, the DHS issued a new set of immigration guidelines in February 2021 and yet another in September 2021—the last of which Texas and Louisiana sued in Texas’s District Court for the Southern District.

Tipton sided with the border state attorneys general and ruled in June 2022 that the federal government may not “require its officials to act in a manner that conflicts with a statutory mandate imposed by Congress.

Texas and Louisiana showed that the DHS’s September 2021 guidance, Tipton continued, is “contrary to law,” “arbitrary and capricious,” and “failed to observe” necessary government procedure.

“Using the words ‘discretion’ and ‘prioritization,’ the Executive Branch claims the authority to suspend statutory mandates,” Tipton wrote. “The law does not sanction this approach.” 

Split Courts

After Tipton’s ruling, the Biden administration appealed to a three-judge panel—unsuccessfully.

The judges at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an unsigned opinion dated July 6, 2022, wrote that some of the Biden administration’s concerns advanced in its September 2021 guidelines—particularly those replacing “Congress’s statutory mandates—are “extralegal” and “plainly outside of the bounds of power” conferred to Congress by the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

“For example, it provides that the guidelines ‘are essential to advancing this administration’s stated commitment to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality,’” the panel wrote.

The Fifth Circuit ruling came a day after a polar opposite ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on a similar case, in which Arizona, Ohio, and Montana sued the Biden administration on the same grounds.

Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a Bush-appointed judge, sided with the Biden administration, opining in the ruling that the Biden administration, like previous governments, is given “considerable authority” by federal law to shape immigration policy and, therefore, guidelines for detention and removal of illegal immigrants.

The Fifth Circuit court, in explaining its differing opinion with the Sixth Circuit, said that precedent supports its conclusions and that “fulsome fact-findings” from the lower court support Texas’s and Louisiana’s standing.

In an email statement to The Epoch Times, a spokesperson from the DHS said it “is obligated to and will continue to abide” by the Texas District Court’s decision regarding its September 2021 guidelines “as long as the decision remains in effect.”

“In the interim, ICE officers will make enforcement decisions on a case-by-case basis in a professional and responsible manner, informed by their experience as law enforcement officials and in a way that best protects against the greatest threats to the homeland,” the spokesperson added.

The Texas attorney general celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling as “another win” for Texas and border security. 

“Yesterday the Supreme Court made clear that, while we prepare for oral argument this winter, the Biden Administration must detain illegal aliens with criminal convictions,” Paxton said in a July 22 press release.

“It’s the right legal decision, and it’s what’s best for Texas and our nation.”

Source: The Epoch Times

Pennsylvania Republicans are arguing a 2019 law that largely expanded mail-in voting in the Commonwealth has been made invalid by a court ruling.

A group of 14 GOP lawmakers filed a lawsuit against the state’s Acting Secretary Leigh Chapman in the Commonwealth Court on July 20, seeking again to throw out Pennsylvania’s universal mail-in ballot law, Act 77.

It comes two months before the midterm elections this fall featuring high-profile races across the Keystone State.

The lawsuit claims that the mail-in voting law should be nullified under a federal appeals court’s May decision that had allowed election officials to count undated mail-in ballots. The panel said throwing out mail ballots in that election for lacking a handwritten date would violate voters’ civil rights. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has quietly dismissed Republicans’ request to overturn the court’s order.

Yet provisions of Sections 6 and 8 of Act 77 both require voters to “fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope,” which goes against the Federal Law based on the court’s judgment.

A non-severability clause written into Act 77 says “the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void” if any of its requirements are struck down. Plaintiffs, therefore, requested the court in the Wednesday lawsuit to declare all remaining provisions of Act 77 invalid and quash the law.

State Rep. Seth Grove, chair of the House State Government Committee, also said last week in a letter that “the entire bill should now be void.”

Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth Leigh Chapman, a Democrat, disagreed in a July 20 letter, saying Act 77 still remains in place, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported. “Your specious legal theory perpetuates disinformation,” Chapman wrote.

Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration wrote in a response to a state lawmaker’s query Wednesday that the federal appeals court decision did not trigger the non-severability provision. That’s because the lawsuit had targeted Lehigh County’s decision not to count the ballots, not the validity of the date requirement, it said.

No-Excuse Mail Voting Law

Act 77 was passed in the Pennsylvania Legislature and signed into law in 2019 by Democrat Wolf. In any case, courts have not always chosen to enforce non-severability provisions in the past.

According to the state’s election agency, more than 4.2 million people voted in person in Pennsylvania during the 2020 election, compared to the 2.6 million who voted by mail—which includes both absentee voting and no-excuse mail-in voting.

Republicans have been questioning the practice, following former President Donald Trump’s claims about election fraud.

Last August, the same 14 Republican lawmakers filed a lawsuit against the mail-in voting law, saying it was unconstitutional. Bradford County Commissioner Doug McLinko in September 2021 filed a similar legal challenge before the two suits were consolidated into one.

A Pennsylvania trial court then struck down Act 77 in a 3–2 decision in late January. This decision, however, was immediately appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The case is still pending, yet under state law, Act 77 was automatically reinstated upon appeal.

The state’s 2019 mail-in voting law has become a hot topic for frontrunners on the 2022 campaign trail, with Republican gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano vowing to repeal it if he gets elected, while his Democratic rival, state Attorney General Josh Shapiro, has vowed to defend the law.

On July 12, the state sued officials from three counties to force their local governments to count undated mail-in ballots from a recent primary election; Republican Senate candidate David McCormick filed a lawsuit on May 23 to ensure all mail-in ballots submitted without a handwritten date are qualified in the tightly contested GOP primary election for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Ruling against EPA sets precedent for a series of lawsuits against agency overreach

As the Biden administration reels from a string of recent legal defeats, political analysts hail the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest ruling, West Virginia v. EPA, as but one component of a new, broad-based approach that the courts are taking to halt a century-long effort by progressives to empower the administrative state and rule Americans by bureaucratic decree.

Dating back to President Woodrow Wilson 100 years ago, progressive presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, have worked to transfer law-making authority from Congress to their executive agencies. Wilson, the father of modern-day progressives, believed the Constitution, with its separation of powers, was an outdated document and that professional bureaucrats were superior at decision-making, compared to the time-consuming and compromise-ridden process of passing laws through elected representatives.

Wilson wrote in the 1887 article “The Study of Administration” that “the many, the people, who are sovereign [under the Constitution] have no single ear which one can approach, and are selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn or foolish.”

“The greatest revolution since the Constitution in many ways has been this movement away from legislatures into agencies,” Matthew Spalding, Dean of Hillsdale College’s Graduate School of Government, told The Epoch Times. “The crisis here is the movement away from consent,” as Americans increasingly lose their right to have a voice in setting the laws and regulations that control their lives.

In 1984, for example, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that came to be known as the Chevron Doctrine, ruling that federal agencies had the authority to decide the scope of their power in situations where congressional authorization was ambiguous. Since this ruling, Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, the courts have sided with federal agencies in cases where the authority of agencies was challenged.

Now, for the first time in a century, a series of rulings from federal courts have put up a roadblock to halt administrative encroachment. Two factors have brought about this change. First, the appointment by the Trump administration of 234 federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices. And second, the Biden administration’s unusually brazen attempts to push federal agencies well beyond their legal authority in order to impose a left-wing agenda on the United States without popular consent.

West Virginia Ruling

In the case of West Virginia v. EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to force America’s electric utilities to switch from fossil fuels to wind and solar. On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration had no authority to do so.

“For years, unelected bureaucrats in the administrative state have been trying to destroy our fossil fuel industries by transforming the EPA into a communist-style central planning authority because they know they can’t get their radical environmental policies passed through Congress,” said West Virginia State Treasurer Riley Moore in an official statement, lauding the decision as “a victory for the rule of law.”

“Part of the problem is Congress writing these broad laws that leave a lot of room for interpretation by the agencies that are supposed to execute the laws,” William Shughart, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, told the Epoch Times. “That has led to this explosive growth in the administrative state. The West Virginia ruling applies the brakes to that growth.”

‘Major Questions Doctrine’

One of the key components of this Supreme Court ruling is the “major questions doctrine.” This is the concept that agencies, which are unelected by and unaccountable to the public, cannot make up rules on issues of major importance to Americans without clear authorization from elected representatives.

“The Supreme Court decision speaks to the legal flaws with trying to mark an entire industry for termination,” Jonathan Berry, a partner at Boyden Gray & Associates, told The Epoch Times. “What the Supreme Court is saying is that when you take on initiatives of major economic or political significance, those measures have to be authorized by a clear statement from Congress.”

“One of the most profound aspects of this ruling is its portability across regulatory regimes,” Berry said. In rendering its West Virginia decision, the Supreme Court looked at prior rulings, including those against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). “The common thread across those cases is the executive branch using an administrative agency to wade into policy areas beyond what Congress authorized,” Berry added.

In August 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the CDC did not have legal authority to ban landlords from evicting non-paying tenants. In January of this year, the Court ruled that OSHA did not have authority to force employees of large companies to take the Covid-19 vaccine.

“What we’re seeing here is extremely significant,” Spalding said. “The way the Court works is they do these things in different cases here and there, but they’re putting a doctrine together that ultimately builds up to a larger case. The heart of the matter is the unconstitutionality of essentially shifting legislative authority outside of the legislative branch into these agencies.”

“There are already tons of lawsuits out there that have been winding their way through the legal system for years,” Bonner Cohen, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, told The Epoch Times. “Some of those lawsuits will eventually make it to the Supreme Court, but a lot of them may be dealt with at lower court level simply because people can now point to the precedent that was set in West Virginia v. EPA.”

Administrative Overreach

Last week, a Trump-appointed federal judge temporarily blocked orders by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) that attempted to force states to, among other things, allow transgender children to compete in sports in schools according to their gender identity rather than their gender at birth. Twenty state attorneys general brought a suit against the DOE directive, arguing that the authority to decide such policies “properly belongs to Congress, the States, and the people.”

Two other areas where administrative overreach by the Biden administration will likely be challenged next are a directive from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding “green accounting” (that is, accounting that factors environmental costs in the financial results of operations) and gun control initiatives from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

In a case that closely parallels West Virginia v. EPA, the SEC issued a directive that all listed companies must provide audited reports on the greenhouse gas emissions of their operations, as well as those of their suppliers and customers. In addition, companies must detail their strategies to reduce such emissions. Critics believe this will open companies up to a rash of environmental lawsuits and actions by activist asset managers like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey was among the first state officials to threaten legal action in response.

The ATF has been attempting to expand the legal definition of which gun parts constitute a firearm in an effort to implement a Biden administration initiative, which failed to pass Congress, against unregistered homemade guns, thus turning a formerly legal practice into a felony. A lawsuit against this has already been filed by the Gun Owners of America. In addition, the ATF was found to be keeping records of “several hundred million” gun purchases, despite the fact that Congress explicitly outlawed a federal gun registry.

Loss of Public Trust

Such attempts to circumvent public consent by legislating through unelected federal agencies inevitably lead to a loss of public trust in government.

“If there’s no consent, no responsibility, no check-back system, then you really are undermining public confidence in that process,” Spalding said. Regarding the ATF and gun control measures, a June poll by NPR/Ipsos found that, while most gun owners said they would accept universal background checks, they “harbored a deep distrust of government.”

“The more that this administration steps over the line and claims for itself powers that the peoples’ representatives in Congress have not given it, the more we should expect a decline in trust and in legitimacy,” Berry said.

As the courts begin to push back against administrative overreach, however, the backlash from the political left has been escalating, including demands for “packing” the Supreme Court with more left-leaning judges, or even abolishing the Court altogether.

Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, President Biden stated, “We cannot allow an out-of-control Supreme Court, working in conjunction with extremist elements of the Republican Party, to take away our freedoms and our personal autonomy.” A recent survey by Rasmussen and the Heartland Institute found that, in the wake of the EPA decision, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the pro-Second Amendment Bruen decision (regarding concealed weapons), most Democrats and younger voters see the Court as a racist and sexist institution and want to pack it with progressive judges, remove it, or replace it.

“These findings clearly show that most Democrats and young Americans do not respect the sanctity of the Supreme Court when it issues decisions that run counter to their agenda,” Heartland Institute Research Fellow Chris Talgo told The Epoch Times. “As a former U.S. history and American government teacher, I can say without a doubt that our education system is not teaching the basics when it comes to civics. Most American students cannot name the three branches of government, let alone understand the role of separation of powers. This does not bode well for the future of freedom, seeing as how young voters are hostile to the very institutions that preserve our freedom.”

The Justice Department, for example, permitted weeks of intimidating protests outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices after the opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade was prematurely leaked prior to the formal ruling. Following the arrest in June of an armed man who was charged with attempted murder at the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) demanded that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland “detail the steps the Department of Justice is taking to protect our Supreme Court Justices in the wake of an unprecedented harassment and intimidation campaign.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was criticized for taking weeks to bring a bill protecting Supreme Court justices and their families to a vote, even after the alleged assassination attempt against Justice Kavanaugh. When the bill was put to a vote, 27 Democrats voted against it.

Granting Power to Experts

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who disagreed with the majority in the West Virginia case, argued that the courts must defer to the EPA, which she deemed the “expert agency,” and allow the agency to interpret the scope of its own power. Critics of this approach, however, remain skeptical of granting too much power to experts and question whether administrators are in fact experts when it comes to issues like national energy policy or making personal medical decisions.

“These are career government employees,” Cohen said. “They are not experts.”

“Look at the experience the country had during the pandemic, where we had such experts as Dr. [Anthony] Fauci and Dr. [Deborah] Birx and others throughout the federal government who completely mishandled the public health response to COVID-19,” Cohen said. “If these are the experts, we need to free ourselves from experts, because they got it spectacularly wrong.”

One of the methods used to expand administrative power has been the declaration of government health emergencies, including the pandemic health emergency, the climate health emergency, the racism health emergency, and the “gun violence” health crisis.

“Anytime you encounter the word ‘emergency,’ anytime you encounter the word ‘crisis,’ be careful,” Cohen said. “It may in fact be a crisis because those things happen, but it may be nothing more than a pretext for a power grab.”

“The invocation of an emergency is not a justification for combining the powers of government into a single person,” Berry said. “That’s the definition of tyranny.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

It’s the kind of vision Trump supporters will savor, but should give Democrats nightmares.

With Democrats already spending the summer scheming to avoid the disaster of the Biden presidency in the November mid-terms, one key observer of American politics is already looking ahead to the fall of 2024.

And what he’s seeing should have the wokest liberals losing sleep for the next two years.

Dick Morris, an architect of Bill Clinton’s presidential runs in 1992 and 1996 and an adviser who helped the Clinton White House weather the scandal that led to Clinton’s impeachment in 1998-99, has since become one of the country’s most respected conservative commentators.

But he still brings that knowledge of both the Clintons and Democratic Party politics to bear. He’s forecasting a return of Hillary Clinton to the American political stage for the 2024 presidential campaign — and facing off against former President Donald Trump in a rematch of the 2016 fight.

And he said a case coming before the Supreme Court next term will help seal a Trump victory.

While Trump has made no announcement regarding his 2024 intentions yet, Morris has no doubt the 45th president intends to become the 47th president. And he appears equally sure that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic standard-bearer running against him.

That’s more likely than another round of the doddering Joe Biden, he said, or Democrats taking a gamble on Vice President Kamala Harris (a woman who can’t even get her own staff to stay on board.)

“Already, the Democrats are pressuring Biden not to run because they see what a disaster he would be. And Harris is no better. The line of possible alternatives is queuing up,” Morris told Newsmax on “National Report.” (The full show can been seen at this link. The Morris interview segment starts about the 2:40 mark)

“You have Gavin Newsom, governor of California, [Jared Polis] the governor of Colorado, Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary.

“But, ultimately, the left is going to have their candidates, and they’ll probably run Sanders or maybe AOC, and that will trigger Hillary into the race in order to save the Democratic Party from the left rerunning the Hillary Sanders race of ’16. And I think Hillary will win that contest. I think she and Trump will face it off, and I think Trump is going to win handily.”

(To be clear, it’s a topic Morris said he explores at length in his new book: “The Return: Trump’s Big 2024 Comeback,” so there’s undeniably a bit of salesmanship here.)

While a new Trump would obviously galvanize Democrats, progressives and their Janissaries in the mainstream media, there are plenty of reasons to think he might succeed.

Simply comparing the record of the Trump years on foreign police, the economy and energy independence against the current 1970’s malaise redux of Biden’s incompetent administration would go a long way toward getting sane Americans voting Republican.

Biden’s Approval Rating Hits a New Low, Fueled by Democrats Jumping Ship

But Morris sees another reason:

In the fall, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case of Moore v. Harper, an election law dispute out of North Carolina that would invest state legislatures with greater power over how elections are conducted.

As Politico reported, the case mainly involves the issue of gerrymandering legislative districts, but Morris sees broader implications, such as changes to election laws that would improve the integrity of the vote.

“In the five key swing states, Republicans control the legislature, but the Democrats control the governor,” he said. “So [Republicans] passed all these great bills, prohibiting drop boxes, voter ID, no ballot harvesting, and the Democratic governors have vetoed them.

“But when the court rules in this case, which they will next term, it will completely cut the governors out of the process, and those bills will be veto proof and take effect.”

Morris didn’t identify the swing states he had in mind, but North Carolina — where the Moore case originated and Democrat Roy Cooper is in the governor’s office with a GOP-controlled legislature — is obviously one. Other swing states with Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors are Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

If Trump had secured the combined 46 Electoral College votes of those three states in 2020, he’d be president today.

And to Morris, that means he’s going to be president come 2025.

Obviously, this isn’t graven in stone. Morris gives short shrift to any potential challenger to Trump for the nomination — such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — and predicting events two years away is always a dicey proposition in human affairs (particularly septuagenarian human affairs). But it’s a valid argument.

And no honest American who watched how the 2020 election unfolded in a pandemic year, where elections officials and courts seemed to make up rules as they went along, can dispute that the vote could easily have gone Trump’s way in crucial states decided by razor-thin margins (like Arizona’s 10,457 out of more than 3 million cast).

If Morris is right, those conditions won’t be around for a 2024 rematch between Trump and Hillary. And if that doesn’t keep Democrats awake at night, nothing will.

Vice President Kamala Harris compared restrictions on abortion to America’s history of chattel slavery during a speech on Monday at the NAACP’s national convention.

“We know, NAACP, that our country has a history of claiming ownership over human bodies,” Harris said after criticizing the Supreme Court’s June ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. “And today, extremist so-called leaders are criminalizing doctors and punishing women for making health care decisions for themselves.”

Harris’s remarks were met with faint applause. 

The vice president’s speech aligns with the rhetoric of both left-wing activists and media outlets. MSNBC has alleged a connection between pro-life policies and slavery, and the ACLU wants to legalize abortion up to birth in order to “end forced pregnancy.” Harris’s tenure as vice president has been marred by awkward gaffes and poorly worded statements.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stood by Harris’s comments during a press conference on Monday.

“She is correct,” Jean-Pierre said. “Today’s decisions are criminalizing doctors and essentially taking the rights away from women, taking the freedom away from women. Really taking away people’s privacy.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Federal authorities are investigating claims that former attorney general Eric Holder’s wife, an obstetrician, violated health privacy laws by misusing her former patients’ records to help promote her new menopause relief business.

The Department of Health and Human Services’s Office for Civil Rights opened the investigation in June into the alleged breach, which may have impacted up to 27,000 patients at Dr. Sharon Malone’s former medical practice, Foxhall Associates, according to HHS records reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

Foxhall, which is conducting its own investigation and alerted HHS to the breach last month, claims Malone retained a list of its patients’ names, contacts, and insurance information after leaving the practice in December 2020.

Malone’s legal troubles come as her husband, who led the Department of Justice for six years and is now one of the Democratic Party’s most prominent activist attorneys, has denounced the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as “an attack on women and on every citizen’s right to privacy” and called for Democrats to pack the court with left-leaning judges.

Malone allegedly turned over the records to her new employer, Alloy, a telehealth start-up that she helped launch in 2021, which used the information to send out marketing emails.

Now the case is pitting Foxhall, a high-end women’s health practice with an elite clientele in Washington, D.C., against Malone and Alloy, a buzzy, menopause prescription start-up founded by a former editor in chief of Marie Claire with $3.3 million in seed funding last year.

Alloy’s CEO has insisted that Malone retained the records legitimately from Foxhall—a claim that the medical practice’s lawyer vehemently denied to the Free Beacon.

Health privacy experts told the Free Beacon that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, also known as HIPAA, prohibits marketing to patients without their consent—and Malone could face steep financial penalties if the HHS investigation leads to charges.

“It’s hard to see how they can wriggle out of being charged with a HIPAA violation,” said Abner Weintraub, a longtime HIPAA compliance consultant. “Consent is required from a patient.”

“Unless the doctor who took the records had a good excuse, and it would have to be a damn good one in this situation … [they could face] significant fines and penalties,” added Weintraub, noting that the fines could reach six figures and open the door to additional civil litigation by patients.

HHS did not respond to a request for comment.

The Free Beacon previously reported on Foxhall’s reputation for exclusivity. The office, which told the Free Beacon in 2014 that it didn’t accept Medicaid because it didn’t have the “demographics for it,” has been accused of reserving morning appointments for “important people,” such as former Free Beacon reporter-turned-Trump-spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington.

In December 2020, Malone left Foxhall Medicine, where she had been a physician and co-owner. But she kept a list of patients, including names, phone numbers, email addresses, and medical insurance providers without the firm’s knowledge, according to a newspaper legal notice that Foxhall published as part of a federal requirement on June 27.

Malone went on to join Alloy as its chief medical officer ahead of its 2021 launch. She “turned the list over to [Alloy], who then sent out emails to a portion of the Foxhall patients on the list,” according to the legal notice. Foxhall said it discovered the breach after receiving complaints from patients.

But Alloy denied that Malone obtained the Foxhall records improperly.

Alloy co-CEO Monica Molenaar told the husband of one angry patient, who had emailed the company to complain, that “Dr. Malone did not steal any patient information. She was given a list of emails by the practice coordinator of what she was told were her patients so that we could give them an update,” according to a copy of the July 14 email obtained by the Free Beacon.

“A small portion of that list received an email from us and that is it. No other information was given, taken or used,” added Molenaar.

But a lawyer for Foxhall told the Free Beacon that it “never provided any patient information to Alloy” and “never provided any patient information to Dr. Malone after Dr. Malone left the practice.”

“Dr. Malone, to our understanding, based on the investigation that we have conducted, retained patient information after she left the practice,” said attorney Christopher Ezold.

Alloy’s founder, Anne Fulenwider, the former editor in chief of Marie Claire, told the Free Beacon that she was “totally happy to talk about this with you” when reached by phone last week. But she said she was running into a meeting and unable to discuss at the moment. She did not respond to follow-up requests for comment.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill to codify same-sex marriage into law.

The Democrat-controlled lower house passed the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404), a bill that codifies same-sex marriage into U.S. law, with a bipartisan 267–157 vote; 47 House Republicans backed the bill. The bill now heads to the Senate, where 10 Republican votes are needed to overcome the filibuster threshold.

“Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law,” reads the bill’s summary on Congress’s website.

“The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin,” the bill’s summary continued.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the bill on July 18.

The passage of the bill came a month after the Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (pdf), a decision that overturned the 1981 landmark abortion decision, Roe v. Wade. The highest court opined in Dobbs that decisions affected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment should be “reconsidered.”

In his concurring opinion to Dobbs’s majority ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas said that “‘substantive due process’ is an oxymoron that lack[s] any basis in the Constitution” and that “the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights.”

For this reason, Thomas said that “in future cases, [the justices] should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” and that “because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

Nadler takes the position that same-sex marriage is a “fundamental right” that was targeted by the Supreme Court.

“Three weeks ago, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court not only repealed Roe v. Wade and walked back 50 years of precedent, it signaled that other rights, like the right to same-sex marriage, are next on the chopping block,” said Nadler in a July 18 press release.

“As this Court may take aim at other fundamental rights, we cannot sit idly by as the hard-earned gains of the Equality movement are systematically eroded. If Justice Thomas’s concurrence teaches anything it’s that we cannot let your guard down or the rights and freedoms that we have come to cherish will vanish into a cloud of radical ideology and dubious legal reasoning,” Nadler continued.

Over the last weekend, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) publicly reaffirmed his stance that policies on issues such as gay marriage and abortion should be left to state legislatures to shape. 

Cruz previously voiced opposition to Obergefell v. Hodges (pdf), the 2015 Supreme Court decision in which the 5–4 majority ruled that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantee the fundamental right to marry to same-sex couples.

“Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history,” Cruz told podcast Verdict+. “In Obergefell, the court said, ‘no, we know better than you guys do,’ and now every state must sanction and permit gay marriage. I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the court overreaching.”

“And had the court not rolled Obergefell, the democratic process would continue to operate: that if you believe that gay marriage was a good idea, the way the Constitution is set up for you to advance that position is to convince your fellow citizens. And if you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws to reflect those views,” the senator added.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

As House Democrats tout a renewed effort to expand the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), Senate Democrats remain divided on both the feasibility and value of the scheme.

The plan, contained in Rep. Hank Johnson’s (D-Ga.) Judiciary Act, would add four new seats to SCOTUS.

The renewed push to pack the bill comes in the wake of SCOTUS’ landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which it overturned the abortion standard put in place by Roe v. Wade in 1973. The 6–3 decision was supported by all of the court’s six conservative justices and opposed by the three liberals on the court.

Following that decision, SCOTUS’ conservative justices also struck down a New York State gun control law that it deemed unconstitutional, in addition to a decision that severely constricted the scope of carbon regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency.

This string of conservative decisions, particularly the decision in Dobbs, has left Democrats scrambling for solutions to weaken the power of the court’s conservatives.

During a July 18 press conference, several progressive Democrats in the House renewed calls to expand SCOTUS and add four new seats, a scheme that critics have long referred to as “court-packing.”

Democrats insisted that they were not packing the court, but that conservatives had already done so under President Donald Trump, likely a jab at then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) refusal to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected death. Later, McConnell also quickly moved forward with the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, even going so far as to change filibuster rules to ensure her confirmation in the GOP-controlled Senate.

“The nightmare scenario of GOP court-packing is already upon us,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.). “That’s how they got this far-right 6–3 majority in the first place.”

Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) expanded on Mondaire’s claim, arguing that Republicans have for a long time emphasized judicial nominations to cement their control over the federal government.

Following the successful confirmation of three conservative justices under Trump, which left SCOTUS’ liberal branch substantially outnumbered, SCOTUS has “gone rogue” and “become a radical institution,” Takano claimed.

Johnson, who sponsored the Judiciary Act, said that the conservative majority has left “[the] Supreme Court at crisis with itself and with our democracy”; because of the majority, Johnson added, “basic freedoms are under assault.”

Though Johnson’s bill is not unprecedented—the Supreme Court has been expanded several times before—the last such expansion of the court, which raised the number of seats from seven to nine, came under President Andrew Jackson in 1837.

The move, which may be able to win the support needed to pass the House, is more contentious in the Senate.

Some lawmakers in the upper chamber, including Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), have called for the overturn of the filibuster to pass the Judiciary Act, which would have little chance of passing the evenly-divided Senate.

“We need to repeal the filibuster so that we can expand the Supreme Court to reclaim the two stolen seats on a now illegitimate court, which are stealing the rights of American people,” Markey, who appeared at House Democrats’ July 18 press conference,  said shortly after the overturning of Roe.

Similar calls have been echoed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who in the past has said that “the court’s 6–3 supermajority will continue to threaten basic liberties for decades to come.”

However, more vulnerable Senate Democrats facing tough reelection battles have suggested their opposition to the proposal.

“You’d have to talk about specific details, but I have not been in favor of expanding the size of the court,” said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), whose 2020 victory saw Arizona send two Democrats to the Senate for the first time in decades. Republican strategists generally consider Kelly’s seat to be among the most vulnerable in this year’s midterms.

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), similarly, has called for his party to focus on fighting back inflation for the time being.

“Right now, I’m focused on lowering costs for Georgians who are pushing their way back and want to see us cap the cost of insulin, which is a bill we need to get done,” Warnock said on July 12.

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), who in 2016 won her seat by a .16 percent margin, has also suggested that she opposes expanding the court.

Given moderate opposition to the House plan, it is highly unlikely that the effort will go anywhere. In the Senate, Democrats supporting the bill would need the support of at least 60 members to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold, or would need to sway moderates like Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) in favor of a filibuster carve-out.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Biden administration dramatically reduced migrant prosecutions by nearly 80 percent in the 2021 fiscal year, even as illegal crossings skyrocketed.

Just 2,896 migrants apprehended on the southwest border were transferred into U.S. Marshals Service custody in the 2021 fiscal year, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. In the 2020 fiscal year, 13,213 migrants were transferred to federal authorities for prosecution.

Internal DHS memo obtained by the Washington Free Beacon

The precipitous drop in migrant prosecutions illustrates resident Joe Biden’s break from prior administrations’ policies toward illegal immigration. Refraining from bringing criminal charges against the vast majority of individuals entering the country illegally also provides evidence for critics who say the White House is exacerbating the migration crisis on the southern border.

The decline in prosecutions for illegal border crossings also happened amid the worst border crisis in U.S. history. Migrant encounters on the southern border exceeded two million in 2021.

Under federal law, it is a misdemeanor crime to illegally cross the border. A second arrest for illegally crossing the border can be prosecuted as a felony. According to federal law, those found guilty of an illegal border crossing face fines and up to two years in prison.

“The lack of accountability from this administration encourages the worst people flooding our borders, criminals, to keep violating our laws until they finally commit a crime so egregious that the Department of Justice is forced to prosecute,” a senior DHS official told the Free Beacon.

In the 2019 fiscal year, 20,604 migrants were transferred to Marshals Service custody for prosecution. The previous year, former president Donald Trump halted prosecutions of parents who crossed into the country illegally with children.

Defenders of the White House will likely say the drop in prosecutions can be almost entirely attributed to Title 42—a public health regulation that allows authorities to rapidly expel migrants who enter the country. With Title 42 in effect, law enforcement does not need to process migrants in a typical manner and instead works to expel them as quickly as possible.

