Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Category Archives: Crime

Soros-backed San Francisco District Attorney About to be Tossed

The “SF Safer Without Boudin” campaign reported on Friday that its petition to remove the city’s George Soros-backed radical district attorney Chesa Boudin greatly exceeded the number of signatures it needed to get the question onto the ballot. The rules required that 50,000 valid signatures were needed. Andrea Shorter, spokeswoman for the campaign, said, “Our goal was to garner at least 70,000 signatures, so we exceeded even our own goal. The demand was great.’

The campaign obtained more than 83,000 signatures. City officials now have 30 days to validate them.

Why all the fuss? After all, Boudin is a darling of the radical left. Funded by George Soros, he ran on the far-left platform of accusing the criminal justice system in the city of being racist to the core and vowing to replace many of the prosecutors in the DA’s office with soft-core progressives who would either sharply reduce or eliminate entirely enforcement of drug offenses or minor-property theft like shoplifting. He promised to eliminate cash bail and install an office of social welfare types to care for the criminals rather than sending them to jail.

So far this year murders in San Francisco are up more than 30 percent from a year ago while car theft, burglary and arson have jumped between 30 and 44 percent, according to SFPD reports.

Boudin’s background is pure communist. The destructive ideology is in his DNA. His great-grand-uncle, Lous Boudin, was a Marxist. His grandfather, Leonard Boudin, was an attorney who defended communists Fidel Castro and Paul Robeson.

His parents, Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, were members of the Weather Underground, both of whom were convicted of murder following a botched Brinks robbery. Kathy got 40 years and David got life.

After their incarceration Boudin was raised by Weather Underground radicals Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

But Boudin made a special trip to New York to persuade then-Governor and now disgraced Andrew Cuomo to cut his father’s sentence short. Last Tuesday David Gilbert was released from prison.

He got his law degree, not surprisingly, from Yale Law School. But before getting his JD degree he traveled to Venezuela to work for the Hugo Chavez communist dictatorship.

When he won election in 2020, he turned the DA’s office upside down. He fired an estimated 50 prosecutors and replaced them with like-minded progressives. He eliminated cash bail. He refused to cooperate with ICE. He reduced the city’s prison population initially by 25 percent but increased that to 40 percent from before he took office. That means that four out of every ten of those criminals are now out on the streets, committing murder, robbery, theft, and mayhem.

In an exclusive interview, several SFPD officers revealed what it’s like to be an officer attempting to enforce the law under Boudin. The California Globe conducted the interview but refused to reveal the officers’ names because of the certainty that they would suffer retribution from Boudin’s office.

One of those interviewed revealed what life is like under Boudin. His beat is inside the Target store on Mission Street. He said:

This store does between $80,000 to $120,000 in sales every day. And they lose 25 percent of it [every day]. Even if they’re making 25% profit, the stealing takes that down to zero.

When a journalist from the Globe asked if the presence of armed, uniformed police officers had any deterrent effect on shoplifters, another officer was blunt in his assessment:

They don’t care. There’s no consequences. Literally zero consequences.

 

I’ve kicked out… I’ve been here since 9 AM today. I probably have already kicked out eight or nine people and I’ve recovered a thousand dollars’ worth of stuff alone off of that.

 

Whether we kick them out, tell them they can’t come back, whether I put them in handcuffs and take them down to the county jail—there is no difference. Because they will not be prosecuted by the district attorney.

 

Therefore, there is nothing documented that they can’t come back here. You know, they get no time in jail to think about what they did, right? There is zero consequence.

And that’s why in this store the same exact people come in every other day and in the city the same couple percent of people are the same people committing all the car break-ins, all the robberies and all the shootings, any aggravated assaults right in town where there’s more street people, people fighting.

It’s all the same exact people, and there are zero consequences. Therefore, you take them to jail they get out of jail. They do it again. It’s a big circle.

The corruption is so bad that on Monday two of Boudin’s prosecutors quit and joined the campaign to get rid of him. One of them, Don Du Bain, said:

Chesa has a radical approach that involves not charging crime in the first place, and simply releasing individuals with no rehabilitation and putting them in positions where they are simply more like to re-offend….

 

[Boudin] disregards the laws that he doesn’t like, and he disregards the court decisions that he doesn’t like [in order to] impose his own version of what he thinks is just.

Monica Showalter wrote in American Thinker that the overwhelming support for ridding the city of Boudin as shown by the vast number of signatures obtained above the minimum required bodes well for the city:

That’s good news for the beleaguered city, beset by home burglaries, violence, open-air drug use, cartel activity, bums defecating, and shoplifting so monstrous that huge retailers are pulling out.

 

Nobody but cops, it seems, gets prosecuted on Chesa Boudin’s watch.

Unfortunately for the citizens of that “beleaguered city” (who, it should be remembered, elected Boudin in the first place), even if the signatures are validated, the issue won’t go before the voters until next June. That gives Boudin plenty of time to continue to inflict his form of social justice onto them.

In the meantime, visitors to the City by the Bay are given free phone apps to steer them clear of excrement left by the homeless.

Illinois Supreme Court Rules Cook County’s taxes on guns and ammunition Are Unconstitutional, 6-0

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, October 25, 2021:

In a remarkable decision, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled 6-0 that the taxes enacted on firearms and ammunition by Cook County in 2012 and 2015 are unconstitutional, both under the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Constitution.

The October 21 ruling is remarkable because the court’s decision was unanimous. It’s remarkable because Illinois is arguably one of the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment states in the union. It’s remarkable in that it obliterates the county’s stated purpose that these taxes somehow have anything to do with reining in rampant gun violence, especially in Chicago.

The weekend before the ruling came down, Chicago suffered 22 of its citizens being shot, four fatally. The weekend after the ruling, 29 Chicagoans were shot, three fatally. So much for Cook County’s argument that taxes on firearms and ammunition would have any perceivable impact on gun violence in the Windy City.

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis wrote that the $25 tax on the purchase of a firearm imposed by Cook County in 2012, and the tax on the retail sale of ammunition (five cents on each centerfire cartridge and one cent on each rimfire cartridge purchased) imposed three years later

violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution … [and] the Illinois State Constitution….

 

We agree that the ordinances impose a burden on the exercise of a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment … [that] they do directly burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to acquire a firearm and the necessary ammunition for self-defense.

Secondarily Justice Theis noted that Cook County deliberately and intentionally imposed those taxes on firearms and ammunition, calling them “a special object of taxation.” This, she wrote, also violated the Illinois State Constitution’s prohibition under its “uniformity” clause.

Justice Theis never used the word “infringed,” which appears in both the U.S. and the state constitutions:

Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “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 Illinois State Constitution: “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Instead, she consistently used the word “burden,” which is a synonym for infringe, including “afflict,” “depress,” “encumber,” “handicap,” “hinder,” and “impede.” Synonyms for “infringe” include “breach,” “contravene,” “encroach,” “intrude,” and “trespass.”

For those readers still struggling to understand the founders’ use of “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” in the Second Amendment, the following might prove helpful. It describes the freedom to read books:

A well-educated citizenry, being necessary to the culture of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

All of which is entirely lost to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, who issued this nearly incomprehensible statement following the Illinois Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, apparently blaming the state’s epidemic gun violence on bullets:

It is no secret that gun violence continues to be an epidemic in our region. Addressing societal costs of gun violence in Cook County is substantial and an important governmental objective.

 

We continue to maintain that the cost of a bullet should reflect, even if just a little bit, the cost of the violence that ultimately is not possible without the bullet.

 

We are committed to protecting County residents from the plague of gun violence with or without this tax.

 

Tennessee Health Worker Announces Resignation With Fiery Letter to Boss

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, October 21, 2o21:  

Micki Jeans is a CT technologist and works for Ballad Health of Tennessee. Up until October 31, that is, when she will resign. She gave two weeks’ notice directly to Alan Levine, executive chairman, president, and chief executive officer of Ballad Health.

In her nine-page letter of resignation, Jeans gave her reasons: Levine sold out, and in good conscience and as a Christian, she can’t work for him anymore:

You are the sole reason that I am resigning from your company, Ballad Health….