But Trump instituted Title 42 in March 2020 at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and still prosecuted far more migrants than in Biden’s first year of his presidency. Moreover, illegal border crossings in 2020 were much lower than in 2021, which saw the most migrant apprehensions in U.S. history.

Biden ordered an end to Title 42 in April, although legal challenges from Republicans have temporarily kept it in place. The Biden administration has not yet released border crossing prosecution data for the 2022 fiscal year.

Beyond attempting to eliminate Title 42, the Biden administration has worked to undo immigration policies from the Trump administration. Last month, the Supreme Court authorized Biden to terminate the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forces many migrants to wait in Mexico before their asylum court hearing in the United States. 

The Free Beacon in December reported on deportations plummeting to the lowest number in decades under Biden. The White House has also stonewalled congressional investigations into where DHS is placing illegal immigrants after they are released into the U.S. interior. 

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Authorities said the 20-year-old shooter who opened fire in an Indiana mall on July 17 waited inside a bathroom for an hour before fatally shooting three people and injuring two others before an armed bystander shot and killed him.

Greenwood Police Department Chief Jim Ison said during a July 18 press conference that the shooter was in the Greenwood Park Mall bathroom for one hour and two minutes before he entered the food court area and fired shots.

He said investigators believe that Jonathan Douglas Sapirman, 20, spent that time preparing and possibly assembling a disassembled rifle that he had brought in his backpack. He ended up firing 24 rounds within two minutes.

The deceased victims were identified as Pedro Pineda, 56; his wife, Rosa Mirian Rivera de Pineda, 37; and Victor Gomez, 30, by the Johnson County Coroner’s Office, according to Ison.

Sapirman was identified as the shooter by Ison and the Johnson County Coroner’s Office. He identified the good Samaritan as Elisjsha Dicken, 22, who was said to be shopping with his girlfriend and “lawfully carrying” a handgun in the mall.

“Many more people would’ve died last night if not for a responsible armed citizen that took action very quickly, within the first two minutes of this shooting,” Ison said.

Dicken’s “actions were nothing short of heroic,” according to Ison, who noted that Dicken was armed with a 9-millimeter pistol.

“He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun, was very proficient in that, very tactically sound,” Ison said. “And as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him.”

In a July 18 press conference, officials said Sapirman had no criminal history but had a record as a juvenile. The shooter purchased the rifle he used on March 8 and purchased another rifle, which was found in the bathroom, on March 9, authorities said, noting that he was also armed with a handgun.

Although police don’t know a motive for the attack, Sapirman’s relatives told investigators that he recently received notice that he was being evicted from his apartment, although Ison said authorities were still trying to confirm if that was the case. Relatives also said Sapirman resigned from a warehouse job in May, he said.

Gun rights groups said on July 18 that the good Samaritan’s actions are an example of why it’s important to allow Americans to carry firearms in public. The Supreme Court recently struck down a New York law that placed limits on who can carry guns outside the home.

“We will say it again: The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” the National Rifle Association (NRA) wrote in a Twitter post.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has said that the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage was “clearly wrong.”

“Obergefell, like Roe versus Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history,” Cruz told podcast Verdict+. “In Obergefell, the court said, ‘no, we know better than you guys do,’ and now every state must sanction and permit gay marriage. I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the court overreaching,”

Cruz was referring to Obergefell v. Hodges (pdf), the 2015 Supreme Court decision in which the 5–4 majority ruled that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee the fundamental right to marry to same-sex couples.

The Texas senator takes the position that policies on issues such as gay marriage and abortion should be left to state legislatures to shape.

“Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states. We saw states before Obergefell that were moving—some states were moving to allow gay marriage, other states were moving to allow civil partnerships. There were different standards that the states were adopting,” Cruz said.

“And had the court not rolled Obergefell, the democratic process would continue to operate: that if you believe that gay marriage was a good idea, the way the Constitution is set up for you to advance that position is to convince your fellow citizens. And if you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws to reflect those views,” the senator continued.

The lawmaker’s comments come weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a 1973 ruling from the highest court that legalized abortion across the nation, in its June decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (pdf).

Cruz, in reference to the concern of court overreach with the Obergefell and Roe decisions, shadowed Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion in Dobbs that the highest court should reconsider cases such as Obergefell that are associated with the doctrine of substantive due process.

In his concurring opinion to the majority ruling, Thomas said that “‘substantive due process’ is an oxymoron that lack[s] any basis in the Constitution” and that “the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights.”

For this reason, Thomas said that “in future cases, [the justices] should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” and that “because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

Cruz’s comments are not the first time the senator has expressed opposition to the highest’s court’s ruling on same-sex marriage.

In 2015, the then-candidate in the Republican primaries said his opposition to the decision would be “front and center” in his presidential campaign.

“That is very much front and center something I intend to campaign on,” he told NPR in 2015.

“And marriage and religious liberty are going to be integral, I believe, to motivating the American people to come out and vote for what’s, ultimately, restoring our constitutional system,” Cruz said.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Resident Joe Biden’s administration has made two major changes to immigration policies by re-interpreting federal law.

Immigrants, many illegal, from certain countries are shielded from deportation and allowed to be legally employed if the secretary of homeland security decides their home country meets certain conditions.

The designation is known as Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

Fifteen countries are currently designated, including Afghanistan, El Salvador, Somalia, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of immigrants from those countries are protected.

Up until July, those protected by TPS had to remain in the country unless they received approval to travel.

If TPS beneficiaries did leave the country and returned, they’d have the same status—illegal or legal—when they returned, based on language from Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments, even though they could remain temporarily protected by TPS.

But U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which handles the nation’s legal immigration system, has changed that policy.

Now, all beneficiaries that return will be “inspected and admitted,” a bureaucratic term that means one has entered the country legally. “This is true even if the TPS beneficiary was present without admission or parole when initially granted TPS,” USCIS said in an alert (pdf).

“That basically launders the fact that they came here illegally and that will put them on the path to a green card,” Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Epoch Times.

“This is an end run on U.S. immigration law, and Congress,” added Emilio Gonzalez, who directed USCIS during the George W. Bush administration. “It really is a left-handed way of legalizing people.”

USCIS said in its alert that the change stemmed from a court decision, guidance from the lawyers at its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and an evaluation of current and past policy. The agency did not respond to requests for comment.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in 2021 ruled that immigrants who receive TPS are not admitted for purposes of obtaining legal permanent residency.

“A grant of TPS does not cure a foreign national’s entry without inspection or constitute an inspection and admission of the foreign national,’” Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, wrote in the 9–0 decision.

But USCIS seized on a footnote in the ruling, in which the court said it was not expressing a view on whether a parole enables a TPS recipient to become a legal permanent resident. The secretary of homeland security can parole an illegal immigrant, which allows them to enter or remain in the country legally.

The USCIS also cited a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which said that the law mandates TPS beneficiaries who travel outside the country be inspected and admitted upon returning, and be treated as entering the United States legally, even if they originally entered illegally.

The DHS Office of General Counsel, on the request of USCIS, reviewed the rulings and the law and concluded that USCIS was “well within its authority” to rescind Trump era guidance and allow illegal immigrants to use leaving the country and coming back to become legal.

“This is just a transparent workaround that I believe is illegal, and almost certainly is going to be challenged,” Vaughan said.

Another Big Change

The Immigration and Nationality Act, says that immigrants who were illegally in the United States and left cannot re-enter for a certain period of time. Illegal immigrants who were in the country for less than one year have to wait three years to be able to re-enter the country; those who were present for one year or more would be inadmissible unless he or she waits 10 years to re-enter.

The immigrants were expected to wait outside the United States, to comply with the law.

USCIS, though, is now saying that an immigrant can be inside the United States, and that will not reset the clock.

“The statutory 3-year or 10-year period begins to run on the day of departure or removal (whichever applies) after accrual of the period of unlawful presence. This statutory period continues to run, without interruption, regardless of whether or how the noncitizen returned to the United States during the 3-year or 10-year period. Thus, it is immaterial whether the noncitizen has spent the applicable statutory 3-year or 10-year period in or out of the United States,” USCIS says in its policy manual.

The change was made on June 24 to be consistent with two recent court rulings and an unpublished Department of Justice Board of Appeals decision, the agency said in an alert on the alteration.

“This is basically an invitation for any deported alien to pay the cartels to smuggle them back into the U.S. while they let the clock run out,” Rob Law, who headed the USCIS policy office during the Trump administration and directs the America First Policy Institute’s Center for Homeland Security and Immigration, told the Washington Times, which first reported on the update.

Court Decisions

The move stemmed from two 2020 rulings.

In the first, a Japanese woman overstayed her nonimmigrant status by five years. She left voluntarily in 2003 but returned just two years later, well before the 10-year period mandated in the law.

While she didn’t follow U.S. immigration law, her lawyer argued she shouldn’t have been denied permanent residency when she applied for it in 2019 because she was married to a United States citizen and because over 10 years had elapsed.

Government lawyers said that aliens to whom the law applies “must remain outside of the country for the entire duration of the inadmissibility period” and, if they do not, they cannot be admitted.

U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall, a Carter appointee, ruled for the plaintiff, agreeing on the argument that over 10 years had gone by before Yayomi Kanai asked for residency.

“This policy change would be great for our client. That means she could have been granted adjustment of status by the USCIS and she wouldn’t have had to go through all these problems,” Michael Piston, who represented Kanai, told The Epoch Times.

“It feels very, very good that they’re doing the right thing,” Mario Urizar, a lawyer who represented the man in the other case, told The Epoch Times.

In that case, a Brazilian national overstayed a tourist visa and was ordered deported in 1994. He left the United States in 2000.

Two years later, the man re-entered, even though the 10 years had not elapsed. When he went to adjust his status later, in 2016, authorities noted he violated the law and thus remained inadmissible.

U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty, an Obama appointee, ruled that the law “is silent” on the time after 10 years elapses. He said imposing what amounted to a lifetime ban from the United States was wrong.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

“Handmaid’s Tale references turn a blind eye to the centuries of oppression people of color … have faced”

A pro-abortion activist group is urging protesters to quit making references to The Handmaid’s Tale, arguing allusions to the book are insensitive to the oppression of minorities. 

“You can’t wear people’s real oppression as a costume. Throw the red cloaks away,” REPRO Rising Virginia said Thursday. “Handmaid’s Tale references turn a blind eye to the centuries of oppression people of color, specifically Black, brown, and indigenous women, have faced regarding their reproductive rights.”

5. You can’t wear people’s real oppression as a costume. Throw the red cloaks away.

Handmaid’s Tale references turn a blind eye to the centuries of oppression people of color, specifically Black, brown, and indigenous women, have faced regarding their reproductive rights. pic.twitter.com/ZHvK1lK8rV

— REPRO Rising Virginia (@REPRORising_VA) July 14, 2022

Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, a dystopian novel written in 1985, depicts a future in which women have been enslaved by a theocratic government in the United States. Abortion activists have long used the book as a symbol of their movement supporting unrestricted elective abortions, often dressing up in the red costumes donned by the novel’s protagonists. 

REPRO Rising Virginia also urges activists to swap references to “women” for “people” on protest signs to avoid excluding transgender people. 

“It is exclusionary to only center cisgender women in pro-abortion messaging,” the group said. “Not all people who can get pregnant identify as women.”

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last month, abortion activists have mobilized across the country to protest the ruling. Despite their efforts, very few Americans list abortion as their top issue. In a June Gallup poll, only 1 percent of respondents cited abortion as the most important issue facing the country.

REPRO Rising Virginia rebranded earlier this year after the national lobbying organization NARAL Pro-Choice America disbanded its state chapters to better pursue federal advocacy. The group told Virginia Mercury that they are pivoting to focus on providing transportation to abortion appointments and opening new clinics. 

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

America’s progressive elites have transitioned from “Follow the Science” to “Science is Violence.”

Their senior-most judges will not define what a woman is, nor will their celebrated scholars acknowledge that only a woman can give birth. In fact, to even assert the latter, in our betters’ view, is to render one a dangerous societal menace.

That is one of the takeaways from the recent dumbfounding exchange between Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and U.C.–Berkeley law professor Khiara Bridges during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the legal consequences of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the question of abortion to the states.

The back-and-forth, provoked in part by Bridges’ unwillingness under earlier questioning to refer to those who are pregnant as “women,” went as follows:

Hawley: “Professor Bridges … you’ve referred to ‘people with the capacity for pregnancy.’ Would that be women?”

Bridges: “Many women, cis-women have the capacity for pregnancy. Many cis-women do not have the capacity for pregnancy. There are also trans men who are capable of pregnancy, as well as non-binary people who are capable of pregnancy.”

Hawley: “So this [abortion] isn’t really a women’s rights issue …”

Bridges: “We can recognize that this impacts women while also recognizing that it impacts other groups. Those things are not mutually exclusive, Senator Hawley.”

Hawley: “Your view is, is that the core of this right, then, is about what?”

Bridges: “I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic and it opens up trans people to violence by not recognizing them.”

Hawley: “Wow, you’re saying that I’m opening up people to violence by asking whether or not women are the folks who can have pregnancies?”

Bridges: “I want to note that one out of five transgender persons have attempted suicide …”

Hawley: “Because of my line of questioning? So we can’t talk about it?”

Bridges: “Because denying that trans people exist, and pretending not to know that they exist …”

Hawley: “I’m denying that trans people exist by asking you if you’re talking about women having pregnancies?”

Bridges [After repeatedly interrupting Hawley’s question with “Are you?”]: “Do you believe that men can get pregnant?”

Hawley: “No, I don’t think men can get pregnant.”

Bridges: “So you are denying that trans people exist.”

The exchange reflected a level of condescension, arrogance, and bad faith on the part of Bridges—an apparent radical left academic and activist who has spent much of her career (pdf) teaching on critical race theory and “reproductive justice”—that was nearly as striking as its substance.

What Bridges illustrated is that progressivism requires one to ignore science, our basic humanity, and what we know to be true, and subordinate it all to a secular regressive anti-faith, of which radical gender ideology has become a sacred and integral part.

Should one dare to call out the insanity of being unwilling to recognize that women and solely women can bear children, such dissent must be treated as hateful, and the dissenters cast as dangerous. To recognize reality must not be permitted. “Submit or you are a transphobe with blood on your hands,” the professor tells us.

This tactic is both cheap and low, but its brazen usage here constituted something of a public service. It made clear that devotees of radical gender ideology cannot debate openly and honestly. When challenged, they drip with contempt, dodge, and resort to ad hominem. This is the best that one can expect from the best they have: academics with the most sterling of credentials, hand-picked by U.S. senators to best represent their position.

The notion that words with which the left disagrees—or truths that if broadly acknowledged would hamper their agenda and undermine their power and privilege—constitute violence, and that therefore those articulating them must be chastised if not punished using force of law or worse, of course arises from the academy. And we are all living on the campus now.

This can be seen in the whole-of-ruling class War on Wrongthink under which we are currently suffering, whereby those dissenting from the prevailing orthodoxy over draconian coronavirus policies, critical race theory indoctrination in schools, on matters of election integrity, immigration, or climate are targeted for censorship and silencing if not treated as domestic terror threats by the world’s most powerful national security and intelligence apparatus.

As conditions in America get worse, and the ruling class’s worldview grows ever more radical, expect the censorship to get worse.

What else can you do when the most ardent adherents of your political movement reject biological sex, promote abortion up to the point of birth (infanticide), celebrate drag queen story hour, indoctrinate kids into believing America is a bastion of racist evil, support the freeing of violent criminals while disarming the law-abiding and throwing the book at them should they seek to defend themselves, throw wide open our borders, and cripple the energy industry on which modern life and prosperity relies—and all to predictable disastrous effect?

For normal people seeking a normal society, this is indefensible. Silencing and punishing the ever-growing chorus of critics is the only option.

This is precisely why it’s incumbent upon those who reject such a worldview to speak ever more openly, honestly, and boldly. To remain silent in the face of such crybullies is to be complicit in their totalitarian effort—totalitarian in the sense of its expansive aspiration to control every aspect of our society, starting with our speech, and in the means used to achieve it.

For progressives, it’s clear that every norm and civilizational pillar must be transgressed.

Their fragility is best demonstrated in their every effort to stop you from calling them out on it.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Following a former high school football coach’s Supreme Court victory, a radical atheist is attempting to use the court’s decision to justify his own deranged ideas.

On June 27, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of former high school coach Joseph Kennedy in the case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. Kennedy had lost his job for praying on the football field after games, but he sued them for violating his First Amendment rights.

In a 6-3 decision, the court sided with Kennedy.

“The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

Clearly perturbed by that decision, Florida activist Chaz Stevens asked a Broward County, Florida, high school to lead a Satanic prayer at one of its games, Patch reported.

“I want to give a prayer at the 50-yard line at my alma mater,” Stevens told Patch. “I assume they’re going to tell me to kiss off. This all started when the U.S. Supreme Court, aka the ‘American Taliban,’ sided in favor of a high school coach in Bremerton, Washington, and now he is allowed to give his prayer after the game.”

Stevens also asked to lead a prayer at Bremerton School District, but he told Patch he had not received a response.

While Stevens was trying to make an argument for the separation of church and state, his dishonest antics do nothing but damage his case.

Stevens calls himself the “Archbishop” of Mount Jab Church of Mars, a satirical activist group he founded in an attempt to mock religious conservatives. The organization’s website is littered with bright yellow “donate” buttons, and Stevens often shares where the money goes on his Twitter account.

Does Stevens make a strong argument against the Supreme Court?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.

“Need a laugh?” Stevens wrote in a tweet on Wednesday. “Wonder what your $20 goes towards?”

The tweet included photos of an upside down cross with the words “In Chaz We Trust,” along with a sign explaining the display was “an expression of religious freedom” that did not “represent the city’s administration.” It is unclear what city the display was in.

Need a laugh? Wonder what your $20 goes towards? pic.twitter.com/b7gpaXelnV

— Chaz Stevens (@TheTweetOfJab) July 13, 2022

If Stevens was actually arguing in favor of a real religion, such as Buddhism or Islam, many conservatives would likely support his right to express it. Yet with these weak attempts at comedic attacks against Christians, he is simply exposing the sick and deranged ideas in his own mind.

After Leftist Mob Cancels Christian Bakers, Christian ‘Mob’ Shows Up and Saves the Day

Perhaps the most telling statement was one Stevens gave to Patch about his so-called “message.”

“My message is always wrapped in humor,” he said. “It makes me laugh and I do some beautiful art. It’s all wrapped in my art,” he said. “My art is wrapped in activism, and it makes me happy.”

When Christians read this, we ought to feel sorry for Stevens. If these sick acts actually make him happy, it is clear his life is devoid of true joy, which only Jesus can provide.

These antics are nothing more than cries for help from a man who is unwell, and he is trying to conjure up happiness in himself by mocking others.

Only Jesus is able to fill the gaping void so clearly present in Stevens’ life, and Christians ought to pray the Lord reveals Himself to Stevens and shows him what true joy looks like.

As for his attempted rebuke of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Stevens falls completely flat. Anyone who is paying attention can see through Stevens’ depressing attempts to rile up evangelicals.

Texas on July 14 sued the federal government over a recent document that says abortions must be performed even if the procedures are not allowed by state laws.

The guidance amounts to an abortion mandate and is illegal because it violates multiple laws, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, said.

The guidance (pdf) was promulgated on July 11 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

It tells state survey agency directors that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a doctor at an emergency department who is presented with a pregnant woman who has an emergency medical condition “must” perform an abortion if the abortion is a necessary “stabilizing treatment.”

The abortion must be done even in states where the law “prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person,” the guidance says. “That state law is preempted.”

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, on the same day, told health care providers across the nation that “stabilizing treatment” could include abortion, “irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.” He said in the letter (pdf) that per the emergency labor act, the physician “must provide” an abortion in certain cases.

Texas officials see the situation differently.

Abortions Not Required by Law

“The Abortion Mandate requires that a provider perform an abortion if ‘abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve [an emergency medical condition].’ This condition has never been a part of EMTALA,” they said in a 20-page suit, filed in federal court in Lubbock.

EMTALA “does not mandate, direct, approve, or even suggest the provision of any specific treatment” and, “says nothing about abortion,” they added.

The guidance violates Texas’s sovereignty, according to the suit.

Plaintiffs say defendants lack the authority to amend EMTALA and that the order violates multiple federal laws. Officials also illegally issued the rule without alerting the public and soliciting comment, which violates the Administrative Procedure Act, according to the suit.

Texas officials are asking the court to hold the guidance unlawful and issue injunctions preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.

HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The guidance came shortly after resident Joe Biden, a Democrat, signed an executive order directing Becerra, the HHS secretary, to within 30 days identify how to make sure that patients “receive the full protections for emergency medical care afforded under the law, including by considering updates to current guidance on obligations specific to emergency conditions and stabilizing care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.”

Biden’s order, in turn, was signed weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, ruling the 1973 decision was not constitutionally sound. The ruling returned the ability to fully regulate abortions back to states.

The majority opinion said that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion” and “does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion.”

“This administration has a hard time following the law, and now they are trying to have their appointed bureaucrats mandate that hospitals and emergency medicine physicians perform abortions,” Paxton said in a statement.

“I will ensure that resident Biden will be forced to comply with the Supreme Court’s important decision concerning abortion and I will not allow him to undermine and distort existing laws to fit his administration’s unlawful agenda,” he added.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Isn’t it funny how quickly the Democrats revert to their racist roots when a Black conservative upsets them?

For voicing his legal acumen, Justice Clarence Thomas has been on the receiving end of threats, been called “Uncle Clarence,” was accused of being an angry black man by Hillary Clinton, and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot lead a crowd to the chant of “F#ck Clarence.”

All of this disgusting hate has been directed at this man for failing to sit down, shut up, and do as he’s been told. It’s what the Democrats have come to expect from Black America.

Just like the abusive father who shows his true colors when angry, the Democrats have just lost their minds and are showing their true racist colors now that Roe is overturned.

There’s been no better time to educate Black America than now and expose the racism of the Democrat Party. But we need your $25, $50, or $100 donation today to get this message out to the Black community.

My name is Pastor Marc Little, and I am the Executive Director of CURE America Action. We’re the only, Black-run Conservative organization exposing the racism inherent in the Democrat’s agenda and in America’s communities.

My friend, Alveda King (MLK’s niece), laid out the racist hypocrisy when she said this on Fox News.

“You can’t say Black Lives Matter and not care what happens to Black preborn babies.”  – Alveda King

Preach it, Sister King! The Democrats will march and riot when one man is killed by a rogue police officer, but where are these marchers for the 23 million Black babies aborted since Roe?

Listen, Black Americans are getting tired of the racism inherent with their Democrat masters. We have the opportunity to share the truth with Black Americans and educate them as to the true meaning of the latest Supreme Court decisions, but we need your $50, $100, or $250 donation today to make that happen.

The recent Supreme Court rulings over the following issues have helped to expose the inherent racism embedded in the Democrat Party as they oppose:

• Our rights to self-defense,
• Our ability to worship freely,
• Allowing parents to use vouchers so children may attend good, faith-based schools, and
• the ability to protect unborn children in the womb.

Don’t you find it strange that the Democrats are trying so hard to prevent Black people from exercising their Constitutional rights?

In fact, most Black Americans are unaware that Planned Parenthood’s founder established the organization to sterilize Black Americans. These are the conversations we need to be having in Black Communities and NOT just during election years!

This isn’t a right/left issue. This is a right/wrong issue. And the Democrats are WRONG to do this to Black Americans.

That’s why we can’t waste the opportunity we’ve been given to use these Supreme Court cases to show just the true racism within the Democrat Party. These are the reasons we need you to chip in TODAY with a contribution of $100, $500, or $1,000.

Help us strike while the iron is hot, and the motives of the left are being called into question. Only then will we make inroads into the Black community, bringing conservative change to our nation as a whole, and demonstrating that we are all God’s children and deserving of his grace. Please help us today!

God Bless America,

CURE America Action

Khiara Bridges might be a law professor at Berkeley, but on Tuesday, Sen. Josh Hawley was teaching the lessons.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the legal aftermath of the Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade in June, the Missouri Republican opened up his line of questioning on an area of human biology any 10-year-old is familiar with.

And the law professor couldn’t give a straight answer.

Check out the video here. It’s got to be seen to be believed:

Hawley, a former attorney general of the Show-Me State and a skilled interrogator, started off easy:

Trending:

Biden Makes Waves by Rejecting Israeli President’s Handshake Attempt, White House Cites New COVID Policy

“Professor Bridges, you’ve said several times, you’ve used a phrase, I want to make sure I understand what you mean by it. You’ve referred to ‘people with a capacity for pregnancy.’ Would that be women?”

Give credit to Hawley for keeping a straight face here. Like any good lawyer, he knew the answer to the question before he asked it. And it’s a good bet that he knew just as well that the witness was going to try to wriggle around it.

“Many women — cis women — have the capacity for pregnancy. Many cis women do not have the capacity for pregnancy,” Bridges answered, falling back on orthodox leftist jargon that dares any doubters to see through the nonsense.

“There are also trans men who are capable of pregnancy as well as nonbinary people who are capable of pregnancy.”

When Hawley suggested that that answer took abortion out of the realm of “women’s rights,” Bridges responded with the kind of answer that probably sounds masterful in a faculty lounge but is nonsense to normal human beings.

“We can recognize that this impacts women while also recognizing that it impacts other groups,” she said, fairly bubbling with her own cleverness. “Those things are not mutually exclusive, Sen. Hawley.”

She then accused Hawley of being “transphobic” and even inviting violence against transgender people.

Hawley wasn’t buying it.

“Wow, you’re saying that I’m opening up people to violence by asking whether or not women are the folks who can have pregnancies?”

Related:

Lawmaker Wants Answers After Report on Biden’s Twisted Plan to Divert Services from Sick Veterans

That’s the question the left can’t answer.

They can pull dodges like then-Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson claiming she couldn’t define “women” because “I’m not a biologist.” They can take refuge in scary factoids, as Bridges did by throwing out the statistic that “one out of five transgender persons have attempted suicide.”

But they can’t give an answer that has been a fundamental part of the human experience since there have been humans walking the earth.

In the current political environment, cosseted by an establishment media that’s either too corrupt or too cowardly to call them on it, activists like Bridges have been able to get away with the pretense that sex is a matter of individual choice, that there are no objective differences between men and women, that human agency is the real authority rather than creation itself.

But Bridges’ semantics didn’t work with Hawley, as they wouldn’t work on any sane observer.

I’m a moderate
I’m socially liberal
I work in higher education

I think the witness is insane
She is, sadly, not at all unique in higher ed.
Her attitude towards discussion is becoming the norm

The social sciences, as a respectable academic endeavor, are on life support.

— The Robber Baron (@Robber_Baron_) July 12, 2022

It’s extremely disturbing watching college level educators become visibly angered and accusatory at the point of any debate. This isn’t at all my experience when I attended college. We were encouraged to challenge and openly discuss ideas. Something has gone wrong in education.

— 🌎 Sal (@J1262Sal) July 12, 2022

When cornered, accuse and call them names.

— M_Thomas (@M_Thomasss) July 12, 2022

So, in conclusion, only women can get pregnant.

— JPaulNorton (@JPaulNorton) July 12, 2022

There’s no doubt Bridges and her progressive colleagues thought she came away the winner of this contest — the liberal HuffPost headlined its coverage “Professor Schools Sen. Josh Hawley For His Transphobic Questions In Abortion Hearing,” while a website called LGBTQNation went with “Law professor humiliates Josh Hawley during Senate committee hearing.”

But the reality is, Hawley’s question — Do only women get pregnant? — was one Bridges couldn’t handle.

“Is this how you run your classroom?” Hawley asked. “Are students allowed to question you, or are they also treated like this?”

“We have a good time in my class. You should join,” Bridges answered. “You would learn a lot.”

“Wow, I would learn a lot,” Hawley said, with evident sarcasm. “I’ve learned a lot in this exchange. Extraordinary.”

It’s doubtful the pretentious Professor Bridges came out of it questioning her own beliefs, of course. But Americans who watched learned, once again, that the left of the 21st century is capable of denying a basic truth of existence – and deny it’s denying it.

For Hawley and the rest of the country, it was a masterclass.

Few companies have embraced wokeness with as much zeal as Disney. The company has leaped headlong into America’s culture war to become one of the most activist corporations in the United States.

Disney management’s public battle with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over the state’s Parental Rights in Education law — which critics disingenuously called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill — drew national attention to the company this spring.

Videos from company meetings leaked in March showed company leaders bragging about Disney’s “not-at-all-secret gay agenda” and its moves to create “canonical trans characters” in children’s programming.

In April, we learned that the Walt Disney Co. had kicked its LGBT activism up a notch by offering a new benefit that will assist employees and their minor children with “gender affirmation procedures.”

And following the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, the company immediately assured employees that regardless of where they live, they will be reimbursed for the cost of travel to the nearest state that allows abortion.

What a great work environment for a liberal employee. This company really has their backs.

But what if you’re a conservative?

This is precisely where Disney content producer Jeremiah Daws found himself. The pro-life, conservative Christian recently shared his story with The Daily Wire.

Shortly after his arrival in Hollywood, Daws learned to keep his conservative views to himself. In the late 2000s, he and his brother signed up for a screenwriting workshop.

anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“The man who ran the workshop noticed some conservative posts on my social media and invited us to breakfast to let us know we would be blacklisted in Hollywood if people knew we held those beliefs,” he told the Daily Wire.

In 2015, Daws went to work for Disney. He managed to avoid political discussions and got along just fine until the summer of 2020.

In reaction to the riots that had spread throughout the country following George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis police custody, Disney began sending employees to mandatory diversity and inclusion training sessions.

“That was the last straw” for Daws, he said.

He recalled being told that “as a white, straight, male, I should be quiet and listen” and that “promotions would be on hold for the white men on the team.” He said he’d been instructed to “start casting non-binary children for our photo and video shoots.”

Related:

Leaked Disney Footage: Hidden Sex Message Found in New Kids Cartoon – Can You Spot It?

That fall, Daws read a book that had an impact on him. “Live Not By Lies,” by The American Conservative’s Rod Dreher, tells the “stories of Christians who resisted totalitarianism in the Soviet Union.”

Daws told the Daily Wire he felt like he was “living every day promoting a company, a belief system, and even COVID hysteria, that I didn’t agree with. … I was living by lies, putting on this false exterior.”

He quoted Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”

Daws left the company several months later.

“I just couldn’t lie anymore,” he told the Daily Wire. “I would remove myself from the equation. Living in that kind of environment is soul-crushing. I wanted to be free to express myself without fear of losing my job. I wanted to be in an environment where I could make friends who would accept me as I am, not as they demand me to be.”

Since leaving, Daws has enrolled in trade school and plans to open a machine shop.

“I had hope in the back of my mind that if Disney ever got back to just making magic, maybe I could go back,” he said. “But the lie was still out there. There were 10 years worth of friends and coworkers that still believed I was one of them.”

“It was time to end the lies once and for all. I wanted my next phase of life to be open and truthful. Wherever I worked next, everything would be out on the table.”

Daws said he was pleased by the Supreme Court’s decision last month to reverse the Roe v. Wade ruling. “People have prayed for this day for 50 years,” he said. “We are now on the path to righting this horrible wrong.”

“This was a day to celebrate. I had a small platform among my liberal friends to be a different voice,” he said.

Daws chose that day to “come out” on social media as a conservative. Predictably, his liberal friends responded with “a lot of negativity.”

He was wise to get out.

Although Disney likely tops the list of major U.S. corporations that have adopted a woke agenda, this toxic ideology has spread like a plague throughout corporate America.

As Disney’s executives chase their woke dreams, they’ve forgotten their two primary responsibilities: to provide entertainment to families and to maximize shareholder value. No doubt a portion of the company’s clientele thinks it’s wonderful to include transgenders in films and to add gay characters to Disney classics, but my guess is that the majority of American parents disagree.

That they’ve failed at both is apparent in the price of the company’s common stock, which has been cut in half over the past year.

The pendulum has swung too far in one direction, and ordinary Americans are fed up with identity politics and speech regulation.

Hopefully, voters will deliver a huge “thumbs down” to the woke agenda in November.

FORKED RIVER, N.J.—Founders of New Jersey’s fledging Moderate Party are vowing to continue their efforts toward ending the state’s century-old ban on “fusion voting” after their petition to place a candidate already endorsed by one of the two major parties under their banner as well on November’s ballot was rejected in early June.

That candidate, two-term U.S. Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), is being challenged by Republican Thomas Kean Jr., in a rematch of their 2020 7th Congressional District (CD 7) race decided by 5,329 votes, or less than 1 percent, in one of the nation’s most-watched elections.

In a July 6 New York Times guest essay titled “A Viable Third Party Is Coming, and It’s Starting With a New Jersey Lawsuit,” Malinowski wrote that there is momentum across the country for centrist alternatives that would “empower swing voters to save our democracy from toxic polarization” engendered by Democratic and Republican parties hijacked by extremists on the left and the right.

But five weeks after state Secretary of State Tahesha Way rejected the nascent Moderate Party’s petition to place Malinowski as its 7th District candidate on the Nov. 8 ballot, time is running out for legal action to produce a decision before vote-by-mail ballots must be dispatched on Sept. 24. 

Inaction over a vowed lawsuit has fostered ridicule from Republicans and the Kean campaign who see the newly minted party as a stunt designed to distract voters from the fact that Malinowski is a Democrat who supports Biden administration policies that they say have failed and are out-of-step with the district’s voters.

“Fusion voting” isn’t the same as voting for “third party” hopefuls placed on ballots against candidates sponsored by the two major parties. Under this system, multiple parties can nominate the same candidate, who can appear more than once on the ballot, and their vote totals are combined. 

Fusion voting is standard in Europe, where multiple parties form alliances and coalitions to cross-nominate common candidates in national and European Union elections. In May, a constellation of minor parties and independents in Australia banded together to elect Labor leader Anthony Albanese as prime minister.

Fusion voting was common in the United States from the 1800s until the 1920s when, under pressure from the two major parties, more than 40 states banned candidates from being placed more than once on the same ballot.

Only eight states now allow “fusion voting”: Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, and New York. 

“Fusion voters” have affected numerous races in these states. In the 2010 Connecticut governor’s race, Democrat Dannel Malloy, who was also listed on the Working Families Party ballot line, garnered an additional 26,000 votes, which proved to be the key to his victory.

Fusion voters are a crucial constituency in New York, where the two largest “third parties” don’t usually run their own entries but can influence what candidates are nominated by the two major parties by placing them on the ballot under their banner as well.

New York’s Working Families Party usually aligns with Democrats, and the state’s Conservative Party usually supports Republicans. These cross-nominations can significantly influence success in general elections.

Legal efforts to eliminate bans on fusion voting have been thwarted over the last 30 years by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows states to ban the practice, and in state court rulings that upheld prohibitions on cross-party nominations.

In 1994, the Twin Cities Area New Party petitioned the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office to allow a state House candidate who was running on the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party line as the New Party’s candidate.

The party sued when the petition was denied, claiming the prohibition violated First and 14th Amendment free association rights. After a district court ruled in favor of Minnesota, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, which the state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of Minnesota, finding in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party that the ban on fusion voting didn’t unduly burden the free association rights of citizens. 

“We conclude that the burdens Minnesota’s fusion ban imposes on the New Party’s associational rights are justified by ‘correspondingly weighty’ valid state interests in ballot integrity and political stability,” the majority opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated.

The ruling offered “no views … concerning the wisdom of fusion,” the opinion said. “It may well be that, as support for new political parties increases, these arguments will carry the day in some States’ legislatures. But the Constitution does not require Minnesota, and the approximately 40 other states that do not permit fusion, to allow it.”

It is, the court ruled, a state matter. In a 2019 challenge to Pennsylvania’s fusion ban, the Working Families Party sued after its petition to cross-nominate a Democratic Party candidate was denied. The state’s Supreme Court upheld the prohibition in a 4–3 ruling.

Amid polarization where increasingly a significant component of voters registered with the two major parties are unhappy with what they perceive to be extreme ideological drifts—and the number of independent voters unaffiliated with either continues to grow nationwide—the idea of fusion voting and coalition-building is gaining traction as an alternative to simply voting for a third-party candidate who usually has little chance to win.

In Utah, for instance, Evan McMullin is running against incumbent GOP Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) as a center-right independent endorsed by the Utah Democratic Party, which isn’t fielding its own candidate in the race in the deep-red state.

The former chief policy director for the House Republican Conference is a coalition candidate backed by divergent groups fused to halt the rightward shift of the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, New Jersey’s Moderate Party claims in a statement to have been “formed by a group of New Jersey Republicans, Independents, and Democrats turned off by both major parties’ drift to ideological extremes” and says it will appeal to “pragmatic, middle-of-the-road voters committed to protecting our democratic institutions.”

The party’s co-founders include prominent Republicans such as former East Amwell Mayor Richard Wolfe and former Alexandria Mayor Michelle Garay, and an array of mostly Democratic-leaning nonprofits, including Protect Democracy, the New America Foundation, and the New Jersey Working Families Alliance.

It’s the nation’s only formally registered Moderate Party. The Moderate Party of Rhode Island was recognized as a “ballot-qualified political party” in that state between 2009 and 2018 but failed to qualify in 2019 or since. 

A Moderate Party candidate could, however, appear as a multi-party endorsed entry in at least one state—New York—where it’s not even a recognized party. 

Among Democrats vying for their party’s nomination in New York’s 21st Congressional District on Aug. 23, Matthew Castelli also has filed as the Moderate Party candidate and will appear as such on the November ballot.

New York’s election laws permit candidates to devise their own party names when they petition to be placed on ballots if they collect enough voter signatures to qualify. Castelli said in a statement that he presented more than 6,500 signatures on his Moderate Party petition from 21st District voters “with the help of over 250 Democratic, Republican. and independent volunteers.”

The winner of the Democratic CD 21 primary will face incumbent Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who will appear on the ballot under the Republican and Conservative party lines. She faces no opposition in either party’s primaries.

Castelli said voters signed the petition because they want a lawmaker who will focus on the issues they are concerned with rather than be paralyzed by partisan ideology.

His campaign will continue “in building the broad coalition of volunteers and voters,” he said, “because this broad coalition of voters is how we will defeat Congresswoman Elise Stefanik.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A man suspected of being in the country illegally has been arrested for the rape of a 10-year-old girl in Ohio.

Gerson Fuentes, 27, was arrested on July 12 for rape of a person under 13 years old, according to court records reviewed by The Epoch Times. The offense took place on May 12.

Fuentes confessed and the girl he raped, who just turned 10, received an abortion in Indianapolis on June 30, the Columbus Police Department said in Franklin County court, according to the Columbus Dispatch.

Det. Jeffrey Huhn said that the girl identified Fuentes as the father of the child and that Fuentes, through an interpreter, admitted having sexual contact with the girl, the paper reported.

A probable cause statement said that detectives collected a saliva sample from Fuentes and Huhn said testing is pending.

A bond of $2 million was set.

Fuentes is in the country illegally, according to a government official. He was provided a translator during the hearing, video footage showed.

Fuentes is currently being held in the Franklin County Jail, according to jail records.

Police Decline to Share Information

Reached after the hearing, the Columbus Police Department declined to share any information.

“Out of compassion for the victims, the Columbus Division of Police will not comment on any rapes/sexual assaults of juveniles,” Sgt. Joe Albert, an aide to Police Chief Elaine Bryant, told The Epoch Times.

The Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office said it was conducting a legal review of The Epoch Times’ request for documents on the case.

The Franklin County Public Defender’s Office, which is representing Gershon, did not respond to a request for comment.

The story of the rape was first reported by the Indianapolis Star, based on an account from pro-abortion doctor Caitlin Bernard.

No other evidence was provided in the initial report, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost had cast doubt on whether it happened.

“My heart aches for the pain suffered by this young child. I am grateful for the diligent work of the Columbus Police Department in securing a confession and getting a rapist off the street. Justice must be served and BCI stands ready to support law enforcement across Ohio putting these criminals behind bars,” Yost said in a statement on Wednesday. BCI refers to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation.

Resident Joe Biden cited the story in a speech on July 8 before signing an executive order aimed at ensuring women can get abortions in the wake of the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade.

“Some of the states don’t allow for exceptions for rape or incest,” Biden said. “Just last week, it was reported that a 10-year-old girl was a rape victim in Ohio—10 years old—and she was forced to have to travel out of the state, to Indiana, to seek to terminate the [pregnancy] and maybe save her life.”

Ohio legislators passed an abortion ban on pregnancies over six weeks that was signed into law by Gov. Mark DeWine, a Republican, in 2019. It took effect in June after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. The law has no exceptions for rape or incest, though it does allow abortions if they are deemed necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

What’s Happening:

With Joe Biden unlikely to make it to 2024, Democrats are fearing a Kamala candidacy. Chances are, the woman will run—common sense be damned.

But she isn’t doing herself any favors. While speaking about the historic overturning of Roe v. Wade, she stumbled over her own comments.

Yikes, what did I just watch?

Kamala Harris was asked about her views on the recent overturning of Roe. It appears the woman, who seems to care more about appearances than substance, tried to look concerned and grave.

Oh, yes. The end of federalized abortion is so terrible. Any reasonable Democrat has to look very solemn when talking about it.

(Because their Planned Parenthood business is probably going to take a big hit.)

But when she opens her mouth, nothing remotely grave or solemn comes out. She claims that abortion was “settled.”

Not sure what she meant by that, considering millions upon millions of Americans have protested every year over it since 1974.

But then she goes on and says it’s “unsettled.” Uh… what?

What is this woman talking about? Can’t anyone within the Biden administration talk like rational humans?

It’s bad enough that Biden is reading “repeat quote” off a teleprompter. Does his “vice president” have to sound just as confusing as he does?

Harris has long been mocked over her “word salads.” But that is being too charitable. From all appearances, she looks and sounds like a child pretending to be a politician.

Nothing about her appears authentic. She is trying to imitate real leaders, hoping people are dumb enough to believe her.

Hey, Kamala! Guess what we aren’t.

Key Takeaways:

• Kamala Harris made another confusing statement during an interview.
• She contradicted herself while discussing the overturning of Roe.
• Harris has as bad of a reputation speaking as Joe Biden.

Source YouTube

The Patriot Journal

White men resurgent after Felicia Sonmez fiasco, women snubbed

The Washington Post‘s justified firing of obnoxious feminist reporter Felicia Sonmez has been quite the boon for generic male journalists. Last week the paper tapped generic white man David Shipley to take over as editor of the Post editorial page, and welcomed back Dave Weigel, the white male reporter who was suspended last month for retweeting a joke that offended Sonmez. The patriarchy is thriving.

Shipley’s hiring was widely viewed as a victory for misogynists. His predecessor, generic white man Fred Hiatt, died of heart failure in December 2021. Female journalists Ruth Marcus and Karen Tumulty had been running the editorial page on an interim basis. The Post‘s white male publisher, Fred Ryan, was naturally reluctant to promote a woman. They did not, he argued in a press release announcing the decision, possess Shipley’s “intellectual curiosity, thoughtful independence, journalistic integrity, and even-handed judgment,” among other traits commonly associated with the male gender.

Ryan claimed (without evidence) to have settled on Shipley after an “exhaustive” and “inclusive” search process that involved men and women “of diverse backgrounds, experiences, and worldviews.” Alas, the Post‘s blatant snubbing of two relatively qualified female journalists was reminiscent of CNN’s racist refusal to promote a person of color to replace Zoom masturbator Jeffrey Toobin as the network’s chief legal analyst. Toobin, who once tried to bribe his mistress to get an abortion, has appeared on CNN multiple times to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The Post‘s open embrace of misogyny is ironic given that Sonmez initiated her job-ending tirade in response to Weigel’s retweet of a joke some described as “sexist.” The male journalist was suspended for a month without pay after Sonmez, a woman, complained. Nevertheless, she persisted in attacking her colleagues on social media until the Post was compelled to fire her for cause. Now that she’s gone, white men are finally getting a chance to run things.

These changes have emboldened some the Post‘s male journalists to gloat on social media. Gene Park, who covers one of the most toxically masculine industries in the world (video gaming), bragged that he routinely hangs out with “conventionally attractive” women and insinuated that many of his ex-girlfriends were hot babes. Park complained that people were always asking questions such as, “How did you land that?” and making comments such as, “Dude, you must have a massive cock.” At one point, he commiserated with another gamer bro who lamented, “I also have an attractive wife.”

We are literally shaking right now.

Note: The Washington Free Beacon is proud to be a woman-led organization. 

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

A Massachusetts pregnancy clinic was vandalized on July 7 by two people affiliated with Jane’s Revenge, a violent pro-abortion extremist group.

The Worcester clinic shared a surveillance video of the attack with The Epoch Times, with the footage showing two people dressed in black and their faces covered approaching the clinic. One of the people spray-painted the clinic’s front steps with the words “Jane’s Revenge.” The other person then pulled out a hammer and used it to damage the clinic’s door and windows.

Jane’s Revenge has taken credit for vandalizing and firebombing pro-life organizations, churches, and other pregnancy clinics. The group surfaced shortly after the leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion, which suggested that the nation’s top court may be prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade, the seminal opinion that largely legalized abortion nationwide.

The Supreme Court subsequently overturned Roe v. Wade.

Republicans have called for the Department of Justice to classify Jane’s Revenge as a terrorist group. The Department of Homeland Security described the group in a June memo as “a network of loosely affiliated suspected violent extremists.” The federal agency warned that there was a risk of violence from the group following the Supreme Court decision.

The attack took place the morning after state Attorney General Maura Healey’s office said in a lengthy statement that pregnancy clinics don’t provide abortions.

The July 6 statement also warned that pregnancy clinics engage in deceptive practices, don’t have to adhere to any code of ethics, and often provide inaccurate and misleading information about abortion and the medical and mental health effects of abortion.

Kelly Wilcox, executive director of the Clearwater Clinic, told The Epoch Times that the FBI was on site on July 8 investigating the attack along with local law enforcement.

She told The Epoch Times that she doesn’t understand the motive behind the attacks nor the comments made by Healey. She said her clinic, which opened in 2000, has always been transparent about not providing abortions.

For more than a decade, Clearway, which also owns a second clinic in Massachusetts, has been doing exit surveys for all clients, according to Wilcox.

“We have never had anyone claim we have deceived them,” she said. “So I have no idea where these allegations are coming from.”

The clinic provides post-abortion counseling and a host of other medical services, including pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and STD testing. The clinics also offer other forms of help, including baby clothes and supplies to expecting mothers.

Wilcox said they don’t refer to themselves as crisis pregnancy centers (CPC), despite the use of the term by those opposed to them.

Thomas Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), which represents 1,600 pregnancy centers in the United States, told The Epoch Times that Planned Parenthood has long been “leveling a smear campaign against pregnancy centers.”

Planned Parenthood didn’t respond to calls from The Epoch Times.

In her statement, Healey, at times using all capital letters, said that “CPCs do NOT provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare.”

“CPCs are organizations that seek to prevent people from accessing abortion care,” she said.

Healey, a Democrat who’s running for governor, is also a well-known supporter of Planned Parenthood.

Last year, Planned Parenthood contributed $1,700 to her bid for reelection and ran a picture and a quote from Healey saying: “Planned Parenthood’s endorsement was a game-changer for my campaign.”

She was also a guest speaker at Planned Parenthood’s “Sexual Health Lobby Day” held at the statehouse in June.

Healey’s office condemned the attack in a statement to The Epoch Times.

“Our office will continue to focus on ensuring that patients seeking abortion care are safe and well-informed about their options,” a spokesman for Healey’s office said in the written statement.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also criticized pregnancy centers prior to the Clearwater attack. In a July 3 Twitter post, Warren said that in Massachusetts, “so-called crisis pregnancy centers outnumber legitimate abortion care providers 3 to 1.”

“We need to crack down on the deceptive practices these centers use to prevent people from getting abortion care, and I’ve got a bill to do just that,” she said.

Warren entitled the legislation the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act, which she’s co-sponsoring with Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

They defined the legislation as a measure “to combat false advertising by crisis pregnancy centers.”

The measure, which was just recently introduced, has already won the backing of Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Americans’ confidence in major U.S. institutions—including government and the media—is in a state of collapse, falling to an average of just 27 percent across all categories, according to the latest national poll released by the Gallup Organization.

Only the military and small businesses still enjoy the confidence of a majority of Americans.

Although public belief in institutions has been weak for most of the past 15 years, the 27 percent average for all categories is the lowest recorded by Gallup.

The company began measuring confidence in institutions in 1973 and has done so each year since 1993.

The survey figures came after Gallup delivered sobering news on June 22. At that time the company said confidence in the overall direction of the country fell to 13 percent that month, down 3 percentage points from May and 11 points since March when the figure was 24 percent.

It also reported at that time that despite ongoing economic malaise, resident Joe Biden’s job approval rating held steady at 41 percent between May and June.

Gallup’s finding on the issue was called into question by the Civiqs Poll’s daily tracking survey of registered voters which found Biden’s approval rating has sunk to a new record low of just 30 percent, the New York Post reported July 9.

Only in two states, the Democratic strongholds of Vermont and Hawaii, are the president’s supporters more numerous than his detractors.

Gallup also reported on June 29 that although 96 percent of U.S. adults expressed pride in varying degrees about being American, that figure includes a record low of 38 percent who consider themselves “extremely proud” to be Americans, the lowest figure for that description since the company began tracking the issue in 2001.

Another 27 percent of Americans said they were “very proud,” while 22 percent said they were “moderately proud,” and 9 percent described themselves as “only a little proud.”

Four percent said they were “not at all” proud to be Americans.

In the new Gallup survey, Americans expressed less confidence in institutions than they did a year ago, with significant declines in 11 of the 16 examined—and no improvements for any of the institutions.

The biggest drops were regarding the presidency as an institution—as opposed to the job performance of the current president—and the Supreme Court.

Confidence in the presidency is now at 23 percent, which is 15 percentage points lower than 2021.

The Supreme Court came in at 25 percent, down 11 points since 2021. The survey was completed before the court rendered landmark rulings on gun rights and abortion, decisions that have proven controversial.

Confidence in Congress came in at just 7 percent, down from 12 percent a year ago.

The figures for the presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court were record Gallup lows.

Five other institutions’ ratings plunged to record lows.

The church and organized religion weighed in at 31 percent, down from 37 percent. Newspapers scored 16 percent, falling from 21 percent. The criminal justice system got 14 percent, after rating 20 percent. Big business came in at 14 percent, falling from 18 percent. The police garnered 45 percent after the 51 percent figure a year ago.

Large technology companies weighed in at 26 percent, down from 29 percent. Gallup has only been measuring confidence in the category for three years.

Small business and the military still enjoy the confidence of a majority of Americans, despite slipping support. Small business came in at 68 percent, down from 70 percent in 2021. The military had a confidence level of 64 percent, which is lower than the previous 69 percent figure.

Confidence in the medical system is at 38 percent, down from 44 percent. The figure for public schools is 28 percent, down from 32 percent. Banks scored 27 percent, a drop from 33 percent. Confidence in organized labor remained steady at 28 percent.

Confidence in television news is down to 11 percent from 16 percent in the 2021 survey.

The new annual survey was carried out by telephone in the first three weeks of June. The respondents were 1,015 adults in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/confidence-in-us-media-government-and-justice-system-collapsing_4589439.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-07-11-2&utm_medium=email&est=WQ7IxDJu41RqYANJ%2Fie16XB%2BXk6DnxEZqS9ppCdU1MliBuh5UAG6oFEh8n69f%2FYwhg%3D%3D

The Biden Justice Department has yet to take action against abortion extremists menacing pro-life clinics and members of the Supreme Court. Republican lawmakers are resolved to hold leadership accountable after the midterm elections—even if that means impeaching Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), who is in line to take over the House Judiciary Committee if Republicans prevail in November, didn’t take a Garland impeachment inquiry off the table in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon. Jordan cited a range of alleged misconduct, from failure to enforce black-letter law to protect clinics and justices, to secret collusion with leftwing groups opposed to parents protesting woke curricula changes.

“That’ll be a decision that will be made by the entire conference,” Jordan said of an impeachment push.

The oversight planning is a response to conflict roiling the country following the High Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Pro-abortion protesters tried running Justice Brett Kavanaugh out of a downtown Washington, D.C., steakhouse on Wednesday night, weeks after a gunman came to his home planning to assassinate him. And the militant pro-abortion network Jane’s Revenge has claimed responsibility for more than a dozen acts against pro-life clinics and churches, ranging from vandalism to fire-bombing.

It is a federal crime to demonstrate outside of a judge’s home with intent to influence deliberations. Regular pro-abortion demonstrations outside the homes of the conservative justices seem to fit that bill exactly. The Justice Department has taken no action against protesters as of this writing. Local police told inquiring neighbors that federal agencies are declining to enforce the judicial anti-picketing law, according to a Fox News report.

Jordan wonders whether the Justice Department and the White House are following a template.

“The key question we would like to find out, if in fact the American people put us in control, is was this similar to what happened with parents at school board meetings? In other words, was the Biden White House working with some outside left wing influence groups, and also then communicating that information to the DOJ?” Jordan said.

The Ohio Republican added that a dozen whistleblowers have quietly come forward to speak about the Biden Justice Department and FBI matters, though he declined to get into specifics.

The Free Beacon was first to report that White House aides colluded with the National School Boards Association to push the Justice Department into investigating parents protesting critical race theory and gender ideology as domestic terrorists.

It’s also a federal crime to attack or destroy houses of worship and clinics for pregnant women. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, who enforces those laws, has derided pro-life clinics in the past. While Biden administration officials have shared intelligence assessments with clerics and local law enforcement, the administration has yet to make even a single arrest or indictment related to dozens of attacks on churches and pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.

There have been almost 50 documented instances of violence, vandalism, or intimidation at houses of worship and pro-life clinics since the Dobbs draft leaked, according to a June report from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

House Republicans will be better positioned than their Senate counterparts to force Biden officials to cooperate if they stonewall investigators. Senate committee rules incentivize, but do not require, bipartisan cooperation when issuing subpoenas. The House has no such constraints. And House committees have historically taken the lead on compelled testimony and sharing of evidence.

Republican senators are putting public pressure on federal law enforcement to take immediate action. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to FBI director Christopher Wray in June requesting a briefing on the bureau’s efforts to combat pro-abortion extremism.

“Our law enforcement officers are obliged to duly enforce the laws of our country—not just those that are politically suitable to the current administration,” Grassley’s letter reads.

“We’re usually the tip of the spear in terms of shining a light on issues and embarrassing an agency into compliance,” a Republican Senate aide told the Free Beacon. “The more attention they get for ignoring congressional oversight, the worse it looks for them. And that’s a pretty effective tactic for us.”

Outside groups are also pressing GOP lawmakers for accountability. Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project, said there is ample reason to remove Garland from office. Davis was nominations chief for Grassley during the Kavanaugh confirmation and led the outside support team for Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation.

“When Republicans reclaim the House in January, they must impeach Attorney General Merrick Garland,” Davis told the Free Beacon. “There must be consequences for his dangerous dereliction of duty that has led to highly dangerous attacks on the Supreme Court of the United States.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

After the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a screenshot purporting to show a tweet from Abe before his death began circulating online.

According to the Associated Press, the tweet showed Japanese characters with a supposed translation in English underneath.

“I have information that will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton,” the translation read.

However, the AP determined claims that Abe tweeted this were false.

“Abe’s verified Twitter account uses a different username and profile picture than the ones shown in the altered image,” the outlet reported.

“The Japanese text in the altered image does not mention Clinton, either.”

Instead, the AP found the Japanese characters loosely translated to, “to repeat, I.”

Abe was shot Friday while giving a speech endorsing a candidate in Nara, Japan, NPR reported. He died of his injuries shortly after.

This is not the first time a hoax regarding Hillary Clinton circulated following the death of a high-profile figure. In an article from 2020, the Associated Press reported a similar incident after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died.

anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Just like the fabricated tweet from Abe, a fake tweet from Ginsberg promised incriminating information about Clinton.

The AP reported Ginsberg did not use a personal Twitter account, and the account from which the tweet was allegedly sent had no connection to her.

While neither of these tweets turned out to be real, the virality of this trend gives an insight into Americans’ feelings about Clinton.

Clinton has not been politically relevant since she lost to former President Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Nonetheless, many people are still discussing her shady behavior.

If social media users wanted to create a hoax that would sully the name of a political figure, one would think they would choose a politician with potential power, such as Trump or resident Joe Biden.

Related:

Please Don’t Watch This: Hillary Sex Scene Read Aloud on CBS in Front of Her – Viewers Horrified

Instead, these hoaxes have revolved around Clinton, who has been out of the political spotlight for six years now.

False as these tweets are, they are based on a kernel of truth: Clinton has lived her life in a shady manner. From her infamous emails to her alleged spying on Trump and his campaign, she has been riddled with scandals throughout her career.

Americans do not trust Clinton, and they have made this fact clear by bringing up doubts about her following high-profile deaths.

Resident Joe Biden’s administration cannot ignore federal law that says authorities must arrest, detain, and remove illegal aliens convicted of certain crimes and/or aliens who are ordered deported, an appeals court has ruled.

Federal law says the attorney general “shall take into custody,” “shall detain,” and “shall remove” illegal aliens convicted of certain crimes and aliens who are ordered deported. But the Biden administration has attempted to prevent the holding and removal of some illegal immigrants convicted of those crimes.

“The fact an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, a Biden appointee, said in a memorandum in September 2021 outlining new guidance that narrowed immigration enforcement priorities.

Mayorkas also said that immigration agents should not “rely on the fact of conviction … alone” when deciding to take action against an alien.

That has led to a sharp drop in criminal aliens detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said. The memo and others like it has led to a spike in the rescinding of criminal detainers, or orders to local authorities to detain aliens, court documents show. One hundred and seventy aliens had detainers rescinded in Texas between Jan. 20, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2022, with at least 17 failing to comply with their parole conditions and four committing fresh crimes.

“The data show that the Final Memo ‘increases the number of aliens with criminal convictions and aliens with final orders of removal released into the United States,’ and Texas has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the cost of that reality has fallen on it and will continue to do so,’” the panel said in a ruling dated July 6.

DHS is trying “to claim it acts within the bounds of federal law while practically disregarding that law,” it added.

The panel upheld an earlier ruling from U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee who said the policy had resulted in criminal aliens “roam[ing] free” and ordered the department not to follow the memo.

The Biden administration had appealed, arguing that the lower court order should be overturned because the states lack standing, because they have not suffered any injury, and because any injury that the speculative injury was not traceable to the Mayorkas memo. The appeals court panel disagreed.

Response

Biden “tried to throw out immigration law, saying DHS didn’t have to detain criminal illegals. The court now says he must,” Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

“Had the administration won its stay, it would have gone on releasing criminal aliens while its appeal of the district court’s ruling wound through the courts,” added Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which filed a brief in the case. “We are pleased that didn’t happen, and applaud the Fifth Circuit for denying the administration the extra time it sought to violate the law and endanger Americans.”

The administration is expected to appeal, which could send the case to the full Fifth Circuit or to the Supreme Court, which recently ruled the administration can end the Trump era “Remain in Mexico” policy while explicitly avoiding weighing in on whether the detention requirement outlined in federal law is “subject to principles of law enforcement discretion” and whether the administration’s current approach to immigration enforcement violates the provision.

The panel consisted of Judges Edith Jones, a Reagan appointee; Edith Clement, a George W. Bush appointee; and Kurt Engelhardt, a Trump appointee.

Its ruling diverged from an opinion from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar case brought by the states of Arizona, Montana, and Ohio that in April overturned (pdf) a lower court’s nationwide preliminary injunction that blocked the same guidance.

The Fifth Circuit panel said its divergence is explainable by the benefit of bench trial and precedent in other cases brought before the court. “Until there is a contrary ruling from the Supreme Court, we adhere to our precedent and the facts found by the district court,” it said.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Seth Dillon will not back away from making fun of irrational and dangerous ideology

Seth Dillon, CEO of the satire news website The Babylon Bee, said the company’s goal is to show the irrationality of the popular narratives that pervade modern culture by making jokes about the issues of the time, from Roe v. Wade to the fact that a Supreme Court nominee could not define the word “woman.”