 

You have infringed upon my personal rights and freedoms and the freedom of your employees.

She started from the beginning. For 30 years, she labored faithfully for Mountain States Health Alliance, which became Ballad. And she believed Levine had her best interests at heart. She also believed him when he declared himself to be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ:

When you became CEO, I appreciated your spiritual words of encouragement. I was your advocate. When others came against you, I defended you for no other reason than your consistent religious encouragement.

 

I thought you to be a Godly man. I considered you not only a hospital leader worthy of respect but a friend and a fellow brother in Christ.

In July 2021, however, “all that changed. I watched as you adhered to the unconstitutional words of the unelected CDC, FDA, WHO, and OSHA … and even the current, yet corrupt, Biden Administration.… I watched you speak on CNN … urging Americans to take the experimental injections.”

She learned the reason why: He was protecting his company from federal sanctions if he didn’t sell out and go along:

I have recently learned … that if you did not adhere to the guidance of these … organizations, you would no longer receive Medicare/Medicaid funding.

 

You had a decision to make.

 

You could have, and should have, found a way to fight for Medicare/Medicaid funding while going against the unconstitutional mandates….

 

You did not choose wisely.

Instead, Levine chose to segregate his employees by badges they were required to wear, for those vaccinated, and those unvaccinated. He forced them to share their private health information.

In so doing, she wrote, he walked away from his Christian faith:

I was shocked that you would go along this path of division because you have claimed Christianity. God calls us to bring unity and peace, not division. You had the incredible opportunity to use your platform to stand up for what is right.

 

Could you imagine the mountains you could have moved?

 

Unfortunately, you did not use your platform to stand up for freedom.

There was a moment in time when she saw clearly who Levine really was:

The moment you told every single one of your employees via email that we would face disciplinary action up to termination if we did not comply with your badge buddy system, I saw you in a completely different light.

 

When you began to encourage the Covid-19 injections, I felt that you absolutely did not care about the freedom of anybody.

 

As a veteran of the United States Air Force, I value every God-given freedom that I have. In my life, I endured 7 months of captivity and I learned to value and to always fight for the human rights and freedom of every human being.

Jeans had done her homework, even if Levine hadn’t:

I am surprised that you, an educated and Christian man, cannot see right through what Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, and the billionaire global elites on this earth are trying to do. I do hope at this point that you will consider opening your eyes to the evil and corrupt global agenda, of which you are unfortunately a part.

The pandemic is not a healthcare crisis, she wrote, but “a global bioweapon against humanity.” And Levine doubled down by accusing “those who speak the truth of spreading disinformation and misinformation.”

She closed her letter of resignation:

I never would have imagined that I would be fighting government mandates and requirements by [Ballad Health] to receive a non-FDA approved experimental treatment for a disease with a 99.5% survival rate….

 

Medical decisions should be the sole responsibility of the individual.… These rights are God-given, inalienable, and constitutionally secured! Medical tyranny has no place in America or in Tennessee.

Her letter sounded like an application for membership in The John Birch Society:

I will join every group, every person, every doctor and healthcare worker to stand against what you are doing. I will work to unify the people of this community, not divide them. I will work to support your employees, my peers, who have gotten these injections under duress and coercion. I will work to give Ballad Health employees a voice.

 

I will work to educate people about our Constitution and make them aware of the freedoms that God gave them. I will travel, speak, write letters, emails and I will do everything in my power to expose the corruption of our world, our beautiful country, our state, and your company.

 

I will join forces with the Patriots of this great nation to do everything that I can to … combat what you and others are allowing to happen to our nation….

 

I will give my breath and my very life for the freedom of the citizens of this great nation and for our future generations. I will not stand idly by as communism, socialism, and global elites try to take us out. I was a soldier when our military was honorable and defended our freedoms and I am a soldier for Christ. I will fight. I. WILL. FIGHT.

She signed her letter: “Unvaccinated, unmasked, unashamed, and unafraid.”

Levine’s company’s website declares that, when they were considering what to name the new conglomeration of healthcare companies, “People told us they want to receive care from someone who really listens to them. When our health care is at stake, we need to be able to trust our caregiver.… We’re listening.”

Is Levine listening? Will he respond by doing the right thing? Or will Jeans’ letter of resignation be tossed into the round file so he can continue supporting the pandemic canard against his people?

Parent Pushback on Children’s Mask Mandates Goes Viral

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, October 18, 2021:  

Perhaps the most viewed video of outraged parents protesting school-board mask mandates for their kids came from Clark County School District in Nevada. In September, not only did a group of parents file a $200 million lawsuit against the school board, a copy of it was hand-delivered to each board member during a meeting.

The complaint stated that the board and the school superintendent “blatantly and maliciously” violated the Constitution by imposing the mask mandate on school children. It complained that any benefits masking might provide are greatly exceeded by the damage done to the educational process. “The ability to pursue an education without being subject to health risks … are not offset by any scientifically provable benefits,” said the complaint.

Said the parents, in announcing the lawsuit as copies of it were being handed out to each board member:

You have been officially served a $200 million lawsuit with six complaints and violations under multiple amendments. Your job is not to be concerned with children’s health. You are not nurses. You’re not doctors.

 

Your only focus is on our children’s education. If the education system here is 50th in the state and you make almost more money than anybody else, it is very clear that you have failed in doing that job.

Accordingly, the parents are not only seeking a repeal of the mask mandate on their children, but $200 million in damages. In addition, the complaint demands that “each defendant be held responsible for breaching the public’s trust to the maximum extent of the law … a category C felony.”

In Tom’s River, New Jersey, things got so heated over the mask mandates that the school board was forced to shut down a meeting. In an interview following the meeting, parent Christina Valenti said:

It’s almost like they can’t go after the adults [to enforce the mandate]. The adults won’t comply, so they’re going after our children.

 

They’re innocent. They’re [at] the lowest risk.

 

If you’re afraid, put it on. If you’re not, don’t. But it’s my choice. I should have that choice as a parent.

 

You’re an educator, educate! Let me parent!

Valenti revealed part of a letter she sent to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy:

Our parents have had enough of state-mandated masks for our children under the guise of safety. They want the choice to decide what is best for their own children.

 

This country was founded on the principle of Liberty, and safety does not come before Freedom.

In Chino, California, dozens of parents gathered on a downtown sidewalk waving signs with slogans that said “Let them breathe,” and “Our children, Our choice.”

In Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, parents filed a lawsuit against the mask mandate, this one aimed at the state’s Acting Health Secretary Alison Beam. The suit claims she doesn’t have the authority to mandate masks in the schools and that her order to do so violates the state’s constitution.

In White Hall, Arkansas, parents of school children have sued the school district for mandating masks. Said parent Laura Golden:

I think it’s everybody’s individual choice. If you feel safe wearing a mask, wherever you go, then that’s great: wear a mask. If you don’t, there shouldn’t be an issue with that.

 

Just like with the flu shots. When the school sent out the flu shot it’s not mandatory. You choose what you think is best for your child. You sign it, your child gets a shot a school. If not, they don’t. There’s no issue around that.

In New York, the Massapequa and Locus Valley school boards took the position of the parents. They sued New York Governor Kathy Hochul, the head of the Department of Health, and the state’s health commissioner:

The lawsuit demonstrates that neither the Health Commissioner, nor the new Governor, Kathy Hochul, have the power to establish a statewide mandate policy as an emergency health measure, that such authority resides only with the Legislature; otherwise, it is a matter for local control.

And in Charleston County, South Carolina, parent Ashley Regan told Fox & Friends that if a student fails to wear a mask the school board will send him home:

Not only do you have bullying students, you are isolating them. You are segregating them. You are discriminating against students who just want to breathe fresh air….

 

I don’t think it’s fair for our students to have to wear a mask all day.

Parents in other states across the country have voiced, and continue to voice, their objections to board-mandated masks for their children. Many of those parents are now reconsidering their decisions to send them to public schools. This is reflected in the 300-percent increase in homeschooling just in the last two years.

Perhaps those mask mandates being imposed by public school boards are the best thing to happen to public education, forcing parents to rethink their decision to let the state educate their children.