“Rationality itself is under attack. It’s not just free speech. There are people who have abandoned rationality on purpose, and are trying to get you to go along with agreeing with them that two and two make five,” Dillon said during a recent interview for EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program.

Dillon’s goal with The Babylon Bee is to make people laugh and question their own thinking, he said, but he’s found the company taking on a more important role.

“The goal was to make people laugh, and to make them think a little bit, to be subversive the way that satire is supposed to be subversive, to poke holes in the popular narrative,” said Dillon. “The goal wasn’t to be on the front lines of some kind of big battle but that is where things are at.”

Although clearly satire, The Babylon Bee has been attacked as being fake news, banned on some platforms, and subjected to “fact-checks.”

Fact-Checking Satire

“The issue that we’ve had with the fact-checkers is that if they had just gone to our pieces and said, ‘Hey, this is a viral piece of content, you may have seen it going around. This is satire. Laugh, it’s satire,’ that wouldn’t have been detrimental to our business,” Dillon said.

“The problem was that they were out there saying, ‘Oh, these guys have managed to pull off these tricks before. They’re duping you. They’re presenting you with fake news. They’re pretending to be satirists, but they’re really deceivers, and it’s a hub for disinformation.’”

One of the fact-checking companies told Dillon they only fact-check an article if they get hundreds of people asking the company if a headline is true.

Dillon said when he questioned this fact-checker about where they were getting their complaints about The Babylon Bee articles, the fact-checker could not give him an answer and stopped responding to his emails.

“There’s no question in their mind that we are legitimately satire,” Dillon said about the fact-checkers, “but they use the fact-checking as an excuse to try to vilify us as being someone who’s out there trying to mislead the public.”

“This is not merely innocuous content moderation where they’re saying, ‘This is lewd or indecent content, we’re taking it down,’” said Dillon. “It’s viewpoint discrimination under the guise of benign content moderation.”

What Is a Woman

In order to poke fun at Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson for saying she couldn’t define the word “woman” during her confirmation hearings, The Babylon Bee produced a video in which a young boy is asked to spell the word “woman” during a spelling bee. He asks the judges for the definition, and they can’t give it to him.

“When you play it out, what a sketch like this allows you to do is take the absurdity of the absurd position that someone holds and put it into a practical context, like an everyday context where it’s exposed for how absurd it really is,” said Dillon.

“She said, ‘I’m not a biologist,’ but what’s a biologist got to say about it? You know, as far as gender ideology goes, your sex, your biological makeup has nothing to do with your gender at all,” he said.

Dillon has found that the public is hungry for The Babylon Bee’s type of humor.

“I think that comedy that pushes back, and is willing to make jokes that you’re not supposed to make, is really refreshing right now,” he said.

Comedians who push back on the “woke” narrative, like Dave Chappelle, are the ones audiences want to listen to and that are gaining popularity, but they’re attacked for “punching down.”

“Punching down is a derogatory term to describe jokes made at the expense of people who have less power than you,” said Dillon.

Included in this way of thinking is that these groups should not be made fun of because they are weaker and more victimized in society, said Dillon.

“I think it’s the most absurd thing in the world to try to put yourself in the mindset when you’re writing a joke, stopping yourself and thinking to yourself, ‘You know what, I can’t joke about those people, they’re beneath me.’ That’s just a ridiculous condescending thought to have,” said Dillon

‘Safeguard Against Insanity’

The Babylon Bee was accused of punching down when the website jokingly named the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, “man of the year” in one of its headlines.

“Well, this is a white male, high ranking government official, for one thing, and this is an idea that’s being foisted on us from the top down,” said Dillon, who believes his website is justified in joking about Levine.

“I think it’s a real sign of not just, you know, mental, but also spiritual immaturity, to be incapable and unwilling to examine yourself and laugh at yourself,” said Dillon

All of the jokes are meant to make people laugh and to expose irrational and dangerous ideology, not to be cruel, said Dillon.

In addition, the indoctrination of young children with the current transgender ideology is having a detrimental effect on children, he said.

“You can call it cruel because it hurt somebody’s feelings, but I think that it’s actually a safeguard against insanity, which is harmful,” said Dillon

Twitter suspended The Babylon Bee’s account over the Levine “man of the year” article and said if The Babylon Bee deleted the tweet, the account would be reinstated.

Deleting the tweet would mean acknowledging that The Babylon Bee engaged in hateful conduct, Dillon said, and he doesn’t agree with that assessment.

“That’s why we’re not [deleting] it,” he said.

Dillon stands firm about people’s right to free speech.

“You either have to be compelled to say what we want you to say or remain silent and censor yourself. When we’ve reached that point, that’s where I say that’s a hill worth dying on,” said Dillon.

Some of The Babylon Bee’s satirical headlines, including “Pants Sales Plummet as Everyone Working From Home” or “Progressive Church Announces New Drag Queen Bible Story Hour” have come true after the headlines were published.

Opposing Transgender Indoctrination of Children

“There’s this weird thing happening, where it’s becoming difficult for us to make jokes that are so absurd [that] they don’t come true because we’re kind of on this fast track towards insanity,” said Dillon

“I quoted [English writer G.K.] Chesterton, who said that the world has become too absurd to be satirized,” said Dillon.

Currently, with school children being indoctrinated with transgender ideology and some communities having drag queens come in full garb to do story time, or instructions being sent home with kindergarteners about masturbation, Dillon believes sane people need to voice their opposition because this is harmful to young developing minds.

“There’s a moral obligation you have as a parent to insulate your children from things that would corrupt their innocence to the extent that you can. You certainly don’t want to be exposing them to it, or indoctrinating them, or trying to normalize behavior that you know is lewd or indecent,” he said.

Dillon said he is shocked that more people are not outraged about this type of indoctrination, sexualization, and grooming of young children.

The people doing the indoctrination are “pretty open about their motivations and their purpose, their mission is to stir up the queer imagination in children,” said Dillon.

“The culture of what is accepted by the left is getting more and more extreme, but they are not willing to be made fun of,” Dillon said, adding that this is the reason The Babylon Bee is targeted by the left.

“There’s no tolerance on the left for jokes about their sacred cows. So there needs to be a two-way street, where the jokes are allowed to flow in both directions, because they’re very vicious in their humor about conservatives, about Christians,” he said. “They are willing to dish it out but they can’t take it.”

Recently, Dillon personally backed the creator of the Twitter account Libs of TikTok, who exposes the left’s obsession with transgender ideology.

“What Libs of TikTok is doing is, I think, important journalistic work that a lot of journalists are neglecting,” said Dillon. And the reason the left has targeted the account is that it is exposing their amoral agenda

A Meeting With Musk

In December 2021, Dillon, along with The Babylon Bee’s Editor in Chief Kyle Mann and Creative Director Ethan Nicolle, sat down for a longform interview with Elon Musk.

“I asked him, what do you think is so harmful about [woke ideology] and he said it’s divisive, it’s exclusionary, it’s hateful, it gives mean people an excuse to be cruel, while armored in false virtue,” Dillon recalled.

Musk told the leaders of The Babylon Bee that he is a free speech absolutist, and because he is in the financial position to buy Twitter, wants to ensure that true public discourse is allowed to happen on the platform, said Dillon.

“That’s the reason that he’s interested in and taking over Twitter, because wokeness is a lot of the driving force behind compelling certain speech, pressuring people to censor themselves. Otherwise, they’ll be canceled and deplatformed. He sees free speech as being vital for the health of a society,” added Dillon.

The Babylon Bee will continue to speak out against irrational attempts to cancel what they are doing, said Dillon.

“The best way to subvert, the best way to push back on that, is to speak the truth boldly and not censor yourself,” said Dillon.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Joins a number of other governors doing the same

Roy Cooper, the governor of North Carolina, signed an executive order on July 6 to continue enabling access to abortion in the state and shield people criminally charged with performing the procedure from being extradited to other states.

The Democrat noted that the executive order is “not intended to change and does not change North Carolina law, but rather ensures that North Carolinians are afforded the protections and rights provided under North Carolina law.”

His action comes after the U.S. Supreme Court on June 24 struck down Roe v. Wade in a case involving an abortion law in Mississippi. Roe v. Wade had largely enabled abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy across the United States for nearly 50 years. The overturning of Roe returns regulation of the procedure back to the states.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, also signed an executive order similar to Cooper’s on July 6. Other Democratic governors, including for Maine and Rhode Island, on July 5 made similar moves to shield patients and providers of abortions from penalties. Over in Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker signed a similar executive order on the day Roe v. Wade was overturned.

In North Carolina, abortions are legal until fetal viability, which typically falls between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy. An abortion can be still performed after that in the case of a medical emergency, to protect the life or health of the mother. Abortions done for the purpose of sex selection are prohibited.

People who opt to have an abortion must receive information designed to dissuade them from moving forward with the procedure and wait 72 hours before the abortion is provided. They also must undergo an ultrasound before the abortion.

Cooper’s executive order (pdf) states that people who provide or receive “reproductive health care services that are legal” in North Carolina will not be imposed civil or criminal penalties by the Cabinet agencies or people under the governor’s office.

“Reproductive health care services” is defined in the document as including abortions.

Protect Against Extraditions

Cooper’s order states that Cabinet agencies shall coordinate to “protect people or entities who are providing, assisting, seeking, or obtaining lawful reproductive health care services in North Carolina.” The order also directs the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to work with law enforcement to prohibit anyone from blocking access to a health care facility, per state law.

Cabinet agencies are also barred from requiring a pregnant state employee to travel to a state “that has imposed restrictions on access to reproductive health care services if those restrictions do not include an exception for the health of the pregnant Cabinet Agency employee satisfactory to that employee.”

It also says that the Cabinet agencies will not help with “any investigation or proceeding that seeks to impose civil or criminal liability or professional sanction upon a person or entity for” providing or receiving reproductive health care services that are legal in North Carolina.

While North Carolina law states that it is the governor’s “duty” to arrest and deliver any person charged in another state “with treason, felony or other crime, who has fled from justice and is found in this state,” Cooper’s executive order says the governor can “exercise his discretion to decline requests” to extradite anyone charged with a criminal violation in another state over carrying out or receiving “reproductive health care services that are lawful in North Carolina.”

Reaction to Overturning of Roe

In a statement issued on July 6, Cooper painted the action of the Supreme Court as having “ripped away the constitutional right to reproductive freedom that women have relied on for five decades.”

“For now, it’s up to the states to determine whether women get reproductive health care, and in North Carolina they still can, thanks to my veto and enough legislative votes to sustain it,” he said.

In April 2019, Cooper vetoed a bill that would have required doctors and nurses to care for babies born alive after a failed late-term abortion. In June 2021, Cooper vetoed a bill that would have prohibited abortions done because of the unborn child’s race, sex, or a prenatal diagnosis of possible Down Syndrome.

Cooper warned the midterm elections will be crucial in preserving abortion access, as his veto power could be nullified by a Republican supermajority. Republicans are currently three seats shy of a supermajority in the House and two seats shy in the Senate.

On a call with resident Joe Biden and eight other Democratic governors on July 1, Cooper said North Carolina abortion clinics have already seen an influx of out-of-state patients since the Supreme Court ruling.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, was alongside Cooper at the signing of the executive order. She said in a statement that North Carolina has become “an increasingly critical access point” for people traveling to obtain abortions, including from South Carolina and Tennessee.

Following the overturning of Roe on June 24, South Carolina has banned abortions past six weeks with exceptions for rape and incest. Tennessee has also banned abortions past six weeks, with no such exceptions.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A Texas man was arrested and charged in connection with a terrorist threat he allegedly made against the Supreme Court on social media hours after the court overturned the 1973 abortion precedent Roe v. Wade.

Mikeal Deshawn Archambault, 20, of The Colony, a suburb of Dallas in Denton County, Texas, allegedly posted on Twitter: “I’m finna kill everyone in the SUPREME COURT with my ak47[.]”

“Finna” is a contraction of “fixing to,” as in, “intending to.”

The post at the account @moseswrld was time-stamped late June 24, hours after the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Mississippi abortion law case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The post quickly went viral but the account has since been deleted.

Archambault was booked into the Denton County Jail on June 25. Records show he was released the next day on a $25,000 surety bond.

The Colony Police Department said in a July 1 press release that it was contacted June 24 “by the FBI regarding on-line threats of violence towards The Supreme Court.” Police searched the suspect’s residence but did not initially locate him.

“In conjunction with the FBI, Detectives from The Colony Police Department’s Criminal Investigative Division conducted an investigation and obtained probable cause for an arrest warrant. Officers went back to the subject’s residence, located the subject and placed him under arrest for Terroristic Threat,” according to the statement.

The charge against Archambault came as threats related to controversial Supreme Court decisions have ramped up in recent weeks.

The justices themselves have been personally threatened.

Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley has accused Maryland authorities of not doing enough to protect the justices and of not enforcing anti-residential picketing laws to halt the boisterous protests at their homes.

Although Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) has pushed back against Curley, Hogan and Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) have both called on the U.S. Department of Justice to do more to protect the court’s members.

Nicholas John Roske, 26, of Simi Valley, California, was arrested for planning to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who, after the arrest, voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

According to the FBI, Roske said he wanted to kill Kavanaugh to prevent him from voting to overturn abortion rights and gun control laws. A federal grand jury in Maryland indicted him on June 15. He entered a plea of not guilty.

A group calling itself Jane’s Revenge has declared “open season” on pregnancy counseling centers across the nation. It has claimed credit for a series of violent recent attacks on the pro-life centers.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Sunday said his department will continue to warn migrants to not show up at the U.S.-Mexico border, as the current “Remain in Mexico” policy is not going away for “several weeks.”

Appearing on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Mayorkas was asked whether the border enforcement agencies have the manpower and resources needed to handle “thousands of people who departed on Friday and are moving towards the U.S. border.” He responded by blaming “exploitative smugglers” who use “false information” to motivate migrants to illegally cross the border.

“We have said repeatedly and we continue to warn people not to take the dangerous journey,” Mayorkas told CBS’ Margaret Brennan, noting that his department is working with “our partners to the south” to “break up very often” migrant caravans. “We continue to enforce immigration law, as is our legal responsibility.”

“These migrants receive false information from smugglers,” he added. “They put their lives, their life savings, in the hands of these exploitative organizations, these criminal organizations that do not care for their lives and only seek to make a profit.”

Brennan pressed Mayorkas about the effectiveness of the Biden administration’s methods, pointing out that even last week’s tragedy, during which 53 illegal immigrants were found dead in a tractor-trailer in San Antonio, Texas, didn’t seem to deter people from coming to the border en masse.

“Those words are not being heard—people are moving right now, so the efforts to stop the root causes are not stopping them,” she said, referring to resident Joe Biden’s strategy to “address the root causes of migration in Central America.” “Are you predicting that this is only going to get more significant from here, that we’re going to go beyond the record surge in migrants?”

“No, I’m not predicting that at all,” the secretary replied. “We’re working with our partners to the south because this is a regional challenge that requires a regional response.”

Mayorkas was also asked about the fate of the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which requires foreign nationals who claim to be asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while their cases are being processed. On Thursday, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration has the authority to end MPP, which is commonly known as “Remain in Mexico.”

According to Mayorkas, MPP will continue to be enforced for now because it takes time for the lower court to lift its injunction that prevents the Biden administration from ending the protocol.

“In light of the favorable Supreme Court ruling, we have to wait for that ruling to reach the district court that issued an injunction preventing us from ending ‘Remain in Mexico,’” he told Brennan. “So we have several weeks to go before the district court lifts its injunction and until then, we are obligated by the district court’s ruling to continue to implement the ‘Remain in Mexico’ program, and we will do so in accordance with law.”

In a 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled against Texas and Missouri, which had argued that the Biden administration violated the federal immigration law by rescinding MPP. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberal justices in the majority.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the case was “wrongly decided” and will only “make the border crisis worse.” He said he agrees with the dissenting opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito, who said the government can’t guarantee that those who have already been released into the United States for later processing will show up for their scheduled asylum hearing to decide if they qualify for asylum.

“In fiscal year 2021, the Border Patrol reported more than 1.7 million encounters with aliens along the Mexican border,” Alito wrote. “When it appears that one of these aliens is not admissible, may the Government simply release the alien in this country and hope that the alien will show up for the hearing at which his or her entitlement to remain will be decided?”

“Congress has provided a clear answer to that question, and the answer is no.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Video footage surfaced online that appeared to show a crowd of people at a Somali cultural event in Minneapolis booing “Squad” member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) over the weekend.

Omar, who came to the United States as a Somali refugee, made an appearance at a concert featuring Somali singer Suldaan Seeraar at the city’s Target Center. As soon as she arrived on stage, the boos began, according to footage posted online.

Some yelled at her, “Get out!” and “get the [expletive] out of here.”

“It was an honor to welcome you to our incredible city,” the Democratic congresswoman said in a Twitter post alongside a 14-second clip. The clip ended moments after the audience started to boo loudly.

Longer videos suggested that the crowd booed her for about a minute after she and her husband came onto the stage. “OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, we don’t have all night,” Omar said at one point as the crowd kept booing.

Unclear Why

Some people suggested that it’s because of Omar’s support for Roe v. Wade, a Supreme Court decision that decriminalized abortion nationwide, support for LGBT causes, and other left-wing causes. Omar is currently the whip of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

It’s not clear what prompted the response, and neither Omar nor her office has issued a public comment about the matter. The Epoch Times has contacted Omar’s office several times for comment about the boos.

Following last month’s Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Omar said she would fight to codify it into law. She’s also publicly backed proposals to expand the Supreme Court and end the Senate filibuster to pass abortion laws.

“In almost half of this country, states are ready to ban abortion,” Omar said during a protest following the decision. “Outright ban abortion.”

And several weeks ago, amid dismal polls, Omar told reporters that she will “of course” back resident Joe Biden if he decides to run for president in 2024.

“This’s what she gets for trading her Godly, Conservative values for the sinful LGBTQIA’s & the promiscuous abortionists,” wrote Shukri Abdirahman, a Republican Somali refugee and military veteran who is running to unseat Omar from her 5th Congressional District

Another Republican candidate, former NBA player Royce White, suggested that Somalis in Minnesota were upset with Omar because “they’re being misrepresented by bourgeois puppets, chosen by the establishment to exploit identity politics. In other words, Ilhan Omar is a sellout and I called it months ago.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

I vividly remember the day in October 1991 when the Senate voted to confirm then-U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Clarence Thomas as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court. Following a bitter confirmation battle, Thomas had won confirmation by a 52-48 margin.

Following Thomas’ nomination by then-President George Bush, allegations were leaked to the press that he had sexually harassed a female subordinate, lawyer Anita Hill, during his service as Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and prior to that time, as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education. (Yes, Hill followed Thomas to the EEOC.)

Although Thomas strenuously denied the allegations, the Senate confirmation hearings — presided over by then-Sen. Joe Biden, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee — turned into a public spectacle rivaled only by the brutal hearings that preceded Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s ascent to the Court in 2018. The brutality and the injustice of the Democrats’ treatment of Thomas cannot be overstated.

Two years after his tumultuous confirmation process, The New York Times writer Neil Lewis published an article entitled “2 Years After His Bruising Hearing, Justice Thomas Can Rarely Be Heard.” The piece essentially said Thomas was still angry over the experience and that he was “no longer gregarious.”

“Last year, his second full year on the Court, Justice Thomas began inviting clerks from other justices’ chambers to meet with him, sometimes over lunch. A clerk who went to one meeting recalled how everybody had an unspoken understanding that they would not say anything referring even remotely to the confirmation battle,” Lewis wrote.

“But several said they were stunned when Justice Thomas brought it up himself. And he did so in a way that sought to elicit sympathy, even indignation, at his ordeal.”

One of the clerks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told Lewis, “[Thomas] clearly wanted to talk about what happened. He wants some kind of vindication. He really wants people to agree with him that something outrageous happened.”

Another said, “Many of us were quite uncomfortable.”

Thomas warned them never to subject themselves to a Senate hearing, according to the clerks.

Lewis wrote that “at a few public appearances, he [Thomas] has disputed the notion that he is an angry man, and some of his friends concur that he is not.”

The article cites Thomas’ longtime friend, Clint Bolick, who said, “There’s no question that for the first year he was angry over what happened and did not have a chance to catch his breath before he assumed his new position. But to a large extent, he has moved beyond that, and I think a sense of optimism and ebullience has returned. He’s really gregarious again.”

“It’s clear he has not been permanently scarred by the Hill incident,” Bolick added.

Lewis was not quite convinced. He pointed to a conversation Thomas had had with two of his law clerks. He told them he planned to retire in 2034.

Asked why, Thomas, who was 43-years-old at the time of his confirmation, replied that by then, he will have served a 43-year term. According to the clerk, Thomas said, “The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years, and I’m going to make their lives miserable for 43 years.”

Related:

Clarence Thomas Impeachment Being Set up by AOC in Must-See Interview

Lewis is probably right that Thomas was still angry in 1993. And, although the rage he felt at the time of the hearings has dissipated, I would bet that deep resentment continues to reside not too far beneath the surface. The abusive treatment he endured at the hands of Biden and his Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee would take an average person a lifetime to get over.

In the video below, Thomas addresses the committee members. He equates the hearings to a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.”

“This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace,” he said. “And from my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas. And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured, by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”

Powerful as his remarks were, the spectacle on Capitol Hill continued.

While President Biden’s foolish rebuke of the Supreme Court from overseas last week may have reopened those old wounds, Thomas’ future court rulings won’t come from a place of anger.

His decisions will come, as they always have, from his conservative beliefs and his interpretation of one of the finest documents ever written, the U.S. Constitution.

The governors of Virginia and Maryland responded to a letter from the Supreme Court’s top security official calling on them to provide more police resources to prevent protests outside the homes of justices following the landmark ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Left-wing protesters have continued to appear outside their homes since the ruling. Over the July 4 weekend, more protesters were seen picketing outside the justices’ homes, located in suburban areas in Virginia and Maryland.

“The governor agrees with the Marshal that the threatening activity outside the Justices’ homes has increased,” Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin spokesperson Christian Martinez said in a statement after Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley called on the governor to “enforce state law” that prohibits demonstrations outside the homes of justices.

“He welcomes the Marshal of the Supreme Court’s request for Fairfax County to enforce state law as they are the primary enforcement authority for the state statute,” the statement added, adding that Attorney General Merrick Garland needs to “do his job” by enforcing federal laws.

“Every resource of federal law enforcement, including the U.S. Marshals, should be involved while the Justices continue to be denied the right to live peacefully in their homes,” according to the statement. However, from the statement, it’s not clear if Youngkin’s administration is going to take concrete steps to provide more law enforcement at their homes.

Another Response

After receiving Curley’s letter on Friday night, a spokesman for Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan responded by saying that Garland needs to act.

“Two months ago, Governor Hogan and Governor Youngkin sent a letter calling on Attorney General Garland to enforce the clear and unambiguous federal statutes on the books that prohibit picketing at judges’ residences,” Hogan spokesman Michael Ricci wrote on Twitter. “A month later, hours after an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh, the Department of Justice finally responded, declining to enforce the laws.”

The spokesman was referring to an incident involving 26-year-old Nicholas Roske, a California man who was arrested at Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home last month and allegedly told officials that he was plotting to kill the justice because he would support overturning Roe v. Wade and support expanding Second Amendment protections.

“Now a different federal official is writing to us with conflicting information,” his statement continued. “Had the marshal taken time to explore the matter, she would have learned that the constitutionality of the statute cited in her letter has been questioned by the Maryland Attorney General’s office.”

Hogan has instructed Maryland State Police to further review law enforcement options after the letter was sent, Ricci said.

Federal law stipulates that it’s illegal to attempt to influence a judge’s ruling or interfere with their duties. But the Department of Justice has, so far, failed to take action against the constant protests outside the homes of Republican-appointed justices including Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, and Kavanaugh.

The demonstrations, meanwhile, come amid rampant vandalism and arson attacks against churches, pregnancy centers, and pro-life groups. Some left-wing extremist groups have said they will carry out more attacks if their demands aren’t met. Last weekend, dozens of people were arrested across the U.S. following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signed a new election law on Wednesday that will require a voter to show a photo ID to vote in the coming general election.

The new law, House Bill 1878, requires voters to show one of the following photo IDs at polling sites: nonexpired Missouri driver’s license, nonexpired state nondriver’s license, other documents issued by the state or federal government with a photo and recent confirmable signature, or photo identification issued by the Missouri National Guard, U.S. Armed Forces, or U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs.

A voter who comes to the polling sites without the required photo ID can cast a provisional ballot with a signature on the ballot envelope and a sworn affidavit.

However, the election judges will mark the ballot envelope to indicate that the voter’s identity was not verified.

The voter can either come back to the polling site with a photo ID on the same day or allow the election authority to determine if the ballot is effective by comparing the voter’s signature with one on file with the election agency.

The bill was sponsored by state Rep. John Simmons, a Republican, and passed in the Missouri House and Senate early this year.

It also bans the use of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots, mandates cybersecurity reviews, and prohibits private donations for elections unless it’s personal protective equipment, water, or food for election workers.

“No absentee ballot shall be delivered through a drop box and no election authority shall establish or use a drop box for the purpose of collecting absentee ballots,” read the text of the legislation (pdf).

The law will take effect on Aug. 28, 2022.

It comes amid a renewed national emphasis on election laws. Democrats in many states have sought to expand voter access following widespread mail-in voting during the pandemic-affected 2020 elections, while many Republicans have pursued new election integrity measures that they contend would cut down on the potential for fraud.

Missouri’s measure was backed by Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who called it “one of the strongest election laws in the country.”

“It makes sure that it’s easy to vote, it’s harder to cheat, and the people can have trust in the results,” Ashcroft said.

Ashcroft rejected assertions that the photo ID mandate harms minority voters.

“It seems pretty racist to me to say that the color of skin determines whether or not someone knows how to get an ID,” Ashcroft said Wednesday.

Seventeen states besides Missouri had voter photo identification laws in effect as of this spring, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and 19 states had identification laws that accepted proof other than photos.

Missouri Republicans have sought for years to impose photo ID requirements but have been rebuffed by courts. The state first adopted a photo ID requirement in 2006 that was ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.

In 2016, Republican lawmakers put on the ballot a constitutional amendment authorizing photo ID that was approved by 63 percent of voters. But lower courts placed a hold on the accompanying law enacting the actual photo ID requirement. In January 2020, the state Supreme Court struck down a “misleading” and “contradictory” provision requiring a sworn statement for voters without a photo ID to cast a regular ballot.

The Associated Press contributed to the Report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The ‘independent state legislature doctrine’ is a longtime favorite of conservative legal thinkers and Republicans

The Supreme Court decided on June 30 to hear an important new case that Republicans hope will re-empower state legislatures to make rules for redistricting and governing congressional and presidential elections.

Republicans say the U.S. Constitution has always directly authorized state legislatures to make rules for the conduct of elections, including presidential elections. Democrats say this idea, encompassed by the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, is a fringe conservative legal theory that could endanger voting rights. The Supreme Court has reportedly never ruled on the doctrine.

The doctrine, if endorsed by the high court, could allow state legislatures to select presidential electors in disputed elections, something critics decry as a threat to democracy.

Election law expert J. Christian Adams, a former U.S. Department of Justice civil rights attorney who now heads the Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election integrity group, praised the Supreme Court for granting the case, which he said was “very important.”

“It means that the Court may take up all the nonsense that has been occurring over the last 10 years,” Adams told The Epoch Times by email.

In a series of Twitter posts, Democratic Party attorney and election law activist Marc Elias denounced the court’s decision to hear the case.

“The Supreme Court will hear a case next term that may validate the dangerous independent state legislature theory,” Elias wrote.

“Congress must enact comprehensive voting rights and anti-subversion legislation before it’s too late,” he wrote, adding “the future of our democracy is on the docket.”

The doctrine has been in the news because conservative Republican activist Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sent emails to 29 Republican state lawmakers in Arizona urging them to choose the state’s presidential electors despite the disputed popular vote tallies showing Democrat Joe Biden had won the state, The Washington Post reported June 10.

The emails were sent Nov. 9, 2020, after media outlets had called the Arizona race for Biden. The efforts by Republicans to change the result in Arizona were unsuccessful and ultimately the state’s 11 votes in the Electoral College were awarded to Biden.

In her emails, Ginni Thomas, a supporter of then-President Donald Trump, asked Arizona legislators to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure” and asserted that the responsibility to select electors was “yours and yours alone.” Lawmakers, she wrote, had the “power to fight back against fraud” and “ensure that a clean slate of Electors is chosen.”

The emails attracted the attention of the U.S. House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, security breach at the U.S. Capitol that delayed official congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election by several hours. Democrats also say there is a conflict of interest because Justice Thomas will participate in the court case about the independent state legislature doctrine. Through her lawyers, Ginni Thomas is resisting committee demands that she testify in the ongoing probe that many Republicans, including Trump, say is a sham.

Tim Moore, a Republican who is the speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, explained why he supports the doctrine.

“The U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: state legislatures are responsible for drawing congressional maps, not state court judges, and certainly not with the aid of partisan political operatives,” Moore said in March when he launched an appeal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s order redrawing the state’s electoral map against the wishes of the state’s GOP-majority legislature.

“We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will reaffirm this basic principle and will throw out the illegal map imposed on the people of North Carolina by its highest court. It is time to settle the elections clause question once and for all.”

The elections clause in Article 1 states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

The presidential electors clause in Article 2 states gives each state the power to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

Three Supreme Court justices have said the doctrine applied in the Bush v. Gore case that resolved the disputed 2000 presidential election.

In an unsigned order issued on June 30, in Moore v. Harper, court file 21-1271, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The justices did not explain why they decided to hear the case, which is their usual practice when deciding which appeals to take on. For such a petition to be granted, at least four of the nine justices must agree. The case is expected to proceed to oral argument in the court’s upcoming term that begins in October.

Moore filed his petition (pdf) with the court on March 17.