Fifth Circuit Three-judge Panel Allows Texas Heartbeat Law to Remain in Place

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, October 15, 2021: 

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled late Thursday that Texas’ S.B. 8 law — its so-called “heartbeat law” — is to remain in place. It rejected the Biden administration’s plea for a temporary injunction against enforcement of the law. And it’s the third time that the Fifth Circuit has ruled in favor of life for an unborn infant in the case.

The decision came after a brief from 17 state attorneys general was filed on Wednesday supporting the Texas law. Supporters of abortion feared that the heartbeat law as crafted by Texas could serve as a model for similar laws being enacted elsewhere, and this filing no doubt confirmed their fears.

Attorney General Merrick Garland called the Texas law “clearly unconstitutional” and filed a lawsuit against Texas over the law. Indiana AG Theodore Rokita blasted Garland, claiming “the Attorney General has no authority to act as a roving reviser of state law, challenging as unconstitutional any rule with which he disagrees.”

Biden’s Department of Justice now must decide whether to request a full-court review of the three-judge panel’s ruling, or to go directly to the Supreme Court on appeal.

The Supreme Court isn’t likely to accept the appeal, as it has already completed and announced its calendar of cases it will take for its fall term. Besides, one of those cases just might end the controversy over the Texas law.

When Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch filed the state’s appeal of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to the Supreme Court she asked, “Under the Constitution, may a State prohibit elective abortions [murder on demand] before viability? Yes! Why? Because nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion.”

That case won’t be heard until December, and the decision won’t be announced until June next year. But a brief review of where each Supreme Court justice stands on the issue is helpful.

Chief Justice John Roberts is a waffle. He dissented in a case in 2016 when the court struck down restrictions on abortion by Texas. Four years later, in a nearly identical case from Louisiana, he wrote the lead opinion for the court’s decision to strike down that law.

So, call him a waffle on the right to life in the womb.

On the other hand, both justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have voted for the right to life in every case they’ve considered.

That makes two, for life.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, on the other hand, support the right to abortion every chance they get. Breyer said the court’s decision to let Texas’ “heartbeat law” stand (without ruling on its merits) “was very, very, very wrong.” Kagan called the Texas law “patently unconstitutional,” while Sotomayor has voted repeatedly in favor of abortion on demand since she joined the court in 2009.

That makes three, for death.

The remaining three, justices Neal Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barett, voted to let the Texas law stand. Other than that, their brief time on the high court has not allowed them to accumulate a record on this vital issue. Kavanaugh has successfully avoided answering questions on his own personal beliefs, while Barett has made clear in the past her long-standing opposition to abortion “rights.”

That makes three more, for life. Hopefully.

The final decision in Dobbs should be 9-0. But more likely it will be be 5-4, on either side. In the meantime, babies are being saved from extermination in Texas, thanks to the Fifth Circuit.

Southwest Airlines Pilot: “Just say NO to Vaccine Mandates!”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, October 13, 2021:

Joshua Yoder, a pilot with Southwest Airlines and co-founder of U.S. Freedom Flyers, told Fox News on Monday’s Tucker Carlson Tonight that “we have all the control, and the control comes from a simple word, and that is ‘no.’ We just don’t need to comply.”

Although Southwest Airlines explained away its cancellation of more than 2,000 flights over the weekend by blaming “the weather in Florida” and “issues” with air traffic controllers, the FAA reported that Southwest was the only airline to report such a large percentage of its flights being canceled during that time.

Yoder made it clear that his group, U.S. Freedom Flyers, had nothing to do with the cancellations:

I will never promote a sick-out or a work action that is illegal. With U.S. Freedom Flyers … we will never promote such a thing.

 

With that being said, we also cannot control the actions of individuals. And I think that you will see massive disruptions in [the] supply chain and in your travel if we just stand up and say “no.”

When Carlson pressed him over the root cause, Yoder added:

I think anyone with a critical mind can point towards the federal government — and the companies that are enforcing these illegal mandates — and see that it’s the federal government’s fault.

He espoused the freedom philosophy:

I believe in freedom and I’m here to support the freedom of my fellow employees and all people across this country.

 

I’m not going to take a mandate. I’m not going to be forced to do something I don’t believe in.

But if pilots and truck drivers and others involved in the delivery of goods and services stand up and say “no,” he said,

This is going to affect how your goods get here from overseas, how they are distributed to the store.

 

The same thing is happening with the truckers. It’s happening in the shipping industry. Those Amazon boxes that typically show up in two days? You might be looking at three weeks.

Yoder’s group issued a statement on the Biden overreach:

The Biden Administration vaccine mandate announcement on September 9, 2021, made it abundantly clear that its focus is not on maintaining our rights and freedoms as outlined in our Constitution, but on its totalitarian rule.

 

Our freedoms and lives have been upended because of a virus with a 99.8% recovery rate. We will not allow this fear mongering campaign to continue on the American people.

Southwest Airlines and American Airlines are both based in Texas, where the governor has just issued an executive order declaring that such enforced vaccinations are now illegal. The airlines have said that because they are federal contractors, the Biden executive order overrules Abbott’s.

Said Southwest CEO Greg Kelly:

I’ve never been in favor of corporations imposing that kind of a mandate. I’m not in favor of that. Never have been.

 

But the executive order from … Biden mandates that all federal employees … all federal contractors — which covers all the major airlines, have to have a [vaccine] mandate … in place by Dec. 8, so we’re working through that.

That doesn’t mean that Yoder’s threats are idle or that he is alone in the fight. The day after Biden issued his imperial command, almost two dozen state governors responded with a statement opposed to his overreach, including Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

And yesterday, a federal judge in Texas issued a temporary restraining order against United Airlines (UA), blocking it from imposing its vaccine mandate on any of its employees. UA originally told its 67,000 U.S. employees that they must be vaccinated by September 27 or lose their jobs.

This court order is the first of its kind, likely not the last. As more and more individuals like Yoder understand the power of the word “no” to federal overreach, the greater the pushback will be against the Biden administration’s use of COVID to impose its draconian and tyrannical mandates on American citizens.

Liberal Judge Blocks Texas Heartbeat law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, October 7, 2021:  

Obama-appointed liberal Judge Robert Pitman issued an injunction — a restraining order — on Wednesday prohibiting anyone from enforcing Texas’s “heartbeat law,” S.B. 8.

His bias was clear from the beginning of his 133-page opinion:

A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established.

That is the basis upon which the entire abortion issue rests: that somehow the contrived “right” of a woman to kill her unborn child created by the Supreme Court in 1973 and affirmed in 1992 now serves as a bedrock certainty that such a “right” exists. And the judge takes umbrage at Texas’s attempt to restore sanity and the right to life of an unborn child:

Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.

 

The State created a private cause of action by which individuals with no personal interest in, or connection to, a person seeking an abortion would be incentivized to use the state’s judicial system, judges, and court officials to interfere with the right to an abortion.

 

Rather than subjecting its law to judicial review under the Constitution, the State deliberately circumvented the traditional process. It drafted the law with the intent to preclude review by federal courts that have the obligation to safeguard the very rights the statute likely violates.

Judge Pitman wrote that since abortion is safe, it must therefore be legal:

The Court finds that abortion is a safe and common medical procedure, based on the credible declarations of abortion providers founded on their education and experience.

Perhaps it is safe to the “pregnant person” (his words), but fatal to the child she is bearing. But no ink is spent in defending his or her right to life in Pitman’s opinion.

Besides, he writes, since abortion is now legal and constitutional, any reason to kill the unborn child is sufficient: “[Supporters of abortion] describe a host of reasons why people might obtain an abortion: commonly arising out of medical, financial, and family planning concerns.”

“Others seek abortions after fetal anomalies are diagnosed, which such diagnoses may result in severe disabilities, or death.” This is, plain and simple, the judge’s justification for murder. Chillingly, it lays the groundwork for the argument that if a child suffers such “fetal anomalies” before birth and may therefore be killed, why cannot the “pregnant person” — now a mother — kill her child after birth?

Those who wrote and now support S.B. 8 are “vigilantes,” wrote the judge:

S.B. 8 imposes an almost outright ban on abortions performed after six weeks of pregnancy as well as other anti-abortion measures meant to empower anti-abortion vigilantes and target those who support abortion care in Texas.