It was preceded by an emergency application seeking to stay a Feb. 14 ruling by the Supreme Court of North Carolina that required the state to modify its existing congressional election districts for the 2022 primary and general elections. Respondent Rebecca Harper is one member of a group of 25 individual North Carolina voters.

On March 7, the Supreme Court turned away (pdf) the stay application. In an opinion concurring in the denial of the stay, Justice Brett Kavanaugh invoked the so-called Purcell principle, writing that the high court “has repeatedly ruled that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election laws in the period close to an election.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Supreme Court followed up its June 23 landmark ruling that for the first time recognized a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, by issuing a series of rulings June 30 reversing federal appeals court decisions that upheld gun restrictions in California, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii.

Courts will find it difficult to uphold the firearms laws in question after the high court’s June 30 and June 23 rulings.

In unsigned orders, all four cases were remanded June 30 to lower courts “for further consideration in light of” the Supreme Court’s June 23 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that 6–3 ruling, the high court invalidated New York state’s tough concealed-carry gun permitting system.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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.”

The Supreme Court has been strengthening Second Amendment protections in recent years. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held the amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” and in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), that this right “is fully applicable to the States.”

It makes no sense to recognize Americans’ right to defend themselves in their homes while denying them the ability to defend themselves outside their homes, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote June 23 in the court’s majority opinion.

“After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an ‘individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,’ and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. … Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it,” Thomas wrote.

In the new orders, the Supreme Court summarily disposed of the four pending cases, simultaneously granting appellants’ petitions seeking review while skipping over the oral argument phase. Some lawyers call this process GVR, standing for grant, vacate, and remand.

In the Maryland case, Bianchi v. Frosh, court file 21-902, a coalition of 25 states led by Arizona challenged Maryland’s Firearms Safety Act of 2013. The statute, which was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in September 2021, required pistol purchasers to seek a license, complete safety training, and be fingerprinted. Maryland bans popular weapons such as the AR-15 and similar rifles and limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, a Democrat, was defiant after the remand order. Military-style firearms “pose grave risks to public safety, as recent mass shootings in other states have made clear,” Frosh stated. Despite the Bruen ruling, the state’s law remains in effect, he said. “Marylanders have a right to be protected from these dangerous weapons.”’

The California case, Duncan v. Bonta, court file 21-1194, challenged the state’s ban on magazines containing more than 10 rounds. The ban went further, requiring the confiscation of such magazines, which had previously been lawful to own. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the ban in November 2021.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, is currently scrambling to deal with the fallout after his office leaked sensitive personal information, including the names and addresses of every concealed-carry permit holder in the state. Some holders say they now fear for their lives.

The New Jersey case, Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs Inc. v. Bruck, court file 20-1507, is similar to the California case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed the New Jersey law in December 2021.

Petitioners challenged the state law that bans 10-round magazines and requires that owners surrender such magazines to law enforcement. The law also forbids the transfer or sale of these magazines but allows owners to keep them if they modify them to reduce how many rounds may be held. Failing to comply with the law is a crime that can be punished with a sentence of up to 10 years of imprisonment and $150,000 in fines.

In Young v. Hawaii, court file 20-1639, a petitioner challenged Hawaii’s gun licensing system that allows the transportation of an unloaded firearm only in an enclosed container and only to and from a gun repair shop, target range, licensed gun dealer, hunting ground, or police station. Licensed firearms may only be used for hunting or target shooting. Licenses are issued by the chief of police of the county in which the gun owner lives.

Hawaii law requires gun owners to keep their weapons at their “place of business, residence, or sojourn.” Concealed-carry permit applicants must show they have “reason to fear injury to the applicant’s person or property” in order to obtain a permit. Permits allowing open carry are granted only “where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated” and the applicant “is engaged in the protection of life and property.”

“Records show the state granted only 4 permits from 2000 to 2020,” KITV reports.

The Hawaii law was affirmed in March 2021 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The flurry of rulings from the Supreme Court has everyone’s head spinning. The most significant among them, even if it doesn’t capture all the headlines, is West Virginia vs EPA. The majority opinion is impressive but the part I found truly wonderful is the concurring opinion by Neil Gorsuch. This is where we see things headed, toward a major and much-welcome curbing of the power of the administrative state.

Just to review what this thing is, it is the unelected bureaucracy that rules the country without oversight from voters or legislatures. For well over 100 years, most courts have given it a pass, just assuming that the “experts” in the bureaucracies are handling things just fine, faithfully interpreting legislation, and merely creating rules for easy compliance.

Generations have gone by as this 4th branch of government has grown in size, scope, and strength. For the most part, its baneful impositions have been felt by one business or one industry at a time. You have heard the stories. The car dealer complains of how the Department of Labor is making him crazy. The machine-parts manufacturer is going bonkers about letters from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The energy company can never satisfy the Environmental Protection Agency.

They are stories and we find them unfortunate but we’ve generally avoided thinking of these as systematic, all pervasive, and truly dangerous to the idea of freedom itself. However, there are some 432 of these agencies. The authors of the Declaration of Independence noted their existence back in the day when they accused the English king of having “erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.” They fought a revolution to end the tyranny but now we have a home-grown form, starting in 1883 with the Pendleton Act and continuing throughout the 20th century as each new administration creates its own bureaucracy.

The thing has taken on a power of its own. Strangely, the topic hardly comes up at all during elections, and this is for a reason. Politicians running for office like to advertise their power to make change. They might even believe it. In reality, elected officials have very little influence over the conduct of public life relative to the administrative state. As Trump found it, not even the president is a match for the deep state.

Here is what has happened since March 2020: the beast showed its face. Seemingly out of nowhere, these strange agencies and people for whom we never voted were ruling our lives. They restricted travel, forced us to cover our faces, closed our churches and schools, and forbid our businesses from operating unless they were big enough to afford a powerful lobbying arm in Washington. The whole scene was appalling. It caused many people—including some earnest judges—to take notice.

Once you see the problem, you cannot unsee it.

Consider the problem with inflation alone: it is largely the responsibility of the Federal Reserve, which is among the most terrifying of the deep-state agencies. This thing was founded in 1913 with the promise that it would end “wildcat banking” and contain the expansion of money and credit so that we would have a more stable economic environment to encourage growth.

Even now, people believe that the Fed is going to somehow fix recessions and inflations, even though a deeper analysis reveals that the Fed itself is the cause of both. The Fed cannot be both the problem and the solution, surely. This is becoming as obvious as the fact that the CDC cannot make a textbook pathogen go away with power and potions.

Let’s take a quick look at the supposed 2 percent inflation target of the Federal Reserve. It might seem to you that they have long ago blown past this such that it is entirely cosmetic. But the Fed has a little trick up its sleeve. It says it doesn’t follow conventional inflation indexes like the Consumer or Producer Price Index. It is fancier than that. It follows instead the index of Personal Consumption Expenditures. And sure enough when we look at the PCE, we find that the Fed is pretty good at its job!

All that changed recently when the PCE itself blew up. Now the Fed has been revealed to be utterly incompetent, in a way that is not different from the CDC, NIH, DOL, DOE, DOT, HHS, DHS, FTC, SEC, and all the rest of these glorified 3-letter agencies employing nearly 3 million people who cannot be fired or controlled. The unique feature of our times is that the expert class in government has been unmasked as fakes at best and unrelenting menaces as worst.

Here is where the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation stands today:

So much for competence at the Fed! And yet, how exactly is this institution supposed to be controlled? We don’t vote for them. The Fed board is appointed by the president with Senate approval but this control is mostly mythical. The fancy economists run circles around the political actors with big words and fancy finance, so what can they do but approve?

The political class too often acts like absentee owners of a far-off land: they have little choice but to trust the hired landlords to do a good job. That’s the administrative machinery that has become the real power, not only implementing the policies but making and enforcing the rules too.

With COVID, this whole scam was revealed to absolutely everyone—not just to small businesses but to every single individual and family in the United States. The whole bureaucracy announced to us what they have always believed but rarely said: your life is not your own. Your job is to comply. And so this raises the fascinating question of what precisely are we going for here and what kind of society and government do we want? Surely this should be up to the people!

The Supreme Court in its most recent decision was dealing with a technical aspect of how regulations applied to a coal plant, but the implications of the decision are much larger. The EPA was determining policy, even making it, riffing wildly on legislation with the presumption that courts will always and everywhere defer to the agency over industry and even over the words of the legislation. The court said no: it was the EPA that had been operating illegally all along.

This decision is so startling because it shows a Supreme Court doing what it is supposed to do, serving as a legal check on the power ambitions of government itself. That’s what the framers intended. We’ve just begun, however. The Court needs to attack the whole machinery of the deep state at its very root, going after “Chevron deference” (1984), the Public Health Services Act (1944), the Federal Reserve Act (1913), and stretching all the way back to the Pendleton Act (1883). A nation ruled by a faceless deep state is not a representative democracy and it is not consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

When you consider the implications of this one decision, they are awesome. It doesn’t just apply to the EPA and its elaborate plans for changing the global climate through command and control. It also applies to every other agency, including the CDC and even the Federal Reserve itself. They all should be accountable to the people through their elected representatives. If we cannot get back to that system, we will lose everything.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

States will not prevent life-saving treatment for pregnant women post-Roe v. Wade, contrary to claims from liberal media outlets and politicians.

Democratic politicians including Resident Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, along with left-leaning media outlets like the New York Times, have said the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe may endanger or kill pregnant mothers. “I don’t mean to sound alarmist, I mean this: Women will die,” Harris said in a recent interview. Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali said women will have to ask themselves, “Do I abort this ectopic pregnancy to literally save my life or do I go to jail?”

While the overturn of Roe has either outlawed or severely restricted abortion in at least 11 states, each include exceptions to save the life of the mother in medical emergencies. Nevertheless, Democrats are hyping these concerns over pregnant mothers’ safety, and abortion advocates are spending millions of dollars to rally supporters before the 2022 midterms. Biden reminded his party last week before the Dobbs decision that “Roe is on the ballot“

The Texas “heart beat” bill, which prohibits abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, states that removal of an ectopic pregnancy does not constitute an abortion. Louisiana’s law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks includes exceptions for ectopic pregnancies and other medical emergencies, along with the Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, and Wisconsin abortion bills.

Treatment for ectopic pregnancies, where the unborn baby develops outside the uterus, is not abortion, said Dr. Christina Francis, a board-certified OB-GYN and associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. She said women will receive the same treatment for life-threatening conditions as when Roe was in effect.

“The intent of an abortion is to end the life of the developing fetal human being, while our intent when we treat an ectopic pregnancy is to save the life of the mother,” Francis told the Washington Free Beacon. “We do a very different procedure than what’s done for an induced abortion.”

In Oklahoma, the state with the strictest abortion laws in the country, abortion is allowed when the doctor’s “reasonable medical judgment” determines it is necessary to save the mother’s life. Alabama allows abortions if the mother has a medical condition that requires “the termination of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function.” West Virginia, which criminalizes abortion, also allows exceptions with the “intention of saving the life of such woman or child.” South Dakota’s 2022 abortion bill says a “procedure for the management of a miscarriage” is not an abortion.

Claims that the overturn of Roe will harm mothers who have miscarriages are also unfounded, according to Francis. If the unborn baby has died, “abortion laws, statutes, and even discussions don’t apply,” she said.

“There is intentional fear mongering being done,” Francis said. “I think people who know better are trying to scare women and physicians in the general public into supporting abortion laws.”

https://freebeacon.com/politics/liberals-are-wrong-emergency-pregnancy-treatments-remain-legal-after-roe/

The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on June 30 that the Clean Air Act doesn’t give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) widespread power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions that a popular theory says contribute to global warming.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s majority opinion (pdf) in West Virginia v. EPA, court file 20-1530. Roberts was joined by the court’s other five conservatives. The court’s three liberal justices dissented.

While “capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Roberts wrote, quoting a 1992 precedent, “it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d)” of the Clean Air Act.

“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.

West Virginia and 18 other states challenged the authority the Clean Air Act provides the EPA.

In 2016, the Supreme Court overturned the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP), which expanded controls over the industry. Next, the deregulation-minded Trump administration reversed course, easing control on the industry with its Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE Rule).

On Jan. 19, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the ACE Rule, restoring some of the EPA’s authority in American Lung Association v. EPA (pdf). The court held that the EPA, under Trump, had misconstrued section 7411(d) of the Clean Air Act.

In the new opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit decision and remanded the case “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

In Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, she criticized the court majority for a decision she said “strips” the EPA of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,” citing Massachusetts v. EPA (2007).

“Climate change’s causes and dangers are no longer subject to serious doubt. Modern science is ‘unequivocal that human influence’—in particular, the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide—’has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.’”

“Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who previously told The Epoch Times that the EPA is trying to transform itself from “an environmental regulator into a central energy planning authority,” praised the Supreme Court.

“For many years, we’ve argued that EPA only had a narrow bit of authority to regulate carbon emissions,” Morrisey, a Republican who brought the appeal, said at a press conference.

“I think that the court today amplified that point. And once again, they also made clear that when you have something this big, something with vast economic and political significance, then that represents an extraordinary question. And that means Congress needs to step in, as opposed to the unelected bureaucrats.

“We know that over the last year and a half, the Biden administration has tried to run roughshod over the American economy with respect to its energy agenda.

“We want to make sure that the Biden agenda is limited by basis of what Congress authorized these agencies [to do],” he said.

“Our founders envisioned” that “Congress and not the unelected bureaucrats” should make decisions “about the major issues of the day.”

“They didn’t want to just have these unelected bureaucrats reach out and try to seize power where it didn’t exist,” Morrisey said.

U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) criticized the ruling and the six conservative justices.

“As the devastating impacts of climate change are becoming ever-more present, it is mind boggling and deeply alarming that the Supreme Court today has decided to hamstring the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases. This ruling not only restricts the agency’s ability to limit air pollution from the second-largest source of emissions in America, it also undermines the landmark Clean Air Act that gave it such authority,” the senator said.

“Make no mistake, with this devastating ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, the conservative majority of the Court continues to take our country backward and more worrisome, it opens the door to far-reaching implications for how other federal agencies generally create regulations to implement existing legislation moving forward.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-narrows-epas-ability-to-regulate-carbon-dioxide-emissions_4565239.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-30-2&utm_medium=email&est=6oovwrShipuyLCYRzcrqlByg%2BR%2FdDHhpaUwfy6%2Bebq2I9z2xBtKKax8qz%2FJv6jTr%2BA%3D%3D

Defeated and despondent, the Left calls to impeach conservative justices at every turn

During their confirmation hearings, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh repeated the same platitudes as their conservative predecessors about Roe v. Wade to the effect that it is “the settled law of the land” (John Roberts) and an “important precedent of the Supreme Court” (Samuel Alito). We share the view of the liberal constitutional law professor Akhil Amar, who told our friend Bari Weiss that their statements in no way meant that Roe was immune to overruling: “If you thought that, that’s on you, not on [them].” 

Most lawmakers are clear on that. After all, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan professed respect for Second Amendment precedents at their confirmation hearings, too, and as justices, they’re reliable anti-gun votes. No Republican lawmakers have ever suggested they lied.

Looking at you, Sens. Susan Collins (R., Maine) and Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.), who now say Gorsuch and Kavanaugh misled them in their confirmation hearings when they mouthed truisms about the nature of Roe as “settled law.” 

Now, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) is seizing on their accusations, arguing that they require a congressional investigation and, of course, impeachment. 

Sounds familiar. 

Today it’s Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. In April, it was Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife’s irrelevant text messages supposedly required his recusal from cases. The remedy for his refusal to do so was, of course, impeachment. Their response to a Sept. 2019 New York Times report alleging that a college-aged Kavanaugh pulled down his pants in front of a female student at a dorm-room party—impeach! 

Whatever so-called crisis the court may be suffering, it is one created, stoked, and nurtured lovingly by the Left, which seems to have adopted the Theodor Herzl mantra popularized by the Big Lebowski: If you will it, it is no dream. 

https://freebeacon.com/courts/the-scotus-legitimacy-crisis-that-wasnt/

Democrats are melting down all over the place, because of the historic overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Some have made wild threats against the court. Others, like AOC, seem totally beside themselves with rage.

And she proved her own lack of understanding by making this claim.

From Daily Wire:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) claimed without evidence on Sunday that some U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade “lied” under oath during their confirmation hearings, which she said is “an impeachable offense.”

[…]

“There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and a hostile takeover of our democratic institutions.”

As usual, Democrats are throwing a collective temper tantrum because they didn’t get what they wanted.

The Supreme Court gave back to the states the right to decide abortion policy. That doesn’t mean liberal states can’t pass laws allowing abortions.

But it seems Democrats aren’t happy until everyone is forced to accept this largely-hated practice.

AOC had the weirdest hot take, claiming that Supreme Court justices “lied” under oath during their confirmation hearings.

Although she offered zero evidence of this, she claimed this was an “impeachable offense.”

Really, Alex? What do you think is going to happen? Your side will get to impeach all the justices you don’t like, so you can replace them with leftists?

That sounds pretty pathetic. But it’s consistent with how the left has been operating these days.

“Do what we say, or else.” There doesn’t seem to be an ounce of democracy left among “Democrats.”

It seems what AOC and other Democrats are afraid of is that, even in blue states, abortion will be restricted.

Since it’s now an issue that can be decided by state lawmakers, Republicans will be able to campaign on promises to ban abortion—even in NY and CA.

Does that mean Democrats could lose their supermajorities at the state level?

Let’s just see how pro-choice these states are!

Key Takeaways:

• AOC accused Supreme Court justices of lying under oath.
• She claims this is grounds for impeaching them, over the Roe decision.
• The so-called socialist offered no evidence of the justices lying.

Source: Daily Wire

https://thepatriotjournal.com/aoc-supreme-court-lied/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=actengage&seyid=8730

MSNBC’s Neal Katyal: In wake of Roe overturn, GOP legislatures could ban Tylenol

Left-wing lawyer and #Resistance hero Neal Katyal, who once represented al Qaeda terrorists, said on Monday that Republican states could soon ban over-the-counter pain medication such as Tylenol.

“It wouldn’t shock me if the legislature of Alabama started being opposed to Tylenol or something like that,” Katyal told MSNBC in comments about abortion pill access in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Katyal, who warned that the High Court is “really out of step with the mainstream of American society,” is best known as the face of the “al Qaeda 7,” a controversial group of lawyers who represented al Qaeda terrorists before joining the Obama Justice Department.

The former acting solicitor general also faced criticism in 2020 when he appeared before the Supreme Court to defend his corporate clients, Nestlé and Cargill, against charges of abetting child slavery in Africa.

Katyal has in recent years championed several left-wing legal causes, leading challenges against former president Donald Trump’s travel ban and border separation policy.

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/al-qaeda-lawyer-frets-gop-too-radical/

A court blocked Louisiana from barring nearly all abortions despite a law that was triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last week that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Orleans Parish Civil District Court Judge Robin Giarrusso issued a temporary injunction on June 27 after some abortion clinics filed a lawsuit against the state, according to her order (pdf). Giarrusso scheduled a hearing for the suit on July 8 before the court makes a final ruling on whether the injunction should be upheld, meaning that abortions will remain legal in Louisiana within that time frame.

Louisiana and a dozen other states have “trigger laws” that were designed to ban or significantly restrict abortions once the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which determined that women have a constitutional right to obtain the procedure. An analysis says that up to 26 states have laws or will pass laws to restrict the procedure, which many religious groups say is murder and immoral.

The Hope Medical Group for Women, one of Louisiana’s three abortion clinics, is one of the plaintiffs in the case. The Shreveport-based clinic is arguing that Louisiana’s three trigger law bans violate its due process rights under the state’s constitution and “lack constitutionally required safeguards to prevent arbitrary enforcement.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights, a left-wing group that filed the lawsuit on the clinic’s behalf, said abortions are now resuming in the state after Giarrusso’s order.

“A public health emergency is about to engulf the nation. As expected, Louisiana and many other states wasted no time enacting bans and eliminating abortion entirely,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a June 27 statement.

States’ Rights

In striking down Roe, the Supreme Court gave states the authority to ban or allow abortions at any point in a pregnancy. Justice Samuel Alito, writing the 5–4 majority opinion, argued that the Constitution makes no reference to abortions and said the 1973 landmark decision, as well as the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey—which reaffirmed Roe—were flawed from the start.

“We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question,” Alito wrote. “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

“No such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution.”

Lousiana Attorney General Jeff Landry’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time. Although he didn’t comment on the lawsuit and injunction, Landry, a Republican, praised the Supreme Court’s decision last week.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Alito. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that he would have stopped short in overturning Roe, while Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Over the past weekend, police across the country arrested dozens of protesters and rioters, including individuals who engaged in violent activity following the court’s ruling.

Reuters contributed to this report.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/louisiana-blocked-from-banning-nearly-all-abortions-despite-supreme-courts-roe-ruling_4561621.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-28&utm_medium=email&est=Duau1mQgc166mNY73wAleQZjxNaFRA%2BdHCfMiE7vkyy4so3iyoU8Cdez%2BFI%2FR8zPkQ%3D%3D

Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.), a lawmaker who voted in favor of forming the Jan. 6 Committee, has entered the final stretch before a June 28 runoff election against U.S. Navy veteran Michael Cassidy.

The congressman from Mississippi’s 3rd District actually lost the initial June 7 primary election to Cassidy, receiving just 46.9 percent of the vote to Cassidy’s 47.5 percent.

Runoffs are triggered in Mississippi primary elections if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote.

In addition to warring over Guest’s support for the Jan. 6 Committee, the two candidates have sparred over Cassidy’s alleged economic views.

An attack ad against Cassidy accused him of backing an “extreme socialist agenda” that would have added $48 trillion in social spending, as reported by Mississippi Today. That ad was funded by the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), a national super PAC supported by current House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.),

Mississippi Today based the $48 trillion figure on proposals from the candidate’s website, including one that appeared to mirror some Democrats’ vision of “Medicare for All.” Those policy ideas were subsequently taken down.

In a June 24 interview with The Epoch Times, Cassidy acknowledged the proposals were on his website, but claims the assertion that he supports broad new health care spending for Americans is “a complete lie and misrepresentation.”

“The truth is, before I began campaigning, I did a stupid thing,” he said. “And that was to brainstorm policy ideas on my website.”

Cassidy claimed that while he initially hoped that more Americans could access the caliber of health plan that he has through the U.S. Navy, he quickly realized that such a vision was too expensive.

He took issue with the CLF’s efforts to defeat him. OpenSecrets shows that it has spent $448,783 to oppose Cassidy’s candidacy.

According to that same website, top donors to the CLF in the 2022 cycle include Koch Industries and Dan Crenshaw for Congress.

“[CLF] spent half a million dollars in money that should be spent to get Democrats out of office and Republicans in,” he said, stressing his opposition to red flag laws and funding for Planned Parenthood.

The Epoch Times has reached out to CLF for comment, using an email address found in a Federal Election Commission filing.

Cassidy praised the Supreme Court’s June 24 Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion law-making to the states.

Pro-abortion protests in Washington and elsewhere in the country followed the decision’s release, continuing a pattern that started when a draft of the decision was leaked through Politico in May.

The leaker of that draft hasn’t yet been identified.

When asked what he would do to address what he sees as overreach by the Department of Justice and other agencies, Cassidy cited Congress’s power of the purse.

Republicans will have more leverage over spending if they take the House, Senate, or both in November’s midterm election.

“In the military and so much government, if you don’t fund something, it can’t be done,” he said.

Cassidy said fighting federal abuses of power would take effective organization—a perennial challenge for many Republicans.

“Republicans have got to be energetic about it. They have to do the hard work,” he said.

Guest declined an interview opportunity with The Epoch Times.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mississippi-republican-who-supported-jan-6-commission-faces-june-28-runoff_4560656.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-27-3&utm_medium=email&est=EMRtkVW8%2FpXrRXl2peSGjIFPjGok%2B6IT05qUJHNGcHXX%2By2zi7VbKKaWAG5BFYa7hA%3D%3D

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on Friday, many on the left swiftly reacted with anger and even threats. Now, one doctor’s immediate reaction to the decision may have put her job in jeopardy.

Early Sunday morning, the Twitter account Libs of TikTok shared a tweet from a doctor who reportedly worked at Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center in Mattoon, Illinois.

In an apparent response to the Supreme Court’s decision, she said she planned to withhold treatment from certain patients.

WARNING: The following media contains language some viewers may find disturbing.

“I prescribe meds.. I can also choose not to prescribe them,” the doctor wrote on Twitter. “So…from now on.. if you are a white male who votes conservative, your penis needs to ask God for the power to rise. No more Viagra.”

Doctor at @sarahbushnews says she prescribes medication based on her patients’ political affiliation and race pic.twitter.com/bri0O2i3zE

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 26, 2022

Multiple social media users in the comments called on the doctor to immediately have her medical license revoked.

Is this “lose your license” material?

— Lydia Leitermann 💐 (@sourpatchlyds) June 26, 2022

What other, perhaps lifesaving, meds are they denying patients? I wonder what the Illinois Department of Public Health or the Joint Commission thinks of this behavior.

— Jack Cochran (@TheJackCochran) June 26, 2022

A few hours after Libs of TikTok shared the post, the official Twitter account of Sarah Bush Lincoln commented on the post and made its position clear.

“This is not the practice of Sarah Bush Lincoln,” the account wrote. “We provide care to everyone regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race religious, etc. This is being addressed. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.”

Related:

God’s Blessing? The Markets Broke a 3-Week Losing Streak the Day Roe v. Wade Died

This is not the practice of Sarah Bush Lincoln. We provide care to everyone regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race religious, etc. This is being addressed. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

— Sarah Bush Lincoln (@sarahbushnews) June 26, 2022

In a separate post, the health center confirmed it was investigating the matter.

Providing care to all is the mission of SBL. We provide care to all regardless, of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, income, and cultural or personal beliefs and views. A recent social media post was contrary to this and are investigating it. Thank you for your concern. pic.twitter.com/XNHrgl7EPv

— Sarah Bush Lincoln (@sarahbushnews) June 26, 2022

Like this doctor, many on the left issued threats both before and after the Supreme Court ruling. Some of them followed through on vows to commit violence.

According to KTLA-TV, 30-year-old Michael Ortiz was arrested Friday after allegedly attacking a police officer with a torch. The officer was taken to a hospital with burn injuries.

LAPD Chief Michael Moore said he supports the First Amendment, but it does not protect against violence and other crimes.

“I condemn the violence against officers that occurred last night and into today,” Moore said according to KTLA.

“Individuals participating in such criminal activity are not exercising their 1st Amendment rights in protest of the Supreme Court decision, rather, they are acting as criminals.”

Radical pro-abortion activists are reportedly using an interactive map developed by two University of Georgia professors to plan their violent attacks on pregnancy resource centers.

These centers, which typically offer pregnancy tests and counseling services from a pro-life perspective, have been vandalized, smashed, and set on fire in growing numbers across the country in the weeks leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

While these centers’ locations are public knowledge, perpetrators have been using online tools that collect and organize this information in a way that makes it easier for them to find the next target.

One of such tools is the Crisis Pregnancy Center Map, a project led by Andrea Swartzendruber and Danielle Lambert, both professors at the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department at the University of Georgia. The interactive map identifies the exact street addresses of over 2,500 pro-life clinics.

The stated purpose of the map is “to provide location information about all of the crisis pregnancy centers operating in the U.S.” The website also refers to these centers as “fake women’s health centers” primarily aimed to “prevent people from having abortions.”

“There’s reason to think that people seeking health services may not know exactly what these centers are and the services they offer,” Swartzendruber said in 2018 when the CPC map first went online.

According to Fox News, far-left extremists are using the map to mark their next targets while trying to refrain from explicitly calling for violence.

Puget Sound Anarchists, an Antifa-affiliated group operating out of Washington state, included the CPC map in a post celebrating the vandalism of a pro-life clinic in the state by another radical group. The group itself in May publicly claimed responsibility for vandalizing four different churches in Olympia, Washington, because of their supposed ties to pregnancy resource centers.

“You can find your nearest fake abortion clinic on the Crisis Pregnancy Center Map,” the post read.

In Minnesota, left-wing anti-police group Twin Cities Encampment Responders posted a link to the map shortly after the release of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“A map of anti-abortion fake clinics, including dozens around the Twin Cities area … you know, just because information is power,” the group wrote in the post, which has since been shared hundreds of times.

Colorado Springs Antifa, a group known for doxxing people affiliated with right-wing groups, shared a Twitter post containing a link to the CPC map alongside the message, “For the night owls.”

A graphic accompanying the original post reads, “Your local crisis pregnancy center tonight. Mask up. Stay dangerous.”

One of the latest attacks on pregnancy resource centers took place on Saturday morning in Longmont, a northern suburb of Denver. According to the police, the building was set ablaze and covered with graffiti messages such as “Bans off our bodies” and “If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you.”

The facility is run by Life Choices, a Christian non-profit organization that offers free services related to pregnancy and sexual health. In a statement, Life Choices Executive Director Kathy Roberts said the center is “devastated and stunned by this frightening act of vandalism.”

“What we hope the perpetrators of this act understand is that an attack on Life Choices is ultimately not an attack on a political party or act of,” Roberts said. “It is an attack on those who walk through our doors every day in need of diapers, pregnancy tests, limited ultrasounds, clothing, financial and parenting classes, support, and so much more. It is an attack on a place that is supposed to be safe for women, men, and their families.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/far-left-groups-use-map-created-by-university-professors-to-target-pregnancy-centers-report-says_4559401.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-27&utm_medium=email&est=zGa2x60dkBmse8Mb0Bdrfs9ip6SFhWDcZlestNnQk76CDEDUpQaw1I7MANQANSOtdg%3D%3D

Shadowy pro-abortion group Jane’s Revenge has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of destruction and vandalism against pro-life groups for which police have yet to make an arrest.

The group’s attacks began on May 8 in Madison, Wisconsin, where Jane’s Revenge members torched the headquarters of pro-life group Wisconsin Family Action.

“They had Molotov cocktails. They threw one against the window, and the window didn’t break. So then they broke a window and threw a Molotov cocktail into my office,” said Julaine Appling, Wisconsin Family Action’s president.