Unbelievably, the judge writes of the “irreparable harm” imposed on those “pregnant persons” who cannot rid themselves of the inconvenience of a child:

People seeking abortions face irreparable harm when they are unable to access abortions.… These individuals are entitled to access to abortions under the U.S. Constitution.

Pitman received a Bachelor of Science from Abilene Christian University, where his classmates voted him student body president. After that, he earned a Juris Doctorate from the University of Texas School of Law, and then a master’s degree in international human rights Law from Oxford. So he is no fool.

But he cannot see, or refuses to see, the enormous affront to the Creator of life his ruling supports and defends. Instead, he sees any efforts to protect the lives of unborn children as the work of “vigilantes!”

His ruling makes certain that no one may bring an action against an abortion provide in Texas:

It is ordered that the State of Texas, including its officers, officials, agents, employees, and any other persons or entities acting on its behalf, are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing [S.B.8].

In other words, he enjoins any private citizen from bringing legal action against an abortionist under S.B. 8.

Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokeswoman for pro-life Texas Right to Life, also sees the entire case for abortion resting on the false “right” to kill the Supreme Court conjured in Roe:

This is ultimately the legacy of Roe v. Wade, that you have activist judges bending over backwards, bending precedent, bending the law, in order to cater to the abortion industry.

 

These activist judges will create their own conclusion first: that abortion is a so-called constitutional right and then work backward from there.

The powers-that-be were delighted with Pitman’s order. White House Press Secretary Jan Psaki erupted:

Tonight’s ruling is an important step forward toward restoring the constitutional rights of women across the state of Texas.

 

The fight has only just begun, both in Texas and in many other states across this country where women’s rights are currently under attack.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland lauded Pitman’s decision, declaring it a “victory for women of Texas.”

Nancy Northrup, president and CEO of the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights, exuded that Pitman’s order “is a critical first step in restoring abortion rights and services in Texas.”

The good news in all of this is that babies aren’t being aborted in Texas, despite his ruling. Abortionists remain afraid of lawsuits, resulting in a more than 80-percent reduction in the ghastly procedure since September 1 when S.B. 8 took effect.

And lawyers defending the Texas law immediately announced they will appeal Pitman’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which enjoys the reputation as being, as Katherine Hamilton wrote at Breitbart, “the most conservative federal appeals court in the nation.”

From there, it’s one step to its final destination: the Supreme Court.

By the time the case gets there, however, the issue may be moot. The high court is hearing the Mississippi case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization which directly challenges Roe v. Wade and its conjuring of a fake, vicious, and deadly “right to kill.” A favorable decision by the high court reversing Roe (decision to be announced next June) would preclude the necessity of bringing the present case to their attention.

Biden Declares His “Build Back Better” Budget Will Cost “Zero” Dollars

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, September 29, 2021:

Last Friday, Joe Biden told reporters, “We’re doing to pay for everything we spend.” On Saturday he tweeted, “My Build Back Better Agenda costs zero dollars.… It adds zero dollars to the national debt.”

Republicans dutifully laughed at Biden’s claim. Representative Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) wrote, “$3.5 trillion does NOT equal zero.” The GOP’s House Judiciary Committee tweeted, “This is a lie.” Representative Steve Womack (R-Ark.) said, “This is completely false.” Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said Biden “is very confused.”

Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain said last month, “We have found a way to pay for every part of the spending … with taxes.” Consequently, “the net cost of Build Back Better is zero.”

Such magical bookkeeping involves refocusing away from the cost. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who infamously claimed that Congress needed to pass a bill before voters could learn what was in it, said, “This is not about the price tag. This is about what’s in the bill.”

So, what’s in the bill? In thousands of pages, the Biden budget-buster provides funding for paid family leave, child tax credits, environmental giveaways, increased spending on SNAP (food stamps), subsidized child and elder care, universal pre-kindergarten funding, two years of tuition-free college, housing and green-energy subsidies, programs for electric vehicles, and additional funding for governmental healthcare.

Best estimates (the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has yet to “score” Biden’s bill) are that about half of the proposed spending will be provided by new taxes. The rest will be borrowed and created.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was pressed on the matter on Tuesday when a reporter asked:

Do you guys acknowledge the broader truth that it does cost somebody, right? The cost of the investments the president wants to make — they’re not simply a free lunch, right?

She responded with a classic waffle: “There’s a clear difference between what we’re talking about as it relates to taxpayer funds, right? Or funding that will lead to our debt, right?”

After fumbling and rambling further, Psaki finally admitted that yes, “we’re asking [businesses and the wealthy] to pay more. So, yes, it will cost them more.”

It’s not that simple, however. The real costs of the $3.5 trillion budget, if passed into law, will fall on everyone, especially the middle class. As David Ditch, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation explained:

The $3.5 trillion in spending and tax credits combined with at least $2 trillion in tax hikes will add to the debt and have a tremendous cost to the economy and to the health of American families.

 

The taxes will hit families taking home as little as $30,000 a year, violating … Biden’s promise, reduce private sector investments that create jobs and opportunities for workers, and put America at a disadvantage with our global competitors.

 

Huge increases in welfare spending will discourage work and make families increasingly dependent on government, which is exactly the wrong approach to increasing wealth for low-income households.

Even Glenn Kessler, the “fact-checker” for the liberal Washington Post, admitted that Biden’s statement about his plan costing “zero dollars” is “misleading”:

It’s worth recalling that this legislative package has evolved since Biden first claimed … that his spending plans would not “add a single penny to our deficit.”

 

One part of that package has already been pegged as a deficit-raiser.

 

And in a bit of sleight of hand, the White House is now focused on the second part….

 

[A] big chunk of the funding [for the Biden plan comes] from unused funds taken from a previous coronavirus bill….

 

[Lawmakers will likely] play all sorts of budget games.

Concluded Kessler:

Given our long experience in writing about the federal budget, we’re pretty certain a deficit score of zero would only be accomplished with some dubious gimmicks that help disguise the true cost of Biden’s agenda.… The president’s claim is misleading.

 

For now, Biden earns Two Pinocchios — a number that could grow higher.

When even Biden’s supporters in the mainstream media see and admit the fraud of Biden’s claim of “zero dollars,” it’s clear he is once again lying to the American people.

Democrats Pass Radical Abortion Bill in Response to Texas Heartbeat Law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, September 27, 2021: 

Rushing H.R. 3755 — the deceitfully titled “Women’s Health Protection Act” — to the House floor on Friday without so much as a single committee hearing on it, Speaker Nancy Pelosi secured the votes of all but one Democrat in the House of Representatives in passing it, 218-211. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) was the only defector who joined every Republican in voting against it. As the White House explained, the bill is intended “to codify this constitutional right [to abort their unborn child].”

Critics more properly called it the “Abortion on Demand Act” or the “Abortion Without Limits Up to Birth Act,” which, if passed by the Senate, would essentially erase every limitation states have erected to protect the lives of unborn children. The deceit begins with the title, as half the babies aborted in this country are female. But nothing in the law says anything about them.

Instead, the bill passed by the House would, as summed up by LifeNews:

Eliminate all state and federal parental consent laws in relation to abortion;

 

Eliminate all state informed consent laws, including those that allow women to view an ultrasound prior to abortion;

 

Prevent states from passing laws to protect babies at 20 weeks, thereby joining countries like North Korea, China, Vietnam, Singapore, Canada, and the Netherlands in not protecting unborn children later in development;

 

Force doctors and nurses opposed to abortion to lose their jobs, and Catholic hospitals could lose public funds unless they perform abortions;

 

Eliminate decades-long limitations on direct taxpayer funding of abortion — including the popular Hyde Amendment, which has saved over 2 million lives since enacted; and

 

In short, overturn all federal and state pro-life laws, and go further to make it illegal for elected officials to even introduce pro-life legislation.

U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) was unnervingly explicit about what the bill would allow if it were passed into law:

For the first time ever by congressional statute, H.R. 3755 would legally enable the death of unborn baby girls and boys by dismemberment, decapitation, forced expulsion from the womb, deadly poisons, or other methods at any time until birth.