When the Molotov didn’t destroy the office enough, the attackers started a fire in Appling’s office using her books.

“The thing that I am missing the most is all the books they burned,” Appling said. “Some of those might at this point be irreplaceable.”

The same day,  Jane’s Revenge announced its existence, claimed responsibility for the attack, and promised more nationwide.

“We are forced to adopt the minimum military requirement for a political struggle,” its anonymous writer said in an online manifesto.

Since then, attacks on pro-life organizations have only escalated. As of today, at least 28 pro-life groups from Anchorage, Alaska to Hollywood, Florida have been attacked.

The attacks were prompted by the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, a decades-old decision that prohibited states from imposing restrictions on abortion.

Who Is Jane’s Revenge?

The attack on Wisconsin Family Action’s office was the first one claimed by Jane’s Revenge.

The only public channel of communication from Jane’s Revenge is a page on NoBlogs, an anarchist blogging site.

In its first post on Sunday, May 8, the group announced a “declaration of war” against pro-life groups. It demanded the disbandment of all American pro-life groups in the next 30 days.

“As you continue to bomb clinics and assassinate doctors with impunity, so too shall we adopt increasingly extreme tactics to maintain freedom over our own bodies,” the group wrote.

This “First Communiqué” also announced that Jane’s Revenge had “not one group, but many” in “every city.”

A second manifesto on May 30 called for a “Night of Rage” on the night the Supreme Court releases the Dobbs v. Jackson verdict.

It asked for “courageous hearts to come out after dark.”

It also claimed that Jane’s Revenge had a “few hundred people” but needed more members.

It’s unclear whether Jane’s Revenge has a centralized leadership, cells across the country, or is simply a slogan that unconnected pro-abortion radicals use when attacking pro-life clinics.

The group’s true size is also unclear.

Many attacks against pro-life groups nationwide have used graffiti tags connected to Jane’s Revenge.

Jane’s Revenge attacks tend to have cursive graffiti reading, “Jane Was Here,” “Jane’s Revenge,” anarchist symbols, the number “1312,” or some version of the phrase “If abortions aren’t safe then neither are you.”

Federal and local police have yet to arrest anyone for attacking a pro-life clinic since the first attack on May 8.

Attackers on the Loose

The Epoch Times has interviewed seven of the 28 pro-life organizations attacked since the Dobbs v. Jackson leak. Several attacked organizations refused to be interviewed because they feared a higher profile would bring more attacks.

But all organizations that spoke with the Epoch Times said they wouldn’t quit because of the attacks.

“We’re not going to go away. We’re not going to be quiet. We are going to continue to be bold and strong. Because we are on the right side of this issue,” Appling with Wisconsin Family Action said.

The vast majority of groups contacted by the Epoch Times said they had video of their attackers and were working with the police. Several clinics that received threats from Jane’s Revenge have also passed on information to the FBI.

In Long Beach, California, a woman entered His Nesting Place, a church and maternity care home, according to senior pastor Al Howard. The woman screamed obscenities, tore up a Bible, and threw a vase belonging to the church.

While congregants moved her out of the church, the woman attempted to open her backpack, Howard said.

“It dawned on us later that she possibly might have had a weapon,” he said.

Both security and phone cameras caught the attack, Howard said. While she was in the church, the attacker said she was local. Later, she shouted and threatened outside the church again.

But police still haven’t caught her, he said.

“She said, ‘I’m not finished with you. I’ll be back and I’m going to burn this place to the ground and all of you in it,’” Howard said.

Police didn’t set up a guard on the church while the attacker remained at large, he said.

Compass Care Pregnancy Services in Buffalo, New York suffered the worst attack so far from Jane’s Revenge, according to its director Jim Harden.

The attacker threw Molotovs at the clinic, resulting in “catastrophic” fire damage, Harden said.

The damage will require a full rebuild, he said. But due to the high number of donations the clinic has received, he plans to make a new and expanded building.

“Let’s not only rebuild, let’s build it bigger,” Harden said.

Police and the FBI have told Harden that they have leads on multiple perpetrators, but have yet to arrest a suspect, he said.

“Government failure to act is conspicuous,” Harden said. “Their job is to protect all citizens equally, not just the ones that agree with them.”

Doubting Law Enforcement

Thomas Glessner, the president of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), said he believes that stopping violence by pro-abortion extremists isn’t a priority for law enforcement.

NIFLA connects over 1,600 pro-life groups nationwide. Jane’s Revenge has twice firebombed one of NIFLA’s clinics in Portland, Oregon. Glessner said he doubts that police want to catch those responsible.

“Portland, Oregon? The police there let Antifa blow up to the inner city. How seriously are they gonna take this?” he said. “I know the FBI has been called in to some [clinic attacks], but again, how seriously are they gonna take this?”

He’s not the only leader disappointed in police efforts to combat Jane’s Revenge.

In Wisconsin, Appling started offering a reward for information leading to the arrest of the people who attacked her clinic. It has been over a month since the attackers struck.

“We thought it was appropriate to see if there was any way we might find someone who saw or heard information about this attack,” she said.

At Trotter House, a pro-life clinic in Austin, Texas, vandals took video of themselves vandalizing the clinic’s property, then posted it online, said clinic director Lori DeVillez. But as of yet, police have made no arrests. She blamed the lack of response on low police department funding.

“Now in Austin, when you call 911, nobody comes,” she said.

Over 120 congressmen have signed a letter demanding a Department of Justice investigation into Jane’s Revenge.

Pro-Abortion, Pro-Violence?

Despite the wave of violence against their political opponents, most nationwide pro-abortion groups haven’t made public statements condemning the violence.

The Epoch Times contacted Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to ask for a reaction statement to the nationwide attacks on pro-life groups. None replied by press time.

One of the few groups to make a statement about the attacks was pro-abortion group ReproAction.

Its statement condemned pro-life groups for five paragraphs, then briefly stated that “Vandalizing anti-abortion fake clinics does not help people seeking abortions.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) refused to condemn the attacks on pro-life groups when reporters asked her at a press conference.

“Well, let me just say this: a woman has a right to choose, to live up to her responsibility, it’s up to her doctor, her family, her husband, her significant other, and her God. This talk of politicizing all of this, I think, is something uniquely American and not right,” Pelosi said.

According to Glessner, pro-abortion groups support the attacks. Glessner added that NIFLA has condemned violent attacks against abortion doctors in the past.

“They support the attacks. They will not come out and say that, because they don’t want to pull into a criminal action. But they actually support the attacks,” he said.

Last week, pro-abortion Shut Down DC activists Patrick Young and Nadine Bloch told members of their group they don’t condemn those who use violence to support abortion.

“If you want to do property destruction, do it in secret. If you’re doing it publicly, you’re probably an infiltrator,” Bloch said. “There’s no condemnation of bringing the system down.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/destruction-and-vandalism-by-pro-abortion-extremists-sweeps-america_4545276.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-25&utm_medium=email&est=n0DgkCbLgQCT0%2FPHfAJxvR%2FVpQdJEiF3%2BuSZW8XGcScNBIfiPsIwcfTVWQ%2FpalDhXA%3D%3D

The Supreme Court agreed on June 21 to hear an appeal from a Romanian-American businessman who was fined $50,000 for failing to file tax forms on time, but whose penalty ballooned to $2.72 million when an appeals court ruled the fine should be imposed based on the number of bank accounts he held, instead of on the number of forms he failed to file.

The Biden administration, which wants to beef up enforcement efforts by the IRS, favors the larger penalty and had asked the high court to refuse to take the case.

The case is Bittner v. United States of America (court file 21-1195) an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

The justices did not explain in their unsigned order why they agreed to hear the case, as is their usual practice when deciding the granting of petitions for certiorari, or review.

Alexandru Bittner was born in communist Romania. He moved to the United States in his youth, working as a dishwasher and later as a plumber. Eventually, he was naturalized in the United States and has been a dual Romanian-U.S. citizen ever since.

Bittner returned to Romania after the collapse of Soviet bloc communism in 1990 and lived there for more than 20 years until late 2011.

He was a successful businessman and had several non-U.S. personal bank accounts and owned stock in a number of Romanian corporations that also had foreign bank accounts.

While living abroad, Bittner had limited contact with the United States.

“Like many dual citizens, he was unaware that he was required to file U.S. income tax returns reporting his foreign income,” according to the petition (pdf) Bittner filed with the high court.

Bittner was also not aware of the existence of the FBAR form, that is, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) on Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Form 114, or his duty to file such forms.

Soon after coming back to the U.S. in 2011 he realized he should have filed U.S. tax returns while living in Romania to report his worldwide income.

Bittner retained a professional accountant, who advised him on the requirement to file FBARs, to prepare and file the needed documents.

But the IRS found Bittner had failed to timely file FBARs for five years, 2007 through 2011. In that period, because he had more than 25 foreign accounts, he was not required to detail those accounts, but was permitted merely to state the total number of foreign accounts in which he had a financial interest.

His corrected forms nevertheless volunteered the full information.

The IRS sought to impose the maximum penalty under the Bank Secrecy Act, even though Bittner’s delinquency was non-willful.

Despite failing to file five annual forms on time, the IRS took the position that Bittner had violated the Act a full 272 times—once for each account that was not reported in each of those five years.

The IRS assessed a $2.72 million penalty, representing a $10,000 fine for each account Bittner disclosed on his untimely FBARs. The IRS sued Bittner in federal district court in Texas, which determined the tax collection agency erred.

The court ruled the total fine should be capped at $50,000, or $10,000 maximum for each annual FBAR.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed the decision, finding fines should apply “on a per-account, not a per-form, basis,” and restoring the $2.72 million penalty figure.

The decision conflicts with precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 9th Circuit, Bittner argued in his petition, and needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

“[T]here is no reason to think the conflict will disappear on its own: the IRS is applying one rule in the Ninth Circuit and a different rule everywhere else, leaving the conflict entrenched—and ensuring that tax penalties vary greatly based entirely on the happenstance of where a taxpayer is located.”

“That disparate treatment of identically situated parties undermines the proper administration of the tax system and interferes with sound tax policy,” he stated in the petition.

The filing added: “This critical issue arises all the time, and the act’s penalties for identically situated parties will now turn on whether the taxpayer is from California or Texas.”

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had urged the Supreme Court to throw out Bittner’s appeal, according to a brief (pdf) filed May 17.

When Bittner filed the untimely FBARs the forms were inaccurate and incomplete. The IRS, she stated, had accused Bittner of concealing cash and of not cooperating with the agency.

The IRS also claimed that when the man filed U.S. income tax returns for six of the taxable years in which he was living in Romania, he did provide accurate answers to the question “regarding whether he had foreign financial accounts and whether he had a requirement to file an FBAR.”

Bittner’s attorney, Daniel Geyser of Haynes and Boone in Dallas, was pleased the Supreme Court will hear the case.

“This case presents exceptionally important questions for taxpayers nationwide,” Geyser told The Epoch Times by email.

“The IRS is profoundly misreading the act to impose breathtaking penalties for non-willful conduct. We’re grateful for the grant, and we look forward to litigating the case on the merits.”

Contacted by The Epoch Times, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-defies-tax-hungry-biden-administration-agrees-to-hear-appeal-against-massive-irs-fines_4547445.html?utm_source=Goodevening&utm_campaign=gv-2022-06-23&utm_medium=email&est=uQh0c1ZY40oLWBqm%2Fklb%2BJWrGo3xeW0U%2F78gJn9bpg%2Fffj6hHoOGiuklA0cNZAmSSw%3D%3D

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on June 23 that North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature must be allowed to step in to advocate for a heavily litigated voter ID law in court because Josh Stein, the state’s Democratic attorney general, allegedly isn’t doing enough to defend the statute.

Republican lawmakers have long complained that Stein’s advocacy has been half-hearted and has focused on technical issues instead of countering the oft-repeated left-wing claim that voter ID laws are racially discriminatory. Republicans generally favor strengthening election integrity measures, such as requiring photo identification by voters. Democrats generally oppose photo IDs, saying that the requirement is burdensome and disenfranchises voters.

In 2018, North Carolina voters approved by 55.5 to 44.5 percent a state constitutional amendment requiring voters to present photo ID and directing the North Carolina General Assembly to develop legislation to enforce this requirement. The legislature soon approved Senate Bill 824, which Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, vetoed. The legislature overrode his veto.

Lower federal courts sided with Stein.

On June 7, 2021, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected the request from the legislature to take over the defense of the law from Stein. In dissent, Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee, suggested that Stein may have a conflict of interest.

“When a challenge is brought to an unpopular or controversial state law, an attorney general’s defense of the law may be less than wholehearted,” Wilkinson wrote. “If the plaintiffs in the case are politically influential, the temptation to pull punches becomes even stronger. It casts no aspersions on anyone to note the obvious: North Carolina’s voter photo ID law is a very controversial statute.”

Separately, a divided state court in North Carolina struck down the law on Sept. 17, 2021, finding in Holmes v. Moore that it “was motivated at least in part by an unconstitutional intent to target African American voters.”

The case at hand is Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, court file 21-248, an appeal from a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The lead petitioner Phil Berger, a Republican, is president pro tempore of the North Carolina Senate. Tim Moore, also a Republican and Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, is also a petitioner. The lead respondent, the NAACP, is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The case has drawn comparisons to Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, in which the Supreme Court ruled—also by 8-1—on March 3 that Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, a Republican, should be allowed to defend a state law restricting abortion after the state’s Democratic governor, Andy Beshear, refused to do so. The Epoch Times reported on the ruling at the time.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the court’s opinion (pdf) in the North Carolina case, which was joined by five conservative justices and two liberal justices. The sole dissenter was liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“[T]he merits of that dispute are not before us, only an antecedent question of civil procedure: Are two leaders of North Carolina’s state legislature entitled to participate in the case under the terms of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)?”

“Within wide constitutional bounds, States are free to structure themselves as they wish. Often, they choose to conduct their affairs through a variety of branches, agencies, and elected and appointed officials. These constituent pieces sometimes work together to achieve shared goals; other times they reach very different judgments about important policy questions and act accordingly. This diffusion of governmental powers within and across institutions may be an everyday feature of American life. But it can also pose its difficulties when a State’s laws or policies are challenged in federal court.”

North Carolina has selected multiple officials to defend its interests in some cases, authorizing its attorney general, who is elected independently by state voters, to represent individual official defendants in federal litigation, Gorsuch wrote. At the same time, its General Assembly has also empowered the leaders of its two legislative chambers to participate in litigation on the state’s behalf under certain circumstances and with counsel of their own choosing, he added.

Because “the people of North Carolina have authorized the leaders of their legislature to defend duly enacted state statutes against constitutional challenge,” the state’s “legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in this litigation,” Gorsuch wrote, reversing the judgment of the 4th Circuit.

In her dissenting opinion, Sotomayor noted that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a federal court is not authorized to grant a motion if an existing party to the case is adequately representing the movant’s interests.

Stein is “already ably” representing the state’s interests, she wrote.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-allows-gop-legal-defense-of-north-carolinas-embattled-voter-id-law_4553386.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-23-3&utm_medium=email&est=QPF3PS9fxBVsLZM8qBcNCS9Yh5Y6n0QBhnjEkxLFU1nWbV1hPWxCghpxv8fAYmcISQ%3D%3D

Justice Thomas: law violates Constitution by preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves in public

The Supreme Court voted 6–3 on June 23 to strike down New York state’s draconian concealed-carry gun permitting system on constitutional grounds.

The Supreme Court has been strengthening Second Amendment protections in recent years and observers have said the court’s 6–3 conservative supermajority could help expand gun ownership protections. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” and in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), it held that this right “is fully applicable to the States.”

The ruling comes amid rising crime rates, activist demands to defund police departments, and a Biden administration push to strengthen gun control policies. A gun control package, introduced in the wake of a series of high-profile mass shootings, is moving forward in Congress.

The Empire State’s gun permit law, like laws in seven other states, generally requires an applicant to demonstrate “proper cause” in order to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so, according to state law. An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” according to a 1980 ruling by the Supreme Court of New York in Klenosky v. New York City Police Department.

The specific issue before the court was whether the state’s denial of the petitioning individuals’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violates the U.S. Constitution.

Oral arguments in the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, court file 20-843, an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, were heard Nov. 3.

Respondent Kevin Bruen heads the New York State Police. Founded in 1871, the lead petitioner, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, describes itself as “the state’s largest and nation’s oldest firearms advocacy organization,” and as the official National Rifle Association (NRA) affiliated state association in New York.

The new opinion (pdf) was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who declared that New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

“Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Thomas wrote.

“In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command,’” Thomas wrote, quoting Konigsberg v. State Bar of California (1961).

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.

“In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms. Since the start of this year (2022), there have been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day. Gun violence has now surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents. Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.”

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-new-yorks-unconstitutional-concealed-carry-gun-law_4553435.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-23-2&utm_medium=email&est=uup6VD6lImDMDINabqzhGd2BQBznw%2Fe4S5Mie0y4HAn4gOgkS0fsvzdwyF3a%2BHO63A%3D%3D

President Donald Trump said the Supreme Court should keep an eye on the reporter who unveiled the potential ruling that it would criminalize abortion in the United States.

A leak to the press in early May appeared to show the Supreme Court’s draft majority opinion striking down Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision that made abortion a constitutional right nationwide in 1973.

Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the authenticity of the leak shortly after and directed the court marshal to investigate the rare breach.

“The U.S. Supreme Court must find reveal and punish the leaker,” Trump wrote in a June 22 post via his social media site Truth Social. “Go to the reporter who received the leak,” he said, calling it “a tremendously serious matter that has never happened, to anywhere near this extent, before.”

The former president appointed three conservative justices to the high court during his presidency.

Although a final opinion from the Supreme Court is expected soon, the scoop, co-written by Politico reporters Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward, set off a political earthquake across the nation.

Congressional Republicans have decried the unknown leaker and demanded that they are found and punished, while resident Joe Biden and Democrat leaders blasted the attempt to overturn legal protections for abortion.

Pro-abortion activists have since rallied at the court’s doorstep, Catholic churches, and judges’ home addresses. A recent report reveals more than 40 attacks against pro-life individuals and organizations have been recorded since the leak of the draft opinion.

Trump previously denied the revelation, which he said “cheapens the court,” will have a major impact on the 2022 midterm elections.

And despite his assertion that authorities should “go to the reporter,” disclosing the identity of a confidential source without his or her consent can subject a journalist to civil liability. Most states also have shield laws in place to protect journalists against the compelled disclosure of confidential information, including anonymous sources and unpublished notes.

The draft opinion almost runs to 100 pages, including 67-page opinion along with a 31-page appendix.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-suggests-go-to-the-reporter-to-find-roe-v-wade-leak-source_4552835.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-23-1&utm_medium=email&est=ddvdnaqzNt84NdEUkpZz2Of8ZW0b9M%2FQyuifFko9xGmwHKMYHwosvD%2FcewieWDTgHQ%3D%3D

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of students’ rights in our Maine school choice case Carson v. Makin, which we brought together with the Institute for Justice.

Maine passed a law that banned families from sending their children to religious schools. Today’s Supreme Court decision held that this exclusion is unconstitutional. It affirms that states cannot discriminate in student-aid programs against parents who want to send their children to religious schools:

“The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools—so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion.”

In response to this important ruling, Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty Institute said:

“We are thrilled that the Court affirmed once again that religious discrimination will not be tolerated in this country. Parents in Maine, and all over the country, can now choose the best education for their kids without fearing retribution from the government. This is a great day for religious liberty in America.”

Thank you for your support and prayers in this legal victory. First Liberty and the Institute for Justice are excited about this major victory as both parents’ rights and all American’s religious freedom were upheld at the highest court.

We know that we could not have won at the Supreme Court without you. But our work to defend our constitutional right to live according to our faith is far from over.

Together, we will continue to fight for every American’s right to freely live out their faith.

https://firstliberty.org/donation/maine-decision-lfn/

Corporate executives tell workers stick to business, leave politics at home

In an indication that corporate progressivism may be reaching its high-water mark, CEOs for the first time are pushing back against activist employees, in some cases going so far as to fire them rather than steer their companies into the mire of “woke” politics.

Last week, Kraken CEO Jesse Powell became the latest executive to say he has had enough. He invited employees who felt “triggered” by controversial ideas to accept a severance package and leave the company.

The cryptocurrency technology company’s new mission statement says that it “will never ask that our employees adopt any specific political ideology as a requirement for our workplace … We recognize that hurt feelings are inevitable in a global organization that is optimizing for team outcomes above individual sentiment. The ideal Krakenite is thick-skinned and well-intentioned.”

Powell told “Fox & Friends” that of the company’s 3,000 employees, about 30 have chosen to accept the four-month severance pay and leave, citing their need to express political or social beliefs in the workplace. Comments from the remaining 99 percent of Kraken employees regarding the policy to keep politics out of the workplace were “overwhelmingly positive,” he said.

“I think everyone is ready to get back to work and stop being distracted.”

“Suddenly, nobody has any interest in this anymore, and companies are responding accordingly and starting to drop ‘woke,’” said Scott Shepard, director at the National Center for Public Policy Research. “I don’t think this is the end of woke, I don’t even think it’s the beginning of the end, but to borrow from Mr. Churchill, I do think it might be the end of the beginning.”

SpaceX, Elon Musk’s space exploration company, joined the chorus on June 16. After several employees publicized a letter denouncing Musk’s campaign to acquire Twitter and steer the social media platform away from censorship, SpaceX responded by firing them.

The employees publicly criticized Musk’s efforts as “a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment” for SpaceX. After firing those responsible, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell emailed employees that the efforts against Musk’s Twitter acquisition “made employees feel uncomfortable, intimidated and bullied, and/or angry because the letter pressured them to sign onto something that did not reflect their views. We have too much critical work to accomplish and no need for this kind of overreaching activism.”

The Athletic, a sports news website owned by The New York Times, told its staff this week to stick to sports and drop the political activism.

“We don’t want to stop people from having a voice and expressing themselves,” Paul Fichtenbaum, the publication’s chief content officer, said in a directive. “We just need to keep it from tipping over into the political space.”

Some employees disagreed. A staffer quickly responded in protest. “What about Black Lives Matter? Is that a social cause? Who will write about athlete protests? What about trans athletes in sports?”

Political activism can take a toll on companies, both internally and externally. Walt Disney Co. has proven to be a cautionary tale for corporate leaders. In March, CEO Bob Chapek bowed to activist employees and announced that the family entertainment company would fight to support sex education for children in elementary school, while company executives revealed the intention to add LGBT content to kids’ movies and shows.

That action sparked a backlash from conservative employees and led to parents canceling subscriptions and theme park visits.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis responded to Disney’s harsh criticism of a state law banning sex-ed in kindergarten through third grade by revoking the tax-advantaged status of the company’s theme park in Orlando. Meanwhile, shareholders watched with alarm as Disney stock fell from $130 per share in March to about $94 currently, a 28 percent drop that’s well in excess of the 18 percent decline in the S&P 500 over the same period.

Citibank’s pro-abortion and anti-gun advocacy also drew the attention of state lawmakers. Texas passed legislation in June 2021 that barred banks that discriminate against fossil fuel companies or gun makers from underwriting state bonds. And Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain threatened Citibank with similar treatment in March over its policy of paying travel expenses for employees who go out of state to circumvent Texas’s anti-abortion laws. Texas is the second-largest issuer of municipal bonds in the United States. Other states such as West Virginia have passed similar laws.

In response to employee protests over controversial programs, such as comedian Dave Chappelle’s stand-up comedy show “The Closer,” Netflix told employees in May that it would no longer tolerate efforts to censor content that staff find objectionable.

“We support the artistic expression of the creators we choose to work with; we program for a diversity of audiences and tastes; and we let viewers decide what’s appropriate for them, versus having Netflix censor specific artists or voices,” the company stated. “If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.”

Netflix took that action after it lost 200,000 subscribers in the first quarter of this year and projected that it would lose 2 million more in the second quarter.

“It turns out that alienating the majority of your customer base is terrible for business,” Shepard said. “You can sort of get away with that when the market is reaching new highs and interest rates are nothing, so you can borrow and make up for the lack of profits.”

But in today’s environment, with markets tumbling, interest rates rising, and a potential recession looming, “suddenly the luxury of alienating your customer base doesn’t exist anymore.”

In addition to efforts at SpaceX to refocus employees toward company business, Musk is also working to revamp his target acquisition, Twitter, into a more inclusive platform. Last week, he communicated to employees that the platform must be open to all political points of view and that conversations that represent legal free speech, however offensive, should be permitted on Twitter. He’s expected, if the sale of the company goes through, to fire many of the progressive pro-censorship executives.

Many organizations, even the most progressive ones, are finding that taking up divisive racial and gender agendas is causing employees to turn on each other. Politico reported in November 2020 that “following a botched diversity meeting, a highly critical employee survey, and the resignations of two top diversity and inclusion officials, the 600,000-member National Audubon Society is confronting allegations that it maintains a culture of retaliation, fear, and antagonism toward women and people of color, according to interviews with 13 current and former staff members.”

Left-wing internet publication The Intercept lamented that the election of resident Joe Biden was supposed to mark the start of a golden era for the progressive moment. Instead, “Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and other reproductive health organizations had been locked in knock-down, drag-out fights between competing factions of their organizations … It’s also true of the progressive advocacy space across the board, which has, more or less, effectively ceased to function.”

The Washington Post fired reporter Felicia Sonmez in early June for incessant public attacks on a fellow staff writer and on the paper itself, accusing them of racism and sexism. In response to Sonmez’s critical tweets, Executive Editor Sally Buzbee initially issued an advisory to all staff that “we do not tolerate colleagues attacking colleagues either face to face or online.”

When that failed to rein in Sonmez, the Post fired her for “insubordination, maligning your coworkers online and violating the Post’s standards on workplace collegiality and inclusivity.”

Companies are learning that they are often hurting their own brands and losing customers by taking up highly controversial political positions. And like Chapek, many CEOs are finding themselves unprepared for the harsh world of social-justice politics.

The executives of Coca-Cola, Delta Air Lines, Microsoft, Levi’s, and Major League Baseball chose to protest voter ID laws in Georgia, with MLB even removing its All-Star game from Atlanta. Delta CEO Ed Bastian first supported the law, then turned against it in response to left-wing threats to boycott the airline.

But few companies followed Disney into the fight over child sex education, and so far, few companies have waded into the abortion debate, despite indications that the Supreme Court could decide to overturn Roe v. Wade, sending decisions on abortion law back to state legislatures.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/ceos-start-to-push-back-against-woke-employee-bullying_4545883.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-21-1&utm_medium=email&est=xguET43BDajtt3XB1NkEJYLlu6Z3uZ57CowCtKs%2BAsdhMxv62pDcrEJTfYIRIfPnyg%3D%3D

An armed would-be assassin’s alleged attempt on the life of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last week is part of a wave of violence, arson, vandalism, and intimidation targeting pro-life groups and government officials since the leak last month of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

There have been more than three dozen such incidents directed at crisis pregnancy centers and churches in at least 20 states and Washington, D.C., according to a tally maintained by LifeNews.com, an anti-abortion site.

These include:

• The firebombing of a pro-life pregnancy center in suburban Buffalo on June 7
• An arson attack including Molotov cocktails against the headquarters of the pro-life Wisconsin Family Action center in Madison on May 8
• Graffiti with the threat, “If abortion isn’t safe then you aren’t either,” spray-painted on the walls of centers in Washington state.
• Extensive graffiti spray-painted on small rural evangelical churches in the Deep South, where some of the deacons protested their congregations were apolitical

A loosely organized group known as Jane’s Revenge claimed responsibility for several of the attacks, including the apparent arson in Wisconsin and Buffalo. The group, which sometimes attaches the Antifa “A” symbol to its pronouncements, has called for a “night of rage” over the pending Supreme Court decision, on a website called The Anarchist Library.

Another group, Ruth Sent Us–its name evoking the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg–has published the home addresses of conservative Supreme Court justices on Twitter. While not claiming responsibility for the disturbed gunman arrested near Kavanaugh’s house, it informed followers where his children and the children of Justice Amy Coney Barrett attend school.

Federal law expressly prohibits “pickets or parades … in or near a building or residence occupied or used by” any judge, and the House passed a bill this week to expand Supreme Court Police protection to justices’ families.

The rash of incidents and intimidating behavior is domestic terrorism, said Jim Harden, executive director of CompassCare, a nonprofit that operates the Buffalo pregnancy clinic and two others in upstate New York. Harden and his family relocated Sunday after social media accounts began seeking his home address.

“This is new,” he said. “It was the leak that really sparked this kind of activity.”

CompassCare also described the campaign against it as “abortion terrorism”–expressing heightened fears in a place where a white supremacist terrorist had murdered 10 people just weeks before. FBI agents visited the Buffalo clinic in response to the firebombing, but the organization has heard nothing since from federal authorities. Harden expressed skepticism that they–in contrast with local police–have taken the incident seriously.

“It’s been eerily silent,” Harden said.

In response to the May 2 leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe, which in 1973 legalized abortion nationally, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul earmarked $35 million in protection funds–but it was to safeguard abortion clinics, which have not been targets of attacks lately.

The Justice Department did not respond to questions from RealClearInvestigations about whether it has classified the multiple incidents as domestic terrorism or assigned a team to an investigation. Jane’s Revenge has claimed responsibility for the arson and vandalism attack on the Madison office of the Wisconsin Family Action center. Madison police also did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

There have been no arrests made in connection with any of the incidents, which began after Politico published the leaked draft opinion by conservative Justice Samuel Alito declaring that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.”

Harden compared the law enforcement response to the CompassCare attacks to the silence surrounding the person who may have leaked the draft opinion.

“There doesn’t appear to be anything going on in either case,” Harden said.

Chief Justice John Roberts said he had ordered an internal investigation that might identify the leaker, who presumably comes from a very small circle of people who would have had access to draft opinions.

Agreeing with Harden was Rebecca Anderson of 40 Days for Life, an anti-abortion group headquartered in Texas that has worked with an organization also targeted by Jane’s Revenge vandals: a Lynnwood, Washington, crisis pregnancy center called NextStep.