The language goes far beyond the “rights” conjured by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade in 1973 and affirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992:

A health care provider has a statutory right [emphasis added] under this Act to provide abortion services … and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right [emphasis added] to receive such services.

Rights come from God, not government. And, as the Declaration of Independence clearly stated, “to secure those Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

The bill has virtually no chance of passage, or of even being offered, by the Senate. Under present rules it would take the votes of every Democrat and the votes of 10 Republicans to reach the 60-vote threshold required for passage. But Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is pro-life, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who is generally pro-abortion, has said that the bill is even too radical for her.

Knowing in advance that the bill had no chance, the Speaker of the House still rushed the bill to the floor to make a political statement. As Carl Hulse, writer for the pro-abortion New York Times, explained, “The House Democrats’ decision … reflects their view that the issue could resonate strongly in the midterm elections next year.” In other words, Nancy and friends think that this political statement in support of murdering unborn children on demand will actually help them fend off the coming Republican tsunami in some way.

On this issue, the Democrats are behind the curve and losing ground. Not only did the Supreme Court allow the Texas Heartbeat Law to stand, it is hearing arguments next month in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which is a direct challenge to the constitutionality of Roe and Casey.

It also reveals the moral corruption of Democrats and the Democrat Party on issues as vital as the right to life. They are sealing their fate with this attack on that right. Many are seeing it not only as an attack on the right to life but an affront to the Giver of Life Himself.

As New Jersey Representative Chris Smith noted, “This bill is far outside the American mainstream and goes far beyond Roe v. Wade. This bill constitutes an existential threat to unborn children and to the value of life itself.”

It may even present an existential threat to the radical Democrat Party as it exposes to the light of day its position on life, and its Giver.

COVID Tyrant Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer Backs Off on Mask Mandates in Response to Falling Approval Polls

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, September 24, 2021:  

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer agreed earlier this week to back off on enforcing her mask mandates. The reversal came in a budget compromise reached with the state’s legislature which has been at odds with Whitmer ever since she violated the state’s rules regarding COVID mandates.

As Thomas Lifson, writing in American Thinker, noted acidly: “The reason for Whitmer’s reversal is not hard to figure out. Her polls stink.”

There is nothing more threatening to an elected tyrant than to risk losing her position as tyrant. As The New American reported last fall, Whitmer continued to exercise her unconstitutional authority even after the state’s supreme court ruled against her. The court wrote:

The sheer magnitude of the authority in dispute, as well as its concentration in a single individual [Whitmer], simply cannot be sustained within our constitutional system of separated powers.

Nevertheless, Whitmer defied the court and continued to extend her mask mandates and other rules. She added to her state’s citizens’ discontent as a “pandemic hypocrite” when her husband was caught violating one of her rules. This was followed up by she herself being caught violating her own rules.

When James Craig, who retired as Detroit’s chief of police in June, announced he was running as a Republican to replace her in next November’s election, his poll numbers immediately reflected Whitmer’s discontent among registered voters: they were neck-and-neck according to polls released right after his announcement.

On Tuesday those polls were confirmed by Trafalgar Group, which reported that when asked “If Gretchen Whitmer and James Craig were the candidates for Governor in the 2022 general election, for whom would you vote?”, registered voters showed the former police chief beating Whitmer by a gaping six full percentage points, 50 percent to 44 percent.

Craig’s leap was no doubt helped by efforts of a Marxist group called Detroit Will Breathe which interrupted Craig’s initial announcement, forcing him to move to another location. Meshawn Maddock, co-chair of Michigan’s Republican Party, thanked the group on her Twitter account. She posted a photo of a protestor holding a sign that said “defund DPD,” adding:

See the sign? These leftists want to defund your police. Republicans are the only sanity left in the country. Gov. Whitmer is finished. Thank you BLM for reminding us what your world looks like.

Whitmer indeed appears to be finished. The Trafalgar Group polled 1,097 likely voters, with Democrats making up 53 percent and Republicans just 35 percent. When your own party disowns you, your career – even that of Governor of a dark blue state – is over.

As The New American noted, the COVID tyranny in Michigan “will only end when the virus ends, or she is removed from office.”

Texas OB/GYN Who Bragged About Doing Illegal Abortion Is Being Sued

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, September 21, 2021:  

Alan Braid, a Texas OB/GYN, is being sued following an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he boasted of deliberately performing an illegal abortion.

He opened his practice in 1972 when abortion was illegal, but focused on performing abortions once the Supreme Court struck down state abortion restrictions in its historic Roe v. Wade ruling. He boasted:

For the next 45 years … I was a practicing OB/GYN in Texas … providing abortion care at clinics I opened in Houston and San Antonio, and another in Oklahoma.

 

But then, on September 1, Texas law SB8 became effective.

Complained Braid:

[The law] shut down about 80 percent of the abortion services we provide. Anyone who suspects I have violated the law can sue me for at least $10,000. They could also sue anybody who helps a person obtain an abortion past the new limit, including, apparently, the driver who brings a patient to my office.

 

For me, it is 1972 all over again.

So, Braid decided to break the law:

That is why, on the morning of September 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit [i.e., the child’s heartbeat could be detected].

 

I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.

He knew he was setting himself up to be sued:

I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested….

 

I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the next legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly.

Any financial risk the abortionist might suffer is being mitigated by legal help he is getting:

Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, my clinics are among the plaintiffs in an ongoing federal lawsuit to stop S.B. 8.

But it might end his profitable practice if Operation Rescue has its way. The pro-life group filed a complaint with the Texas Medical Board seeking an immediate suspension of his medical license. Said OR’s President Troy Newman:

Because Braid publicly admitted guilt in violating Texas law by killing a baby whose life was protected by that duly enacted law, Operation Rescue filed [the complaint]. The emergency suspension is necessary to prevent [Braid] from further illegal conduct and to ensure the protection of innocent lives.

The official complaint from Operation Rescue stated:

The intentional taking the life of an innocent child whose life is under the protection of the law is a permanent and egregious loss that cannot be restored. It cannot be rectified. It cannot be undone. That human being is lost forever, and that loss represents a grievous crime that cannot be tolerated in the name of civil disobedience, political theater, or financial profit. It would certainly not be tolerated at any other stage of life in Texas.

Two lawsuits have been filed against Braid. Both are from attorneys, and neither has any interest in saving lives of unborn children.

Oscar Stilley, who is currently serving a 15-year sentence for tax fraud under home confinement, told the Associated Press: “I don’t want doctors out there nervous and sitting there and quaking in their boots and saying, ‘I can’t do this because if this thing works out, then I’m going to be bankrupt.’”

Stilley told the Wall Street Journal that he is neutral on the issue of abortion, but he considers the new Texas law as an “end run” around established law and that “he wants to see a clear ruling on whether [SB8] is legitimate.”

 

The other suiter, Felipe Gomez, a resident of Illinois, calls himself a “pro-choice plaintiff” who said that, if he wins, he would likely give the $10,000 reward to an abortion-rights organization.

 

Texas Right to Life, the state’s largest pro-life group, said they consider neither lawsuit as having anything to do with saving lives:

Neither of these lawsuits are valid attempts to save innocent lives. We believe Braid published his op-ed intending to attract imprudent lawsuits, but none came from the Pro-Life movement.

To be valid, each plaintiff must first persuade a judge that they have standing to sue, even though neither has personally suffered financial or economic damages because of Texas’ new pro-life “heartbeat” law.

The pressure to reestablish abortion as murder continues to grow. The Supreme Court just announced that it will begin hearing arguments to reverse Roe in the Mississippi case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in December.

Federal Judge Denies DOJ Demand to Halt Texas’ Heartbeat Law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, September 17, 2021: 

Federal District Court Judge Robert Pitman on Thursday denied the federal government’s demand for a restraining order against Texas’s Heartbeat Law. He wrote that “this case presents complex, important questions of law that merit a full opportunity for the parties to present their positions to the court.”

Texas has until September 29 to present its case. The Department of Justice will have until October 1, two days later, to respond.