“I don’t think these acts of violence are being taken seriously as elected officials aren’t publicly condemning them,” she said. “The lack of response from the Justice Department leads one to believe that they pick and choose what qualifies as domestic terrorism based on politics. Our concern is that this will embolden abortion supporters to commit more violence against those who support life.”

In contrast, several anti-abortion figures told RealClearInvestigations, local police have been exemplary in their response and attitude.

“The police came immediately, and the DC Metro Police have been outstanding,” said Janet Durig, executive director of the Capital Pregnancy Center, which saw its front door splashed with red paint and the threatening graffiti tag left by Jane’s Revenge vandals, “If abortion isn’t safe then you aren’t either.”

“The local authorities are taking this very seriously and are investigating,” Harden said. “We had cameras trained at all the points of entry so there is videotape evidence.” Still, there has been no indication that local authorities have made any progress in their investigations.

The available evidence may be thin. Cameras did capture the vandals at NextStep in Lynnwood, Washington, but the assailant was bundled up like an Antifa extremist and nearly impossible to identify, according to NextStep Executive Director Heather Vasquez. “You could tell it was a woman,” she said.

The attacks on pro-life centers don’t square with an emphasis in major news outlets on the potential for attacks on abortion providers, which do not appear to have proliferated in the past several weeks.

“Abortion clinics are secured like fortresses,” a USA Today headline blared a week after the Politico story. “Advocates fear Roe ruling could spur new attacks.”

Reports about the spate of incidents involving anti-abortion centers by both CNN and the Washington Post have stressed that violence occurs on “both sides” of the abortion debate.

Planned Parenthood said late Tuesday that “we condemn violence and hatred in all forms” in a statement to RCI that emphasized “acts of violence, vandalism, and intimidation from anti-abortion activists and politicians” aimed at the organization’s “health center staff and patients.”

The pro-choice National Abortion Federation claimed in a 2020 report that abortion providers receive hundreds of death threats and thousands of “hate emails” and harassing phone calls each year. There has been one deadly incident at an abortion clinic since 2010–the 2015 attack on a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs that left three dead.

The anti-abortion movement does not have an equivalent database regarding threats received by pregnancy centers and religious organizations. In 2012, a left-wing activist entered the Family Research Council’s Washington, D.C. headquarters and shot and wounded a security guard.

While violence and intimidation have long characterized the abortion debate, Jane’s Revenge has promised to escalate the conflict. In its self-titled “First Communique” published after the Wisconsin attack, it declared:

“We have run thin on patience and mercy for those who seek to strip us of what little autonomy we have left. As you continue to bomb clinics and assassinate doctors with impunity, so too shall we adopt increasingly extreme tactics to maintain freedom over our own bodies. We are forced to adopt the minimum military requirement for a political struggle. Again, this was only a warning. Next time the infrastructure of the enslavers will not survive. Medical imperialism will not face a passive enemy. Wisconsin is the first flashpoint, but we are all over the US, and we will issue no further warnings.”

This article was written by  James Varney for RealClearInvestigations.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/beyond-the-kavanaugh-scare-dozens-of-incidents-targeting-pro-lifers-nationwide_4542422.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-19&utm_medium=email&est=k%2Ba0jxuTYeeDfS9qRpoUDTlvXeIcMlGaBqGOtaosNg9Q5Y0Xfl3khupqquh2FwOqSw%3D%3D

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Thursday praised fellow Justice Clarence Thomas for his dedication to the high court’s integrity in light of recent protests and threats that were made against the institution.

Speaking at the American Constitution Society, Sotomayor, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, said Thomas is a “man who cares deeply about the court as an institution.”

And while the two often disagree in their opinions, Sotomayor said she and Thomas have a “common understanding about people and kindness towards them,” adding, “Justice Thomas is the one justice in the building that literally knows every employee’s name, every one of them. And not only does he know their names, he remembers their families’ names and histories.”

“He’s the first one who will go up to someone when you’re walking with him and say, ‘Is your son okay? How’s your daughter doing in college?’ He’s the first one that, when my stepfather died, sent me flowers in Florida,” Sotomayor added of Thomas, who was nominated by former President George H.W. Bush.

Her comments come as the Supreme Court remains poised to release decisions on several high-profile cases, including potentially overturning Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court will also soon issue a ruling in a New York gun rights case that could expand the scope of protection afforded under the Constitution’s Second Amendment—the first major decision on a gun-rights case in more than a decade.

Several weeks ago, the Supreme Court confirmed that a staffer may have leaked a majority opinion signaling that the court will indeed overturn Roe v. Wade, triggering a cascade of protests as well as threats against the institution.

An armed individual was arrested outside the Maryland home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh last week. The suspect allegedly told investigators that he was planning to kill Kavanaugh because he believed the justice would side with rulings to overturn Roe v. Wade and would side to expand gun rights in the United States.

“We are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like,” Thomas said after the draft was leaked. “We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that.”

Later, Thomas commented on the leak, saying that “I do think that what happened at the court is tremendously bad.”

“I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them,” Thomas continued, adding that there is a “different attitude of the young” in how they view institutions and the rule of law.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-justice-sotomayor-reveals-her-thought-about-clarence-thomas_4540763.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-18-2&utm_medium=email&est=RitgvwUi31LjvTvxDAaM2L636xdQYrZ9gBkaoLBi1UAE6fgl9QEc4IIU70DmvEdX4w%3D%3D

The Supreme Court of Iowa on June 17 overturned a four-year-old decision it made holding that the Iowa Constitution guarantees the right to abortion, and determined the state constitution does not in fact provide any such guarantee.

The move allows the Republican-controlled Iowa General Assembly to move forward with plans to restrict, or possibly prohibit, abortions in the state.

The state court ruling came as Americans await the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which a leaked drafted majority opinion suggests will overturn Roe v. Wade, the seminal 1973 precedent that federalized abortion policy, overriding the states and making the procedure lawful throughout the entire United States. The landmark 7-2 decision held that a woman’s right to an abortion was safeguarded by her right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The ruling also came a month after both chambers of the Iowa General Assembly passed a proposed amendment to the Iowa Constitution stating that “this Constitution does not recognize, grant, or secure a right to abortion or require the public funding of abortion,” as The Epoch Times reported. To take effect, the amendment must be agreed to by two successive General Assemblies and ratified by a majority of Iowa voters.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, Iowa lawmakers would presumably not have to continue pursuing an anti-abortion amendment to the Iowa Constitution in order to roll back protections for the procedure.

In Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds, court file 21-0856, the abortion rights group and abortion provider challenged the constitutionality of a law mandating a 24-hour waiting period in the state for an abortion. In a 182-page opinion (pdf), the Supreme Court of Iowa held the state’s constitution “is not the source of a fundamental right to an abortion.”

The court reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment to Planned Parenthood and remanded the waiting period case to that court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

In a 2018 ruling, the Supreme Court of Iowa found that abortion was protected by the state constitution. The court ruled at the time that “autonomy and dominion over one’s body go to the very heart of what it means to be free.”

But in its new decision, the Iowa court held that its 2018 ruling “insufficiently recognizes that future human lives are at stake.”

“Although we overrule PPH2 [i.e. the 2018 decision], and thus reject the proposition that there is a fundamental right to an abortion in Iowa’s Constitution subjecting abortion regulation to strict scrutiny, we do not at this time decide what constitutional standard should replace it,” added Justice Edward Mansfield, author of the new majority opinion.

The composition of the state’s high court has changed in the four years since GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds, an outspoken pro-life advocate, took office. Reynolds has appointed four justices, which means that six of the seven members of the court have been named to it by Republican governors.

Reynolds issued a statement praising the new ruling.

“Today’s ruling is a significant victory in our fight to protect the unborn,” she said.

“The Iowa Supreme Court reversed its earlier 2018 decision, which made Iowa the most abortion-friendly state in the country. Every life is sacred and should be protected, and as long as I’m governor that is exactly what I will do.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/reversing-2018-ruling-iowa-supreme-court-finds-state-constitution-does-not-protect-abortion-rights_4540675.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-18&utm_medium=email&est=t69L2oDhnP1leNdS%2BJcMCj5h81%2BaS0rmPhgH2dtazze4Lv%2B2ma4VFC5cjKR6DaBijg%3D%3D

The ACLU is helping an immigration scamster beat federal criminal charges as it seeks to strike down a federal law that makes it a felony to induce illegal immigration.

The convicted conman, Helaman Hansen, scammed almost 500 illegal immigrants out of $1 million by giving phony advice about applying for citizenship. ACLU lawyers fret the anti-inducement law under which Hansen was charged criminalizes support commonly offered to illegal immigrants, such as tips about evading ICE raids.

“Under this broad language, the government could prosecute a loving grandmother who urges her grandson to overstay his visa; a concerned citizen who criticizes or warns about ICE raids; a pro bono immigration attorney who hosts a free legal clinic for undocumented immigrants … and many others,” an ACLU filing in Hansen’s case reads.

The attack puts top officials in the Biden Justice Department at odds with their usual allies. The Biden administration has alienated practically all stakeholders on illegal immigration. Pro-migrant groups are disappointed that the White House did not more quickly end Trump-era public-health expulsions at the border. Frontline Border Patrol agents and DHS officials say the administration’s security policies are clueless and unserious.

Hansen conned hundreds of migrants into signing up for his fraudulent “Migration Program,” according to court documents. Hansen lied to his victims by promising to arrange for them to be adopted into American families, thereby allowing them to obtain citizenship. Aliens adopted after their 16th birthday are not automatically eligible for citizenship.

Prosecutors in court documents called Hansen a “fast-talking con man,” saying he used sleek marketing materials and a fake Ph.D. to entice clients. Almost 500 people enrolled in Hansen’s program, collectively paying him upward of $1 million. Federal prosecutors charged Hansen with inducing illegal immigration because he advised his clients to overstay their visas, stick with his program, and pay him more money. The anti-inducement law at issue is 8 U.S.C. 1324.

“He preyed upon hundreds of people who wanted to find a pathway to American citizenship and exploited their hopes and dreams for his own financial gain,” said Phillip Talbert, the top federal prosecutor in Sacramento, Calif. “The defendant’s lies and false promises caused many to part with substantial amounts of money, and in some instances, a lifetime’s worth of savings.”

Hansen in 2017 was sentenced to 20 years in prison and ordered to pay $576,000 in restitution following convictions for fraud and inducing illegal immigration. The ACLU backed Hansen’s appeal and in February helped persuade a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to strike the law down. Hansen’s fraud convictions were unaffected.

The ACLU has been attacking the anti-inducement law for a decade. It filed a 2012 amicus brief in a federal appeals court arguing the law is unconstitutional and tried persuading the Supreme Court in 2020 to strike it down.

The thrust of the ACLU’s argument is that the law applies to more protected First Amendment speech than unprotected criminal speech. And the group compared convicted bilkers like Hansen to suffragettes who cast illegal votes and civil rights activists who sat at segregated lunch counters.

“The law impermissibly targets a traditional means of protest with deep roots in American democracy: expressing disagreement with laws by advocating their violation,” ACLU lawyers wrote in legal filings.

The Justice Department is pressing a rarely used Ninth Circuit “super panel” to reverse the decision. If the request is unsuccessful, it will likely appeal to the Supreme Court. The department’s request for a super-panel rehearing was signed by Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite, a senior Biden appointee who runs the department’s criminal division.

Government lawyers counter that the law, properly construed, only reaches people like Hansen, who target specific individuals and then aid or abet their illegal entry. Properly understood, the law is simply a ban on soliciting or facilitating illegality, which is common in the criminal law, lawyers said in legal papers.

The Supreme Court will likely get involved with the case in the future. The justices were set to interpret the anti-inducement law in a 2020 case, but they returned it to a lower court for procedural reasons without deciding on the constitutionality of the law. As with Hansen, the 2020 case involved a defendant running a con on illegal immigrants.

The case is U.S. v. Hansen in the Ninth Circuit.

https://freebeacon.com/courts/aclu-aids-fraudster-who-scammed-hundreds-of-illegal-immigrants/

The Justice Department official who investigates attacks on reproductive health care facilities has been a staunch critic of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, dozens of which have been vandalized by abortion supporters over the past month. 

Civil rights division chief Kristen Clarke criticized the centers following a Supreme Court decision issued in their favor in 2018. Clarke said the centers, which counsel pregnant women on alternatives to abortion, were “harmful” and “predatory” against women of color. She also referred to them with the hashtag, “ExposeFakeClinics.” 

Clarke’s stance on the centers offers a potential explanation for the Justice Department’s refusal to investigate a string of attacks on pro-life centers since the May 2 leak of a draft Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked Attorney General Merrick Garland last week to investigate the incidents as acts of domestic terrorism. Garland has yet to open an investigation, even though he said on Sept. 6 he would investigate crimes against “reproductive health center[s]” under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act). 

Clarke oversees investigations of potential FACE Act violations. She charged nine people under the statute in March for blocking the entrance to a Washington, D.C., abortion provider. 

The attacks on crisis pregnancy centers, churches, and other pro-life organizations have run rampant since the leak of the Roe v. Wade draft opinion last month. Twenty-four crisis centers have been vandalized or set on fire since the leak, according to a group that tracks the incidents. In the latest assaults, a facility in Buffalo was firebombed on June 7. A center in Gresham, Ore., was hit with an “incendiary device” over the weekend. 

The attacks are part of a broad intimidation campaign by left-wing activists upset that Roe may be overturned. Activists have protested outside the homes of conservative justices. A radical left-wing group hatched plans to shut down the Supreme Court using tactics that “stretch the bounds of constitutionally protected speech.” One abortion supporter attempted to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh last week. 

Clarke showed her opposition to crisis pregnancy centers following a Supreme Court ruling in June 2018 that struck down a California requirement that the centers inform patients about state abortion services. 

“The anti-choice movement will stop at nothing,” wrote Clarke, using left-wing activist jargon to refer to pro-life groups. She added the hashtags, “#EndTheLies” and “#ExposeFakeClinics.”

Clarke also said the centers prey on women of color. She said the Supreme Court decision would have “harmful consequences for women, especially women of color who are often targeted by predatory [crisis pregnancy centers].” 

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a civil rights group Clarke led at the time, alleged that crisis pregnancy centers “target some of the most vulnerable women in communities today.” 

Asked about Clarke’s tweets, Rubio said she should be disqualified from overseeing any eventual investigation into the crisis pregnancy center attacks. 

“Kristen Clarke never should have been confirmed,” Rubio told the Washington Free Beacon. “Her disdain toward the very people now under threat was predictable and it should be disqualifying. Attorney General Garland should make clear that Clarke will have no involvement in any of these cases as those move forward.” 

The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment about Clarke or whether the agency is considering investigations into the attacks. 

Clarke has a long history of making controversial statements about issues she now oversees as civil rights chief. She wrote in support of the movement to defund the police in 2020 but denied to Republicans during her confirmation hearing that she wanted to defund police departments. In 2019, Clarke criticized the Chicago police department for requesting access to the cell phone of Jussie Smollett, the actor found to have staged a hoax in which he falsely claimed Trump supporters attacked him because he is black and gay. Clarke has criticized conservative Supreme Court judges, many of whom are now the target of left-wing radical protesters. She claimed that Kavanaugh’s presence on the bench would be “dangerous.” She called him a “man who harbors such bias, rage, fury and is so easily unhinged.”

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/pro-life-facilities-are-under-attack-a-top-doj-official-called-them-fake-clinics/

More than half of state attorneys general rejected an “unlawful” Biden administration memorandum, which prevented students from receiving federal funding for public school lunches if their district didn’t comply with LGBT mandates.

In a letter to the president, 26 Republican attorneys general demanded the Biden administration withdraw its Department of Agriculture’s Title IX interpretation, which will take billions of dollars in National School Lunch Program funding away from schools that don’t let biological males use the girls’ bathroom or compete in girls’ sports. The department’s interpretation violated the Administrative Procedures Act, since it was issued as a memorandum rather than a proposed rule for the public to comment on, the attorneys general wrote.

The Biden administration has a history of going around the public when issuing policies, Matt Bowman, a senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, told the Washington Free Beacon. Before the Supreme Court blocked it in January, a mandate without public comment from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration required that workers at businesses with 100 or more employees get vaccinated or submit a negative COVID test weekly.

With the exception of New Hampshire attorney general John Formella, every Republican attorney general joined the coalition, which is led by Tennessee attorney general Herbert Slatery.

The coalition is “evaluating all options to stop this federal overreach,” a spokeswoman for Arizona attorney general Mark Brnovich (R.) told the Free Beacon. He said “a federal government bully is more than any child or school should have to contend with.” Florida attorney general Ashley Moody (R.) criticized the Biden administration for “using hungry children to advance a political agenda.”

Approximately 30 million students benefit from the National School Lunch Program.

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-lgbt-mandates-for-school-lunch-program-unlawful-republican-attorneys-general-say/

Supreme Court justices have in the past few weeks faced a thwarted assassination attempt, tense protests outside their homes, and death threats. Yet some Democrats in Congress don’t think they need extra security.

The Senate in May unanimously passed a bill to provide armed security for the families of Supreme Court justices following the leak of a draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. House Democrats responded by stalling the bill for more than a month, even as leftist groups drafted battle plans to shut down the Supreme Court and an assassin traveled across the country to murder Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Democrats finally gave in on Tuesday and brought the bill to the House floor. The vote was 396 to 27. All “nos” were Democrats. Here are their names:

1. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D., Ohio)

2. Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D., N.Y.)

3. Rep. Cori Bush (D., Mo.)

4. Rep. Veronica Escobar (D., Texas)

5. Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D., N.Y.)

6. Rep. Chuy Garcia (D., Ill.)

7. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D., Texas)

8. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D., N.J.)

9. Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D., Ariz.)

10. Rep. Steven Horsford (D., Nev.)

11. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.)

12. Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D., Mich.)

13. Rep. Barbara Lee (D., Calif.)

14. Rep. Tom Malinowski (D., N.J.)

15. Rep. Marie Newman (D., Ill.)

16. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.)

17. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D., N.J.)

18. Rep. Donald Payne (D., N.J.)

19. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D., Colo.)

20. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D., Mass.)

21. Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D., N.J.)

22. Rep. Albio Sires (D., N.J.)

23. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.)

24. Rep. Norma Torres (D., Calif.)

25. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D., N.Y.)

26. Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.)

27. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D., N.J.)

Update 5:06 p.m.: This piece has been updated to correct Rep. Mikie Sherrill’s state. She represents New Jersey, not Virginia.

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/here-are-all-27-democrats-who-voted-against-protecting-scotus-judges/

Sheriff David Clarke is working overtime to stop the left’s latest gun-grabbing plot.

Clarke partnered with The League for Law Enforcement to activate a grassroots army as election season kicks into high gear. (RELATED: Police Group Begins Airwave Bombardment Ahead of Midterms)

The objective, as outlined in his email to supporters, is two-fold:

• Fight to protect and secure our cherished, constitutionally guaranteed 2nd Amendment right to keep & bear arms, AND
• Support the brave men and women of Law Enforcement who risk their lives daily to serve and protect our families.

Radical leftists in Congress are fighting to undermine both, buoyed by progressive activists. They are determined to see gun control signed into law before a potential red tsunami crashes into Washington.

Republicans may have the edge in the race to reclaim the Legislative Branch. However, Democrats are relying on a tried and true strategy to cling to power.

Divide and conquer.

Their tactics come straight from the Saul Alinsky playbook “Rules for Radicals.”

While speaking on Saturday, gun control advocate David Hogg claimed putting more police officers in schools poses a risk to non-white children.

“Realize that putting more cops in schools actually may be a form of endangering our students as well — for the students that don’t have the privilege of having my skin color, or the fact that I am an American citizen,” Hogg proclaimed, in a lecture to the audience.

The Democratic-ruled U.S. House has already passed a bloated gun omnibus bill containing six proposals that would not have stopped the Uvalde massacre. 

These Republicans Surrendered on Gun Rights

Although the Protecting Our Kids Act faces daunting odds in the U.S. Senate, the left maintains constant pressure on Republican senators by utilizing ridicule, conflict, power and fear — all of which have a greater impact than ideas on people.

For the left, politics is a full-time profession. Make no mistake, their campaign to create a new system won’t end on Election Day 2022. Even if the GOP cruises to victory on Nov. 8.

Fortunately, Sheriff Clarke and The League know the most important lesson for fighting back: playing offense.

The League’s ads counterattacking the radical left are running on Fox News and Newsmax to act as a clarion call. Ultimately, complacency is the biggest threat right now to the conservative movement.

Resident Biden knows this. Motivating his base is the only strategy left that might save his party from a midterm thumping. That’s why he’s telling gun control advocates to keep marching. It’s also why the White House refused to condemn protests outside conservative Supreme Court justices’ homes, despite its blatant illegality — and the foreseeable assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 

Enabled by Biden? – Armed Leftist Extremist Arrested at Justice Kavanaugh’s Home Was There to Kill

Biden understands that Democrats can still win this election. If they do, the far-left will continue to push for outlawing and confiscating firearms from law-abiding Americans under the guise of doing anything to protect innocent children. (RELATED: Biden’s Rhetoric on Guns is Far From ‘Reasonable’)

“They’re using … Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, to disarm responsible gun owners like me and you,” Sheriff Clarke warned American Liberty News.

“I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that this is a fight we cannot afford to lose,” he stressed.

The Democrats’ war on cops and brazen disregard for the Bill of Rights may seem routine. But the reality of two more years of unchecked Democratic rule would be untenable.

And as Clarke asked in an ad for The League, “If voters don’t hold Democrats responsible for their disastrous policies, who will?”

Expect Clarke and The League’s vocal opposition to the leftist agenda to intensify through Election Day. And their commitment to liberty and law and order to continue long after.

The only question is: will you join them?

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.

https://www.americanliberty.news/commentary/police-group-intensifies-ad-blitz-against-lefts-gun-grabbing-plot/phouck/2022/06/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ae01&seyid=6225

As officials in Washington brace for possible violence following a Supreme Court decision about access to abortion, organizers of a group planning protests at the high court told followers not to oppose the use of violence.

Leaders of the group “Shut Down DC” stated at an organizing meeting at Petworth United Methodist Church in Washington on June 12 that violence runs counterproductive to the group’s strategy, but isn’t necessarily bad.

Shut Down DC plans to blockade the U.S. Supreme Court building on June 13 so that justices cannot enter. The activist group is protesting in response to a leaked high court draft opinion that suggests the court plans to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The court said last week that it’s planning to issue decisions on June 13 and 15, without being more specific.

“We’re not in the business of telling people what to do,” longtime activist Nadine Bloch said. “We are in the business of pointing out the structural violence of the system. If people don’t like other people’s tactics, fix the system. We’re not going to condemn those other tactics.”

The remark was made in the context of a training day, during which organizers explained to protesters what to do if people showed up and encouraged violence, among other scenarios.

“If you want to do property destruction, do it in secret. If you’re doing it publicly, you’re probably an infiltrator,” Bloch said. “There’s no condemnation of bringing the system down.”

Another activist, who identified herself as Sadie, said that protest “action groups” can split into “red teams” and “green teams” if violence starts. The “red teams” could start violence, while the “green team” could provide cover and be “eyes and ears” on the “red team,” she said.

Shut Down DC’s main organizer, Patrick Young, suggested that people go and start violence away from the main body of the group.

“Y’all should go somewhere else and do that,” he said.

One of the activists, a man who called himself Rusty, said that he has stolen banners from politicians and that the group will repaint them to use in the protest.

“If anybody needs a banner, like a nice heavy-duty banner, I’ve been stealing politicians’ banners from all over town,” he said. “They’ve got white backs, you can spray paint whatever you want on. I’ve probably gotten, like, 10 of them.”

None of the activists at the meeting called him out for acknowledging the thefts.

Washington authorities have said that they are stepping up the city’s police presence and are urging visitors not to bring guns.

“We are increasing our presence to have coverage in neighborhoods and our downtown areas, which includes the activation of civil disturbance unit platoons,” Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee said at a press conference. “In addition, we are working closely with our law enforcement, government, and community partners to ensure that all of these events are peaceful and our neighborhoods are safe.”

The FBI has also said it will not “tolerate violence, destruction, interference with government functions, or trespassing on government property.”

The activist group at the church included 17 activists; leaders said they expected hundreds of people to show up on June 13 to block the entrances to the U.S. Supreme Court building.

Of the 17 activists, 15 were white, and 10 were women.

Activist Hope Neyer told the group that the history of pro-abortion movements is too white and too woman-focused. She said pro-abortion groups now need to include women who claim to be men by dropping language about “women’s rights.”

The activists planned to meet at 7 a.m. at Stanton Park, then march down Maryland Avenue to the high court’s building.

Activists at the meeting also discussed how to draw media attention.

“If you’re being dragged away, who’s going to watch?” one of the activists said. “The press. The media. Everyone here needs to have a sound bite. You have a chance to talk to the nation seriously.”

The 17 protesters practiced marching in the park outside the church. Some pretended to be “police” and attempted to “arrest” marchers and prevent them from passing through the park. Others practiced marching around police lines, or sitting with linked arms to resist arrest, and responding to police attempts to carry them away by going limp.

In every exercise, the mock-up “police” successfully prevented activists from nearing their destination.

Bloch advised protesters to consider wearing adult diapers so they could relieve themselves without leaving the Supreme Court.

Many of the protesters said they planned to stay until 5 .p.m. in hopes that more people would join the protest after work.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-blockade-protest-meeting-wont-denounce-violence_4528549.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-12-4&utm_medium=email&est=TGcOXbcEc9YE2TcL0K27mpBjX%2FKjUXZpB2gOYKay0A9KPLbgq8HLBmu6Yccnsxp7BQ%3D%3D

Resident Joe Biden is considering issuing executive orders to blunt the effect of an upcoming Supreme Court ruling that may overturn Roe v. Wade.

Biden’s comments came during a taping of ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on June 8. Kimmel, a comedian and left-wing activist who is an outspoken supporter of Obamacare, gave the president a softball interview that was punctuated with applause by the studio audience.

The face-to-face conversation was reportedly Biden’s first major media appearance since 118 days before, when he sat down with NBC’s Lester Holt on Feb. 10 before the Super Bowl.

The TV spot came five weeks after a leaked draft majority opinion indicated the Supreme Court was poised to reverse Roe v. Wade, the seminal 1973 precedent that federalized abortion policy, overriding the states and making the procedure lawful throughout the entire United States. The draft opinion was from a pending case from Mississippi: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Biden told Kimmel that if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, “I think we have to legislate it. We have to make sure we pass legislation making it a law that is the federal government says, ‘This is how it works.’”

The abortion ruling is “just going to be the beginning,” Biden said, adding that the Supreme Court would then outlaw the use of contraception “because in the Constitution there was no right to privacy.”

“It’s just ridiculous in my view, and I don’t think the country will stand for it, but I think what we’re going to have to do, there’s some executive orders I could employ, we believe, we’re looking at that right now,” Biden said, without elaborating.

If Roe v. Wade is reversed “and these states impose the limitations they’re talking about, it’s going to cause a mini-revolution and they’re going to vote a lot of these folks out of office,” he said.

“We’ve got to keep it focused on–if they overrule Roe v. Wade and the state of California won’t do it, but other states say that you cannot do the following, and so as a law you can’t cross the border, you can’t–all the things that some states have, then you’ve got to make sure that you vote, you got to vote and let people know exactly what the devil you think and change it.”

Biden’s interview also came the same day a suspect was arrested for plotting to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who, according to the leaked draft opinion, supports overturning Roe v. Wade, and a day after 25 Democratic U.S. senators wrote a letter (pdf) urging the president to “immediately issue an executive order directing the federal government to develop a national plan to defend Americans’ fundamental reproductive rights, including their right to an abortion.”

“The dramatic escalation of attacks on abortion access—spearheaded by right-wing justices, lawmakers, and activists—demands comprehensive and creative strategies from every corner of the federal government,” the letter states.

The senators encouraged Biden to increase access to medication-based abortions, use federal resources to increase access to abortions, provide resources for individuals seeking abortions in other states, and clarify protections for sensitive health data.

Among those signing the letter were Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Dianne Feinstein of California, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to release opinions in pending cases on June 13 and 15. It’s unclear which opinions will be made public. Activists are planning to blockade the Supreme Court building on June 13 in hopes of preventing the court from functioning, as The Epoch Times has reported.

According to a White House statement, President Biden so far has appointed more federal judges than any president since John F. Kennedy.

Last year, Biden surpassed the most judicial confirmations in the last 40 years. A recent wave of confirmations means he’s appointed the most judges at this point in a president’s second year in office—the highest in nearly 60 years. To date, the Senate has confirmed nearly 70 Biden appointees to the federal bench.

For people of faith worried about religious freedom, they should not only pay attention to how many, but also the ideology of the judges being confirmed. They must know this: President Biden’s record on judges is alarming. The nominees he’s put forward have raised serious red flags when it comes to religious liberty.

First on the list is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who will replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court at the end of the current term. First Liberty thoroughly reviewed Jackson’s record and our analysis revealed significant concerns about her judicial philosophy. Multiple red flags in the record suggest she could be hostile to religious liberty.

For example, Jackson was one of the most frequently reversed judges on the D.C. federal district court. The high rate at which appellate courts have overturned her decisions signals that Jackson frequently engages in judicial activism—intervening where she should not—and gets the law wrong on constitutional matters. Jackson has been endorsed by virtually every liberal activist group in America, receiving praise from Planned Parenthood, Center for Reproductive Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, American Atheists, Human Rights Campaign, Demand Justice, and other radical organizations.

But the Supreme Court is not the only place where Biden has put forth a radical nominee.

We cannot ignore those picked for the federal district and circuit courts. Remember, these courts have immense influence in protecting our freedoms—including religious liberty. The Supreme Court only takes about 65 cases each year, which means lower court judges decide a vast majority of cases.

Of the 66 Biden nominees confirmed so far, 16 have been confirmed to appeals courts, just one level below the Supreme Court. Biden is surpassing many of his recent predecessors. Only President Trump appointed more circuit court judges at this point in his presidency:

First Liberty reviewed the record and background of several Biden nominees to important vacancies on appellate courts. We uncovered that while in private practice, many of these judicial picks—who are now sitting on the federal bench for life—have expressly worked against Americans’ First Freedom.

Similar to Judge Jackson, Biden has selected nominees whose resumés show they’ve worked for radical activist organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center, the latter being infamous for labeling political opponents as “hate groups” or “extremists.”

It does not appear Biden’s momentum is slowing down any time soon. More nominees could be confirmed in the coming weeks and months. Just this week, two appellate court nominees advanced to the full Senate for a final vote. About 20 total are waiting for a Senate vote. Slightly more than a dozen are pending a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing or vote.

In the most recent wave of nominations, President Biden announced three picks for appellate court judgeships on the Sixth Circuit, Seventh Circuit and the influential D.C. Circuit—often referred to as the “second highest” court in country. Approximately 50 district and appellate court vacancies still do not have a nominee.

Religious Americans alarmed about the judges being confirmed need to look at the bigger picture, however. Biden has been able to effectuate some change. But it does not mean he’s completely overhauled the composition of the judiciary.

Biden judges currently comprise less than 10% of the judiciary. If he filled every vacancy right now, there would be 140 total Biden judges. That’s still only about 16% of all district and appellate courts. If we compare this to his predecessors, Biden would be the president with the lowest total number of confirmations dating back to Gerald Ford.

Because federal judges make critical legal decisions about your religious liberty, First Liberty’s team of experts continues to keep a close eye on judicial vacancies and remains committed to our work of analyzing and evaluating the records of the nominees to America’s federal courts.

If our legal experts uncover any nominees who have a radical or unacceptable record on religious freedom, we will provide the facts and information to prevent those nominees from being on the federal bench for life.

https://firstliberty.org/news/more-judges-confirmed-than-any-president-since-jfk/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=story-2-button&utm_campaign=fli-insider

THE ATTACKS ON THE SUPREME COURT BY THE EXTREME LEFT PICKS UP PACE.

Joe Biden’s White House intentionally fanned the flames of the violent, irate political left after the recent Democrat leak of a Supreme Court opinion, as well as the latest Uvalde school shooting. The result has been an attempt on the life of a Supreme Court Justice.

In amongst the political fracas, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is said to be holding up a Senate bill which would grant more security for Supreme Court justices. The U.S. Senate fast tracked the new security plans after Democrat extremists leaked an expected Roe v. Wade opinion from the court in May, but Pelosi has thus far refused to bring the legislation up for a vote in the House, stalling more security for Supreme Court justices.

Would-be assassin Nicholas John Roske is believed to have been radicalized by far-left reactions to the abortion issue, as well as the shooting in Uvalde. The aspiring gunman is said to have had a Glock 17 handgun, a knife, pepper spray, zip ties, a nail punch, a crow bar and a hammer, and said he found Kavanaugh’s address on the internet.

And while resident Biden himself has failed to condemn the attempted attack, a White House spokesman tepidly said that “any violence, threats of violence, or attempts to intimidate justices have no place in our society.”

But the left’s rhetoric on the run up to the latest incident is indicative of the political climate they seek to create around their “core” issues of abortion and gun control in the run up to the mid term elections.

GOP operatives point out a timeline of events that show no remorse or attempt to cool the heated rhetoric around the time Roske was being radicalized by their behavior:

• May 5: Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to condemn activists posting the justices’ home addresses online.
• May 6: Psaki refused to say if Biden “has a view” on activists harassing justices at their homes.
• May 6: Nancy Pelosi called on protesters to actively pressure justices to influence their decisions.
• May 8: Pelosi said “the focus” is to influence and change the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on Roe v. Wade.
  May 9: Psaki refused to condemn protests at justices’ homes even though it is against the law.
• Psaki also refused to condemn the doxing of justices’ personal information even as threats of violence grew.

MUST READ: COMPROMISED: MSNBC Guest and Ex-Obama Advisor Calling for an End to Trump’s China Tariffs Actually Headlined a Chinese Communist Party Event.

• May 10: Psaki downplayed the harassment, claiming protests “have been peaceful to date and we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes.”
• May 11: Chuck Schumer answered “yes” when asked if he was “comfortable with protests…outside the homes of Supreme Court justices.”

“It’s past time for Biden and Democrats to condemn this violence,” said a GOP spokesman in an e-mail Wednesday.

The incident follows a number of high-profile Democrat extremists attacking political figures, including the Washington, D.C. attack on reporter Jack Posobiec, as well as the Bernie Sanders-supporting gunman who attempted to assassinate Republican legislators en masse at a baseball practice in 2017.

The Senate’s top Democrat is under pressure to retract his remarks promising Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would “pay the price” after a man was arrested near Kavanaugh’s home with a gun.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in March 2020 that Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch, both Trump appointees, “have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.”

“You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer added, speaking to a crowd outside the Supreme Court building in Washington.

After Nicholas John Roske of California was arrested near Kavanaugh’s home on June 8, with authorities saying Roske outlined plans to break into the home and murder the justice, some of Schumer’s colleagues called for him to speak up.

“That is the majority leader of the supposed foremost deliberative body,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) told the Washington Examiner. “I think that Chuck Schumer has an obligation to denounce this.”

Others pinned some of the responsibility on Schumer.

“That man was there, as he stated, apparently, to murder Justice Kavanaugh,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said on Fox News. “And I believe Chuck Schumer bears some responsibility because he has contributed to this atmosphere of directly attacking members by name of the Supreme Court.”

In a social media statement, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) brought up Schumer’s past remarks and linked them to Roske’s arrest.

“Leaders must weigh their words more carefully esp[ecially] when they might incite violence,” Grassley said.

Schumer did not address the arrest of Roske on the Senate floor on Wednesday or Thursday, nor has he issued a statement about the threat.

A spokesperson for the New Yorker did not respond to a request for comment.

Schumer’s office pointed the Examiner to a statement Schumer made in 2020 in which he said, “I shouldn’t have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat.” He also accused Republicans of “manufacturing outrage.”

The comments at the time drew a rare response from Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee.

“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” Roberts said in a statement. “All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the majority whip, noted Roske’s arrest while speaking on the floor Wednesday.

“We have to stand united—Democrats, Republicans, independents, left and right—and condemn violence wherever its source, right or left,” Durbin said.

The White House also condemned Roske’s actions.

According to court documents, Roske told officers after he was arrested that he was moved to act because of a Supreme Court draft decision that was published online that indicated the court is poised to strike down Roe v. Wade, which concluded there is a constitutional right to abortion. Kavanaugh reportedly signed onto the decision, a finalized version of which has not yet been released. Roske also suggested he feared Kavanaugh would rule against gun control efforts.

In a federal court in Maryland, Roske said that he was on medication. “I wouldn’t say I’m thinking clearly,” he said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/schumer-under-pressure-to-address-past-comments-after-man-tried-killing-kavanaugh_4522394.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-09-2&utm_medium=email&est=yn80AaTEGciZhxcbHfKL3g%2B0dZq%2BoG6Dd4mGSZ9obU3VErglcwQZn7NbL4qD7oGQvQ%3D%3D

An armed man was arrested near Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home early Wednesday morning, and confessed to plans to assassinate the justice.

The gunman is 26-year-old Nicholas Roske, according to court filings unsealed on Wednesday. The defendant told authorities he planned to kill the justice and then himself, citing the leak of a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and a pending Second Amendment decision as his motivation. The arrest follows a warning issued by the Department of Homeland Security last month that noted the potential increased threat of violence to justices, clerks, and clergy, which could heighten after the official ruling. The would-be assassin was taken into custody with a knife, pepper spray, and a gun, according to an NBC News report.

The breach near Kavanaugh’s home is the latest threat to the Court. The Washington Free Beacon reported in May that a radical leftwing group, ShutdownDC, is crafting plans to obstruct three critical points on Capitol Hill to block access to the Court building altogether on June 13. At a briefing the Free Beacon attended, one organizer said the group’s goal is to “expand the current political crisis.” A New York Times opinion writer in May had also urged pro-abortion activists to escalate protests targeting Kavanaugh.

Roske was spotted by marshals protecting the Kavanaugh home when he climbed out of a cab carrying a backpack and a suitcase, according to Wednesday’s filing. He spotted the marshals, then backed away from the property. Shortly thereafter, Roske called 911 and confessed to suicidal ideation and his assassination plot. Authorities immediately took him into custody.

The gunman was well outfitted for his deadly purpose. Roske was carrying a Glock 17 handgun with two magazines, a pistol flashlight, pepper spray, zip ties, duct tape, and burglary tools like a crowbar and a nail punch. He wore padded hiking boots.

The Senate passed a bipartisan measure beefing up Court security in May, after leftwing groups began picketing the justices’ homes. The bill is languishing in the House, where Democrats have shown no urgency about the issue. A senior GOP congressional aide told the Free Beacon that Democrats hope the protests will energize their base ahead of the midterms and “have every intention of riding it out as long as they can.”

Some House Democrats are pushing a poison pill provision that would extend security to law clerks or other Court staff. A Senate aide told the Free Beacon that measure is dead on arrival in the Senate.

The foiled attack comes as leftwing violence to pro-life advocates is on the rise. Abortion activists on Tuesday firebombed a pro-life pregnancy center in Buffalo, N.Y., the second attack of its kind since the leaked Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health opinion. From Washington, D.C., to Washington State, other pro-abortion activists have vandalized houses of worship and other pro-life pregnancy centers.

The Post said Kavanaugh’s would-be killer, who was found with burglary tools in his possession, was equally mad about a string of mass shootings over the past few weeks.

Roske has been charged with one count of attempting to kidnap or murder a Supreme Court justice. He is being tried at a federal court in Greenbelt, Md.

Kevin Daley contributed to this report.

Update 4:36 p.m.: This piece has been updated with information on the would-be assassin from unsealed court records.

https://freebeacon.com/courts/would-be-assassin-arrested-outside-kavanaughs-home/

Washington police say they’re aware of proposed protests near the Supreme Court and will plan accordingly.

Protest organizing group Shut Down D.C. has said that it will blockade the court on June 13 in response to a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that suggests the justices might overturn Roe v. Wade.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was a constitutional right and that legislators could only regulate it to a limited extent. But the Supreme Court’s leaked Dobbs v. Jackson draft decision would put decisions on abortion into the hands of state and national legislators.

In response to this decision, several activist groups plan to block all three vehicle entrances to the Supreme Court on June 13. During an online meeting by the activists, it was suggested that protesters will likely sit in front of the court’s entrances, but it remains to be seen whether protesters will settle on this method.

June 13 is the first Monday after one of the court’s three remaining conference days. It’s likely that the court will release decisions then, but no one knows for certain when the Dobbs v. Jackson decision will go public.

The Supreme Court traditionally ends its term on July 1, but it might go longer.

Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) told The Epoch Times that it knew of the planned protest.

“We are aware of upcoming demonstrations in this area,” MPD Public Affairs Specialist Alaina Gertz said in an email.

“As with any demonstration, MPD will be monitoring and assessing the activities and planning accordingly with our federal law enforcement partners to ensure the safety of all residents and visitors to the District of Columbia,” Gertz wrote.

The Epoch Times also reached out to the U.S. Supreme Court Police, the House Committee on the Judiciary, and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, but these institutions didn’t respond by press time.

In an online planning meeting on May 24, activists with Shut Down D.C. said the protest might result in arrests because it would “stretch the bounds of constitutionally protected speech.”

Protesters also said one of the protest’s goals was to “continue to escalate the crisis in democracy” by forcing police to intervene.

Shut Down D.C. has also planned a legal protest in front of the Supreme Court scheduled for the same day.

The Supreme Court’s decision will likely have an immediate nationwide impact on abortion laws.

About 25 states would ban abortion if given the opportunity, according to an analysis by the Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion group.

“If the Supreme Court gives states more leeway to restrict abortion or prohibit it all together, almost half the states would likely enact new laws as restrictive as possible or seek to enforce current, unconstitutional laws prohibiting abortion,” the group’s website reads.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/police-will-monitor-abortion-protests-near-the-supreme-court_4518820.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-09&utm_medium=email&est=TISiIBCmsknymNH09cXWYiNl8snTxSG%2Bm4CrdMmXsAJ%2FLkxAYyNQmjtgJLTMhotwIQ%3D%3D

The White House has responded after a man was arrested for allegedly attempting to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on June 8.

“The president condemns the actions of this individual in the strongest terms and is grateful to law enforcement for quickly taking him into custody,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Air Force One en route to California.

“As the President has consistently made clear, public officials, including judges, must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety or that of their families. And any threats of violence or attempts to intimidate justices have no place in our society,” she added.

Nicholas Roske, 26, of Simi Valley, California, was arrested in the early hours of Wednesday near Kavanaugh’s home in Chevy Chase. Authorities said he had a gun, a knife, and various other items, such as duct tape, and planned to break into Kavanaugh’s house and kill the justice.

Roske said in federal court in Greenbelt during his initial appearance that he “wouldn’t say I’m thinking clearly.” He said he had taken medication prescribed to him by a doctor.

According to charging documents, Roske hatched the plan because he was upset about the recent Supreme Court draft decision that was leaked. The decision indicated the court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, giving authority to regulate abortion back to states. Roske also expressed concern that Kavanaugh “would side with Second Amendment decisions that would loosen gun control laws.”

It wasn’t clear whether Kavanaugh, who has a wife and two daughters and was appointed by former President Donald Trump, was home when Roske was arrested.

Before boarding Air Force One in Maryland, Biden didn’t address the arrest. Some lawmakers had called on the president to personally condemn violent threats and actions against justices.

Around the same time, Attorney General Merrick Garland, a Biden appointee, told reporters at the Department of Justice that “this kind of behavior is obviously behavior that we will not tolerate” and that prosecutors would work to hold the man who was arrested accountable.

Federal authorities have neglected thus far to charge the protesters who have gathered outside the homes of Kavanaugh and others since the draft opinion was leaked with crimes, despite legal experts saying they are in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1507, which prohibits picketing or parading near a judge’s residence “with the intent of influencing” the judge.

Protesters are seeking to convince the four justices who reportedly signed onto Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion against Roe v. Wade to shift positions.

Garland did order around-the-clock security for all nine justices’ homes, and two deputy U.S. Marshals were said to have locked eyes with Roske when he arrived outside Kavanaugh’s abode before he walked down the street and called 911 on himself.

Roske was charged with violating a different law, 18 U.S.C. § 115, which bars attempting to kidnap or murder, or threatening to assault, kidnap, or murder federal judges.

Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters in May that the White House encouraged peaceful protests outside of judges’ homes, while avoiding questions of the apparent violations of federal law.

On Wednesday, Jean-Pierre said that the Department of Homeland Security is working with partners in the government and private sector “to share timely information and intelligence to prevent all forms of violence and to support law enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe.” She also said that the president supports legislation that would fund increased security for the Supreme Court and the justices. The bill was passed by the Senate in May but remains stalled in the House of Representatives over efforts to extend protection to clerks.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/white-house-responds-after-man-allegedly-tried-killing-supreme-courts-kavanaugh_4521213.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-06-09&utm_medium=email&est=c%2F6OHpGT3CveKO8uq08K3fkWeuETSHMwAm1l0IvoLDsztFFMAvIgdxU1MBxIioJBnw%3D%3D

Abortion activists firebombed a pro-life pregnancy center outside Buffalo, N.Y., the latest in a series of attacks on pro-life offices and churches since the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

The pro-life organization CompassCare reported that early Tuesday morning, activists smashed windows and set fires in the group’s Amherst, N.Y., medical office. The assailants graffitied the phrase “Jane Was Here” on the building, a tagline associated with a group called Jane’s Revenge that has claimed responsibility for attacks on pro-life institutions across the country.

The attack comes as Supreme Court justices and pro-life advocates face heightened threats this month of leftwing violence over the Court’s looming Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision. Jane’s Revenge took credit for the firebombing of a pro-life office in Wisconsin last month. And anarchists who vandalized four churches in Washington State claimed association with Jane’s Revenge. The Department of Homeland Security has warned law enforcement about potential violence against justices, clerks, and even clergy members in the wake of the Dobbs ruling. Pro-abortion violence is not the only kind tacitly supported by the left. The Washington Free Beacon reported on Tuesday how two Ivy League lawyers who lobbed a Molotov cocktail into a police car during the summer 2020 riots worked out a sweetheart plea deal last month with Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Justice Department.

CompassCare CEO Jim Harden condemned the attack and called for Democratic New York officials to protect pro-life organizations.

“Because of this act of violence, the needs of women facing unplanned pregnancy will go unmet and babies will die,” Harden said.

The Supreme Court is expected to overturn Roe‘s recognition of a right to abortion in the Dobbs case, returning the issue of abortion access to the states.

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/abortion-activists-firebomb-another-pro-life-office/

Citizens argue federal law doesn’t allow government to punish people for refusing to answer 100-question American Community Survey

Two U.S. citizens have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Census Bureau, claiming the long, detailed American Community Survey the agency requires millions to complete each year is illegal.

The lawsuit comes as the U.S. Census Bureau comes under fire for significant miscounts in the 2020 census, with population numbers in six states being undercounted, while eight states saw an overcount in population. Republicans say the botched census count unfairly prevented Florida and Texas from each gaining a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

President Donald Trump tried to prevent the counting of illegal aliens so they wouldn’t have an effect on the apportionment of political power among the states. The Supreme Court sided with him on Dec. 28, 2020, allowing the Trump administration to attempt to carry out its policy as the deadline for census figures was approaching. But on the day he was inaugurated, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 13986, which reversed the Trump policy.

The 22-page legal complaint (pdf) in the new case, Murphy v. Raimondo, 3:22-cv-5377, was filed on May 24 in Tacoma in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David G. Estudillo, who was appointed in September of last year by Biden.

The plaintiffs are U.S. citizens Maureen Murphy and John Huddleston. Murphy lives in Gig Harbor, Washington; Huddleston resides in Susanville, California.

The defendants are U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo and Director of the Bureau of the Census Robert Santos. Both are being sued in their official capacities. The U.S. Department of Commerce and the Bureau also are named as defendants.

Murphy and Huddleston don’t object to the normal census carried out nationwide every 10 years, which is fairly simple and designed to count people for congressional redistricting; they object to the much more detailed American Community Survey (ACS), which gathers information they say isn’t necessary for the census.

The enumeration clause in the U.S. Constitution states that an “Enumeration shall be made” every 10 years “in such Manner” as Congress “shall by Law direct.” Congress authorized the Census to be carried out in Title 13 of the United States Code.

The Census Bureau’s website states that it’s against the law to disclose or publish any private information that identifies an individual or business and that the personal information collected “cannot be used against respondents by any government agency or court.” Bureau employees are “sworn for life” to protect the information gathered. Violating the law can lead to as many as five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000, or both.

Unlike the once-a-decade census, the ACS is conducted every year and “asks detailed and personal questions such as the person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, fertility history, marital status, and divorce history,” according to the legal complaint.

Other questions posed in the survey concern whether the household has internet access, how many cars the inhabitants own, whether the occupants receive food stamps, how many and which languages the occupants speak, and “details of the occupants’ physical, mental, or emotional conditions such as deafness or blindness, and any difficulty concentrating, remembering, making decisions, walking or climbing, dressing or bathing, or running errands.”

The ACS queries respondents about private health information, including whether the occupants have health insurance, and the effect of medical and psychological conditions on the individual’s daily activities. It also asks how much households pay in taxes and for utilities. “It even asks how many beds, cars, and washing machines the household has … [and] contains about 100 such questions.”

Unlike the 10-year census, which everyone has to answer, the Census Bureau chooses a sample of a few million households each year to answer the ACS. Individuals who decline to answer this detailed questionnaire face fines of up to $5,000 per question, the complaint states.

Murphy and Huddleston were selected to complete the ACS.

“They understand the importance of the decennial Census. They have in the past and will continue in the future to answer the ten-year Census. But they oppose the highly detailed and personal information demanded in the American Community Survey and have refused to answer it,” the complaint reads.

“As a result, they are subject to monetary fines for doing nothing more than keeping the private details of their lives private.”

Murphy and Huddleston argue that the Census Bureau doesn’t have the statutory or constitutional authority to compel them to answer the “detailed, intrusive questions” of the ACS, the complaint states.

“The Census Bureau does not have the authority to compel Americans to divulge any information it sees fit, beyond what’s needed for the 10-year census,” said attorney Adi Dynar of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a national public interest law firm headquartered in Sacramento, California, that is representing the plaintiffs.

“Congress has not authorized the Census Bureau to impose criminal penalties and fines for refusing to answer their intrusive, deeply personal questions,” Dynar said in a statement.

Officials at the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/census-bureau-sued-over-intrusive-annual-survey-questions_4513009.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-06-05-4&utm_medium=email&est=Ubug7LzgeNEuOw0pq6go00VKBluHYNCatMxEWd%2BPsB%2FlUh3T3ymfGPjsmRIQWogOEQ%3D%3D

What’s Happening:

Ever since a Supreme Court draft leaked to the public, radical abortion activists have been flipping out. They have violated federal law to harass the court, all so it would vote the way the mob wants.

(Not that Joe Biden is investigating these crimes.)

But news has come out that the protests have not changed the court’s opinion. So, one extremist group is hatching another scheme to “paralyze” the court.

From The Washington Free Beacon:

A radical leftwing group is laying plans to shut down the Supreme Court in response to a leaked opinion that overturns Roe v. Wade, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

#ShutdownDC is planning to block streets adjoining the Court to prevent the justices and their staff from reaching their chambers. Organizers acknowledged their operations go beyond constitutionally protected activity, and they referenced the likelihood of arrests and clashes with law enforcement during a Tuesday night briefing the Free Beacon monitored.

Uh, really? A group calling itself “#ShutdownDC” claims they are going to “shut down” the Supreme Court.

Sounds scary, right? How will this group of radicals do that? By blocking the roads into the building…

Oh…

They do know that the justices don’t have to be in the literal building to do their job, right? That, in the age of Zoom, they can virtually meet and give their rulings?

Blocking roads won’t stop the court from handing out a ruling the left doesn’t like. But I do find it ridiculous that these leftists feel empowered to do this.

Just a year ago, supposed conservatives bombarded the Capitol and are being treated worse than Gitmo prisoners.

The reason these idiotic leftists are even planning this, with seemingly no intervention from Capitol Police or the Feds, is because Democrats are allowing it.

This news is being circulated openly online. Where is the response from our law enforcement? This seems to go far beyond constitutionally-protected speech.

Why haven’t the local authorities warned them not to do this? Why isn’t the FBI investigation actions aimed at “shutting down the Supreme Court”?

Those are the real questions Americans must be asking.

Key Takeaways:

• A leftist group plans on “shutting down the Supreme Court” over Roe v. Wade.
• “ShutdownDC” will blockade roads to the court, cutting off access.
• This kind of protest is not protected by the First Amendment.

https://freebeacon.com/courts/shut-it-down-radical-leftwing-group-plans-to-blockade-supreme-court/

Leaders encourage protesters to ‘stretch the bounds of constitutionally protected speech’

A radical leftwing group is laying plans to shut down the Supreme Court in response to a leaked opinion that overturns Roe v. Wade, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

#ShutdownDC is planning to block streets adjoining the Court to prevent the justices and their staff from reaching their chambers. Organizers acknowledged their operations go beyond constitutionally protected activity, and they referenced the likelihood of arrests and clashes with law enforcement during a Tuesday night briefing the Free Beacon monitored.

“One of our goals would be to expand the current political crisis by shutting down the Supreme Court,” one of the organizers said. The group planned the blockade for Monday, June 13, a day when the Court will likely hand down opinions.

#ShutdownDC is concocting its ploy amid continued concerns over the Supreme Court’s security and that of the justices following the unprecedented leak. The Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence arm circulated a memo in May warning of a sharp rise in threats to the High Court. Law enforcement is investigating violent threats from pro-abortion extremists against members of the Court as well as the Court building itself, the memo said.

The Tuesday night briefing included more than 60 activists and was led by four or five organizers, some of whom concealed their identities. The presentation included a detailed “tactical” plan for blocking access to the Court’s underground parking garage, which is the primary entry and exit point for employees and justices.

The plan calls for demonstrators to obstruct two points near the Court on 2nd Street, and a third spot on A St., which bisects 2nd Street directly behind the Court building. A Street is a residential area, while 2nd Street is a busy commuter thoroughfare.

To coincide with the blockade, #ShutDownDC is planning a rally in front of the Court on First St., which lies between the U.S. Capitol and the Court’s marble plaza. Organizers described the rally as a “low-risk” location, in contrast to the blockade posts where they anticipate arrests and skirmishes with police.

“It’s possible we will see many different law enforcement agencies, as we’ve become used to,” an organizer said. Several agencies have jurisdiction over the area, including the Capitol Police and Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department. None of the organizers made threats against particular justices, but they opened the briefing by warning that their tactics are illegal and readily acknowledging their goal is to massively disrupt the third branch of the government.

“In this space we may talk about some action ideas that stretch the bounds of constitutionally protected speech,” a slide shown to attendees read.

“Avoid saying anything you wouldn’t want to see on Fox News,” it added.

The briefing highlighted the group’s connections to other liberal judicial groups which mobilized following the leak of the draft opinion.

One organizer said that #ShutdownDC is behind demonstrations at the homes of justices thought to have joined the leaked opinion overturning Roe. A separate entity called Ruth Sent Us—named for the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—has claimed responsibility for those events, a sign that the two groups are closely aligned.

“We were the first to hold an action at Brett Kavanaugh’s house, and then recently we held an action at Samuel Alito’s house,” the organizer bragged. She added that she was heartened to see new individuals joining their efforts at Tuesday’s presentation.

“This is a crisis moment for democracy and for our rights, so we need as many new folks leveling up in their mobilization as possible,” an organizer said.

Another organizer highlighted an upcoming June summit on the Supreme Court hosted by a leftwing dark money group called Demand Justice. The group, which is run by Free Beacon Man of the Year Brian Fallon, declined to say whether it is connected with #ShutdownDC or approves of its plans.

The Supreme Court’s public information office declined to comment for this story.

#ShutdownDC is sharpening focus on House Democrats, who have yet to approve enhanced security measures for the Court. Sens. John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Chris Coons (D., Del.) spearheaded a security bill in the Senate that passed without opposition earlier this month. The House has yet to do anything.

“This should not be about politics but about ensuring the safety of the nine individuals on the Supreme Court,” a senior House staffer who works on domestic security told the Free Beacon. “It’s not a matter of safety for Speaker Pelosi; it’s political theater with real ramifications.”

Joseph Simonson contributed to this report.

https://freebeacon.com/courts/shut-it-down-radical-leftwing-group-plans-to-blockade-supreme-court/

Self-described anarchists took credit for vandalizing four pro-life churches in Olympia, Wash., last weekend, referring to the houses of worship as “patriarchal sex abuse cults” that perpetuate the “violence of forced birth.”

Puget Sound Anarchists, a website that publishes writings from “anarchists and anti-authoritarians in the Pacific Northwest,” shared an anonymous post declaring a Mormon church, two evangelical churches, and a Catholic church had been given “facelifts” Sunday morning before services for their “ties to anti-abortion ‘crisis pregnancy centers.'” The churches, according to the anarchists, “are terrified of people exercising bodily autonomy—whether aborting unwanted pregnancies or taking gender-affirming hormones/surgery or fucking whomever we want—because they need the rigid hierarchy of the family as the basic unit of control.”

“We dumped red paint over the entryways and left messages of ‘If abortions aren’t safe, then neither are you,’ ‘Abort the church,’ and ‘God loves abortion,'” the anarchists said. “We are not appealing to state power for an end to patriarchal violence, but threatening: ‘If abortions aren’t safe, then neither are you.'”

The attack comes as churches, pro-life advocates, and some Supreme Court justices face heightened threats after a leaked decision revealed the Court is expected to overturn Roe v. Wade next month. Arsonists firebombed a pro-life advocacy group’s office in Wisconsin days after, spray-painting, “If abortions aren’t safe, then you aren’t either” on its façade. A Department of Homeland Security memo that surfaced last week showed the agency is readying for potential violence in the wake of the decision.

Cean Williard, an executive pastor at Harbor Church, one of the four churches vandalized, told the Washington Free Beacon parish leaders were “saddened that any group would choose to communicate through intimidation, vandalism, or threats of violence” but that the “attack has not altered [their] resolve.”

“All human beings are created in the image of God from the moment of conception with unique personhood, dignity, value, and worth. God has declared in his Word that he hates the shedding of innocent blood,” Williard said in a statement. “Therefore, we are deeply opposed to the practice of abortion, which is the murder of image bearers of God. We will continue to stand in opposition to this horrible practice.”

The Olympia anarchists said even though abortion will remain legal in Washington if Roe is overturned, “there are still local enemies who are doing everything in their power to make it as difficult and inaccessible as possible.” They said such “enemies are vulnerable and easy to find,” before sharing the address of a crisis pregnancy center and listing Olympia businesses that have donated to it. Abortion has been legal in Washington State since 1970.

The anarchists described crisis pregnancy centers, which typically provide free pre- and post-natal care to young mothers, as “religious fake clinics that manipulate mostly poor people into having & keeping children they don’t want or aren’t ready for and marrying whomever impregnated them whether or not that relationship is healthy or safe.”

“Crisis pregnancy centers are exploitative and serve the aims of upholding the patriarchal family, a primary site of violence against women, queers, and children,” they wrote.

The anarchists signed their missive “Jane’s Revenge”—the same name used by the vandals who threw a Molotov cocktail into the pro-life office in Wisconsin, according to the Washington Times.

Puget Sound Anarchists has posted other anonymous submissions admitting to crimes of property destruction. In July 2021, Portland vandals shared pictures of an attack they launched on police squad cars, smashing a dozen cruisers’ windows, windshields, lights, and side-view mirrors.

“We call on all abolitionists to take the defunding and disarming of the pigs into their own hands,” the submitters wrote. “Be bold! Sabotage is fun!”

A legal notice on Puget Sound Anarchists states, “We do not condone or promote illegal, violent, and unlawful behavior or actions, or acts of intimidation against individuals or groups.” On its contact page, the editors say they do not respond to media requests.

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/anarchists-take-credit-for-vandalizing-four-pro-life-churches-in-washington-state/