The demand from the DOJ was presented on Tuesday, claiming that the Texas law, which became effective on September 1, “prevent[s] women from exercising their constitutional rights,” and that the temporary injunction against that law is “necessary to protect the constitutional rights of women in Texas.”

Nothing was mentioned about the “constitutional rights” of the unborn and defenseless child whose life is at stake. The way the law stands now is untenable: 30 seconds before giving birth a mother may choose to have an abortionist kill her child. She will be deemed to be a hero, exercising her “constitutional rights.”

If she kills the child after birth, she is a murderer.

It’s not the life of the child that motivates the DOJ and the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, but politics. He said:

This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear.

 

If it prevails, if may become a model for action in other areas, by other states and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents.

That’s already happening. The Texas Heartbeat Law follows similar “heartbeat laws” passed by more than a dozen states. But it is the first one that liberal courts haven’t been able to quash.

By October 1 Texas’ Heartbeat Law will have been in effect for a month. That means it is already saving the lives of unborn children who otherwise would have been murdered in their mothers’ wombs. As the Texas Tribune noted, Texas abortion clinics “stopped offering abortions that were still allowed under the law for fear of being sued.”

However the judge rules, there is sure to be an appeal to the Supreme Court. As The New American noted, “Roe didn’t uncover a right of a woman to kill her unborn child. The court created the right out of whole cloth — and political ideology.”

That is the dirty little secret behind Roe v. Wade and its sister case decided years later, Planned Parenthood v. Casey: The emperor has no clothes. There is no such “right” anywhere in the Constitution. As one of abortion’s most liberal supporters, legal scholar Laurence Tribe, noted: “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which [the decision] rests is nowhere to be found.”

There is an increasing chance that the entire effort to quash the Texas law before it goes national will backfire. The high court could take the appeal under review, and decide that it made a horrendous error in Roe back in 1973, and compounded it in Casey in 1992. The high court has overturned previous decisions more than 300 times. Those who believe that life, a gift from God, begins at conception, would celebrate such a reversal. It would be one more step towards that joyful day when all courts, state and federal, rule that abortion, at any time, is murder.

Prior to 1973, abortion was murder. It still is.

Mississippi Abortion Clinic begs Supreme Court to keep Roe v. Wade

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com com on Tuesday, September 14, 2021:  

Attorney Julie Rikelman, representing Mississippi’s only remaining abortion clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, filed a brief with the Supreme Court on Monday asking the high court to keep its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade intact.

Her brief is a response to the Supreme Court’s decision in May to take under review a lower court’s ruling against Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which the governor signed into law in 2018. The Act prohibited nearly all abortions after 15 weeks, providing severe penalties for transgressors, including suspension or loss of medical license, other penalties and fines.

Days after passage a court ruled the Act unconstitutional, holding that the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, and its confirmation of that decision in Casey in 1992, overrode Mississippi’s attempt to protect unborn children from being allowed to be murdered by their mothers. An appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision, and the state appealed to the Supreme Court.

After dozens of conferences over the case the high court agreed to review it, with its ruling expected next summer.

Rikelman claimed that “in Casey, this Court carefully considered every argument Mississippi makes here for overruling Roe. After doing so, the Court reaffirmed the “most central principle” of its abortion jurisprudence: that states cannot prohibit abortion until viability [ability of the child to survive outside the mother’s body, usually around 24 or 25 weeks into the pregnancy].”

“The Court reasoned,” wrote Rikelman, “that, until fetal life can be sustained outside the woman’s body, the decision whether to continue or end the pregnancy must remain hers.”

There, for all to see, is the fatal flaw in the entire abortionist position: The unborn child is merely a “fetus”, not a human, until “viability” and therefore may be discarded at the will of the mother, for any reason.

But, Rikelman continues, 30 years of precedents confirms the court’s incorrect and disastrous decision: it “presents an even higher bar…. Casey is precedent on top of precedent — that is, precedent not just on the issue of whether the viability line is correct, but also on the issue of whether [the ruling in Roe] should be abandoned … time and time again, the Court has reaffirmed that it is ‘imperative’ to retain a ‘woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy before viability.’”

So, warned Rikelman, Mississippi must be prevented from overturning five decades of error: “Mississippi asks the Court to take the grave step of overruling a rule of law it has repeatedly reaffirmed.”

That is exactly what Mississippi is asking. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, filed in May, the state bases its entire argument on what the Constitution of the United States says, or doesn’t say, about abortion, viability, and a woman’s “right” to terminate her pregnancy:

On a sound understanding of the Constitution, the answer to the question presented in this case [whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional] is clear and the path to that answer is straight. Under the Constitution, may a State prohibit elective abortions before viability? Yes.

 

Why? Because nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion.

Mississippi declares that “Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong…. Roe broke from prior cases by invoking a general ‘right of privacy’ unmoored from the Constitution…. Casey repeats Roe’s flaws by failing to tie a right to abortion to anything in the Constitution…. So Roe broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a right that has no basis in the Constitution.”

Mississippi decries the damage done by these “egregiously” wrong decisions: “Roe and Casey are unprincipled decisions that have damaged the democratic process, poisoned our national discourse, plagued the law — and, in doing so, harmed this Court.”

To say nothing of the more than 60 million lives snuffed out by these decisions by the high court.

Mississippi isn’t alone. Some 80 pro-life amicus briefs have been filed in support, insisting that the Supreme Court reverse its decisions in Roe and Casey. Many of them make the case that unborn children are protected “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Missing from the debate is an argument based upon the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” Simply put, the Supreme Court doesn’t even have jurisdiction on the matter, as such powers are not given to the federal government but are left to the states and to the people.

For the record, as of 2018 the Supreme Court has overruled more than 300 of its own cases. May the justices reverse themselves on this one and stop the murdering of innocents!

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt Holds Ceremonial Bill Signing to Celebrate Nine Pro-life Bills

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, September 13, 2021: 

Last Thursday, 10 days after Texas’ “heartbeat law” became effective on September 1, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt held a ceremonial bill signing for one just like it, HB 2441, as well as eight other pro-life bills. All nine bills were signed into law earlier in the year. HB 2441, which prohibits abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, becomes effective on November 1, 2021.

The other pro-life bills that were part of last week’s ceremonial bill signing, which served to underscore Oklahoma’s enactment of the bills and their importance, included:

• SB 918, which would restore Oklahoma’s prohibition of abortion if/when Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court and the power to regulate it is properly returned to the states;

• HB 1102, which declares that the performance of an abortion represents “unprofessional conduct” and results in the abortion provider’s medical license being suspended for at least one year;

• HB 1904, which requires abortionists to be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology;

• SB 778 and SB 779, which safeguard women and girls from dangerous chemical abortion drugs;

• SB 960, which extends the time relinquished children can be given to rescuers from seven to 30 days;

• SB 647, – “Lily’s Law” – which requires birthing centers to keep a written policy to allow for the family to direct the disposition of the remains of a child who was stillborn or miscarried; and

• SB 584, which prohibits fetal trafficking.

 

During the ceremony Stitt said:

 

I promised Oklahomans I would sign every piece of pro-life legislation that came across my desk, and I am proud to keep that promise.

As a father of six, it’s an honor to be the most pro-life governor in the country, and I will always step up to protect the lives of unborn children.

 

That same day Governor Stitt pushed back against the uncivil and tyrannical commands from the Oval Office over vax mandates. Declared the President Joe Biden: “It they’ll not help — if these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as President to get them out of the way.”

Responded Stitt:

It is not the [federal] government’s role to dictate to private businesses what to do.

 

Once again President [sic] Biden is demonstrating his complete disregard for individual freedoms and states’ rights.

 

As long as I’m governor, there will be no government vaccine mandates in Oklahoma.

 

My administration will continue to defend Oklahoma values and fight back against the Biden administration’s federal overreach.

The governor was backed up by his state’s Attorney General John O’Connor:

We respect the right of Oklahoma businesses and individuals to make healthcare decisions for themselves and their families.

 

My office will vigorously oppos any attempt by the federal government to mandate vaccines.

 

We are preparing litigation to stand up for our rights and defend the rule of law against the overreach of the federal government.

Oklahoma House Speaker Charles McCall added,

President [sic] Biden is about to see the U.S. Constitution still matters in Oklahoma.

 

This isn’t the only unconstitutional Biden administration action Oklahoma needs to challenge. Our country is a republic … and the president does not have the constitutional authority to issue these types of edicts.

The passage of these laws and the statements against federal overreach didn’t happen in a vacuum, but are the result of decades of grassroots education and action by Oklahomans. Through the educational campaigns of members of The John Birch Society (the society has a strong presence in Oklahoma) and other groups, informed pressure resulted in strengthening the state’s pro-life resolve.

The celebration of life at the ceremonial bill signing included statements such as these:

“Governor Stitt has kept his promise to sign every piece of pro-life legislation that reaches his desk. He is at the forefront of nationwide momentum to challenge the status quo and modernize our extreme abortion laws. Across the nation, pro-life governors are taking bold action to ensure that state laws reflect the will of their constituents and the clear science showing humanity of unborn children.” — Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser

 

“All life is precious and a gift from God.  The pro-life measures we passed this year seek to ensure each life is protected at every single stage in Oklahoma.  My life and my public service will continue to be dedicated to making sure that we recognize the dignity of every human being.  Thank you to my colleagues who shepherded these important bills through the process and to the Governor for standing strong for life.” — Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat (R-Oklahoma City)

 

“The Oklahoma House will continue passing strong pro-life legislation for as long as it is necessary to protect the unborn in this country. Securing life who cannot secure it themselves is a solemn duty expected by Oklahomans of the conservatives they have elected. We take that duty seriously and uphold it at every turn.” — Speaker of the House Rep. Charles McCall (R)

 

I’m grateful to the governor and the majority of my fellow legislators for helping to ensure that the day Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court, Oklahoma statutes regulating abortions likewise will be reversed. This will end the practice of abortion in our state and protect our precious, innocent children. — House Majority Floor Leader Rep. Jon Echols (R)

 

There is no issue more critical in our time than the defense of the lives of innocent unborn babies. The greatest crime of our nation has been the murder of 60 million unborn babies. House bill 1102 takes the approach of removing the license of any physician who performs an abortion. We thank the Lord for the team of people that worked together to help make this happen, and the multitudes who have prayed for years about this. [Emphasis added.] We also thank the Lord for answered prayer. To God be the glory! — Representative Jim Olsen (R)

 

I consider all lives to be sacred, no matter the age. However, I am honored to be able to stand up for the lives that cannot advocate for themselves. It has been a privilege to work with faith leaders from around the state (emphasis added) on HB2441 the “Heartbeat Bill”, which protects the life of the unborn, by making it clear, that a heartbeat is the indicator of life, and we are called to protect life, no matter what. — Representative Todd Russ (R)

As the war on life and liberty intensifies, it will take educated citizens’ actions such as those being taken in Oklahoma to reverse the tide and excise the cancer of collectivism being injected (literally and figuratively) from the body politic.

Biden Administration Sues Texas Over “Heartbeat Law”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, September 10, 2021:

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland filed a lawsuit on Thursday challenging the legality and constitutionality of Texas Law S.B. 8, known as the Texas Heartbeat Law. His claim rests on the idea that somewhere, somehow, deep inside the Constitution of the United States there resides a right for a woman to kill her unborn child.

No such right exists. But Garland claims it does, through precedent. In announcing the lawsuit, he said:

The [Texas] act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent.… In the words of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, “a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.”

Repeating a lie doesn’t turn it into truth. Nevertheless, the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, claims it does:

It is settled constitutional law that “a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.” But Texas has done just that. It has enacted a statute banning nearly all abortions in the State after six weeks.

This statement, all by itself, shows the flimsy nature of the complaint. First, laws are made by Congress, not by the Executive nor by the Judicial branches of the government. Second, rulings in Roe v. Wade and Casey are rulings — opinions — relating to the particular cases and are not law.

But the suit ignores these facts, declaring that

Texas enacted S.B.8 in open defiance of the Constitution … [it] clearly violates the Constitution….

 

Instead of relying on the State’s executive branch to enforce the law, as is the norm in Texas and elsewhere, the State has deputized ordinary citizens to serve as bounty hunters.

The lawsuit claims that the Texas law is unconstitutional because it violates the “Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution [which] mandates that ‘the Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land … any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’”

But Roe didn’t uncover a right of a woman to kill her unborn child. The court created the right out of whole cloth — and political ideology. As Ryan T. Anderson, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals at Princeton University, wrote:

No such right can be found in the text of the Constitution, or in its structure, logic, or original understanding.

In referring to the Mississippi case pending before the Supreme Court, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Anderson noted:

Roe and Casey confected a “constitutional right” to abortion out of thin air. The majorities in those cases did not actually find such a right; they simply imposed their own moral-political opinions about the desirability of legal abortion.

The federal lawsuit ignored the conclusion of former Dean of Stanford Law School John Hart Ely, who declared that Roe was “bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

It also ignored the words of liberal, pro-abortion legal scholar Laurence Tribe, who said, “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”

It ignored the dissent of Kennedy-nominated Supreme Court Justice Byron White, who concluded that Roe wasn’t about interpreting the Constitution, its text, or its history, but was instead “an exercise in raw judicial power.”

The lawsuit also claims the Texas law violates the 14th Amendment. That amendment guarantees the right to every person equal protection under the law. But history has made plain that, at the time the amendment was ratified, unborn persons were considered to be covered as well. As Ryan Anderson explained, “The best originalist reading of the 14th Amendment, we are convinced, would include unborn persons within the scope of the provision stating that no state may ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’”

There is a substantial risk of the lawsuit blowing up in the faces of Garland, Biden, and the entire pro-abortion culture: The high court just might use this lawsuit to address the underlying issues herein discussed, and rule that 50 years ago the court made a ghastly mistake that has cost the lives of millions.

White House Withdraws Nomination of David Chipman to Head ATF

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, September 9, 2021:  

Unable to pressure recalcitrant Senator Angus King (I-Maine.) into supporting its radical, anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment nominee to head up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the White House gave it up and withdrew its nomination of David Chipman on Thursday.

In its official statement, the White House blamed Republicans for the embarrassment:

Republicans in Congress … moved in lockstep to block David Chipman’s confirmation….

 

He would have been an exemplary Director of the ATF.

As The New American reported, Chipman sank his own nomination back in May when he publicly promised to ban all “assault-type” weaponry. He used such expansive terms to include any firearm with a magazine containing rounds that could be fired with a single press of the trigger.

He waffled when he was asked about whether he would prosecute Hunter Biden for lying on his Form 4473 about his drug addiction while applying for and receiving approval to purchase a firearm.

His staff didn’t help any by filing complaints against him, accusing him of bullying and using racist comments.

Other Democrat senators, including Joe Manchin (E-W.Va.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Susan Collins (D-Maine), and Lis Murkowski (D-Alaska), backed away from confirming Chipman, sealing his fate and forcing the White House to withdraw his nomination.

This is the second nomination to fail to be confirmed. Neera Tanden, Biden’s nominee for the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), sunk her own ship with tweets that insulted the very senators whose votes she needed to be confirmed.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) explained why Chipman failed to be confirmed: “[His] long record as a partisan, anti-Second Amendment activist raised plenty of concerns about how he’d administer federal firearms laws,” adding,

But that wasn’t the only cause of concern. The record he concealed from Congress, some of which remains hidden to this day, about how he treated his fellow employees while at the ATF confirms his lack of fitness to lead the agency.

Chipman also mocked law-abiding gun owners, offending them by telling them to “secure that gun, locked and unloaded, and hide it behind the cans of tuna and beef jerky that you have stored in a cabinet, and only bring that out if the zombies start to appear.”

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) tweeted: “David Chipman is an unhinged gun-grabber. His defeat is a win for the Constitution — and a crushing loss for Joe Biden.”

Representative Chip Roy (R-Texas) expanded on the news of the withdrawal:

President Biden should have never nominated anti-gun David Chipman for ATF Director, and I’m pleased to see reports that his nomination will be withdrawn.

 

His confirmation would have jeopardized the constitutional rights of every legal firearm owner in America, and his anti-Second Amendment beliefs make him completely unfit to serve in any kind of leadership position anywhere in this administration.

 

The right to keep and bear arms in self-defense is a human right enshrined in our Constitution; those who enforce our laws need to understand that.

Dudley Brown, the head of the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR), joined in celebrating the withdrawal, noting that it took major political action from gun owners to turn the tide:

Chipman, a former ATF agent and staunch gun control advocate, could not garner enough support in the U.S. Senate to make it through the confirmation process.

 

David Chipman’s nomination to lead the ATF was a slap in the face to gun owners across the country. Now, thanks to the pro-gun grassroots, we’ve put Chipman back where he belongs: at home, without a job….

 

His nomination and subsequent defeat comes at the hands of millions of law-abiding gun owners consistently lobbying the U.S. Senate to back down and remove him from consideration.

 

I want to personally thank the 4.5 million members of the National Association of Gun Rights and their tireless grassroots lobbying efforts. It’s the activism of honest gun owners which brought Chipman down.

Brown is a single-issue activist, and a much needed one. But in the war against liberty being waged by the Left, more than a single-issue campaign, no matter how successful, is needed.

For five decades, the John Birch Society has been the only organization that educates and then directs its members to attack where the insiders are the most vulnerable, no matter what the issue might be. A few members, educated, motivated, and activated, have made the difference in slowing the march of tyranny. More are needed. Go to JBS.org for more information on how to become active in the freedom fight.

As Dudley Brown rightly noted, “We know President Biden will prop up another anti-gun pawn in the near future.… We [must] stand ready to oppose their unconstitutional actions.”

Texas’ Pro-Life Law Infuriates the Left, Satanists, and Portland, Oregon

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, September 7, 2021:  

The unprecedented pro-life Texas law that the Supreme Court left in place last week has confused the President, confounded the Left, infuriated Satanists, and invoked the ire of Portland, Oregon’s Mayor Ted Wheeler.

Joe Biden, who announced that the Declaration of Independence holds that “all men and women are created by the… go… you know… the thing,” now claims that the Texas law SB8 is “un-American” and that Attorney General Merrick Garland is busy exploring ways the federal government can undo the new law.

Garland said that his Justice Department would actively seek to “protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion.” He’s asked the DOJ to look into how the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) can be twisted into sanctioning anyone in Texas suing abortionists under the new law.

The Satanic Temple, which has been granted tax-exempt status by the IRS as a legitimate church, stated on its website that anyone in Texas wanting an abortion is welcome to “undergo” its Satanic Abortion Ritual. Just call the local number and the ritual, which involves the use of abortion pills, will be promptly arranged. After all, said the group: “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.”

The group said nothing about the government’s increasing pressure to demand that everyone get vaccinated, willing or not.

Portland’s City Council is scheduled to vote Wednesday on whether to punish Texas financially. It will decide whether the city will intentionally refrain from purchasing any goods or services from Texas businesses, as well as block any city workers from travelling to the state. Mayor Ted Wheeler explained:

The ban will be in effect until the state of Texas withdraws its unconstitutional ban on abortion, or until it is overturned in court….

 

[The Texas] law does not demonstrate concern for the health, safety and well-being of those who may become pregnant. This law doesn’t not recognize or who respect for the human rights of those who may become pregnant.

 

This law rewards private individuals [who seek to] exercise … control over others’ bodies. It violates the separation of church and state. And it will force people to carry pregnancies against their will.

The Founders understood clearly the proper role of government. In the Declaration of Independence they held “these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life.”

They added: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

They tasked the government with a few and specific responsibilities, chief among them: protect the rights God endowed at the beginning of life. “The fact,” writes Tony Vets at American Thinker, “that her child is in its prenatal stage of development and therefore resides, temporarily, within her womb does not diminish the child’s right to life.” Besides, killing is against the law:

It is illegal to murder anyone who has been born. It should be not at all different for the unborn, who are no less human for being in the initial stages of development.

Science now proves conclusively that life begins at conception. Knowledge of prenatal development “affirms the humanity of unborn children,” write Melanie Israel and Sarah Perry for the Heritage Foundation. “From the moment of conception, every person possesses inherent dignity and worth. Our humanity doesn’t depend on our age, our stage of development, or our abilities… medical technology has evolved significantly to let all women see the reality that their babies are humans, worthy of legal protection.”

South Dakota has a 12-week heartbeat law and Governor Kristi Noem “directed the Unborn Child Advocate in my office to immediately review the new Texas law and current South Dakota laws to make sure we have the strongest pro-life laws on the books.”

The legal issue of abortion is far from resolved. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted, “[The court’s] order [letting the Texas law stand] is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law.” The moment a citizen of Texas sues under the new law against an abortion provider is the moment when pro-abortion forces will leap into action and sue.

As The New American has iterated, the right to life is the core of all the Creator’s rights. In the present war against America, Satan and his helpers focus on that most precious of rights, hoping that the high court will continue to validate its shameful decisions in Roe and Casey that a woman has the constitutional right to kill her child before he or she is born.

Social Security a “Shell Game, There Is No Money in the Trust Funds” Says Head of Accounting Think Tank

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, September 3, 2021:  

Sheila Weinberg, the founder of the non-partisan think tank Truth in Accounting (TIA), spoke the truth. In an interview with the Epoch Times on Thursday she said, “Our bottom line is the [Social Security] trust funds are all a shell game; there is no money in the trust funds.”

What resides in those trust funds for Social Security and Medicare are debt securities. The “premiums” workers have been paying in are immediately spent to fund the government, but to keep the scam from blowing up, the Treasury Department issues IOUs to the Social Security Administration — promises to redeem them at some undetermined time in the future.

These are not assets. They are liabilities.

Weinberg, who founded Truth in Accounting (TIA) 20 years ago, explains that “the federal debt [estimated currently at $28 trillion] only tells us what the government owes the public. It doesn’t take into account what’s owed to seniors, veterans and retired [government] employees.”

According to TIA, the real federal deficit exceeds $133 trillion, reflecting the unfunded and unaccounted shortfalls of $41 trillion in Social Security promises and $55 trillion in unfunded Medicare promises. The balance includes publicly held debt, pension and retiree healthcare liabilities, and other liabilities.

The report from the Board of Trustees of the trust funds collecting and paying out Social Security and Medicare benefits that was released on Tuesday said that, thanks to COVID and the related economic shutdown, those funds will be exhausted sooner than expected. But they were hopeful that Congress would come to the rescue by “increasing revenue from workers and employers … and lowering benefits for some or all beneficiaries.”

U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said that report “once again identifies unsustainable benefit promises.… The Hospital Insurance trust fund is projected to be exhausted around 2026.”

But there’s little chance, says Crapo, of Congress taking up the issue:

While bipartisan efforts are necessary to make needed changes to address Medicare and Social Security’s long-term financial challenges, most Democrats want only to expand benefit promises further.

These welfare-state programs cannot be fixed. They can be kept from failing, but fundamentally they are flawed. In 1997, Congress, at the last minute, rescued them from extinction by making some surface changes: raising taxes and delaying the payment of benefits. “Since then,” said Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Doug Badger, “there has been very little interest among leaders of either party in entitlement reform. Until that changes, politicians will continue to promise benefits that the government can’t deliver.”

At bottom, the scheme is a tool of the devil, wrote Michael Rozeff:

When we call upon the state and its power to do what we should be doing, we unleash destructive forces that wreck society….

 

Abandoning responsibility in favor of the state uncorks a bottle with an evil genie: the power and domination genie.

 

Call it a devil or Satan … because that is what it is.

Indeed, the concept of government-funded social security violates both the Eighth and the 10th Commandments: 8) Thou Shalt Not Steal; and 10) Thou Shalt Not Covet. As Gary North noted in his book Inherit the Earth, “The [Eighth Commandment] doesn’t say ‘You shall not steal, except by majority rule.’”

Rozeff claims that Social Security is not only fundamentally dishonest (like a Ponzi Scheme that pays benefits to one generation with funds extracted from an earlier one), but it also forces individuals to lose some of their essential humanity:

If we ask Congress to extract 15 percent of everyone’s pay and transfer it to people over a certain age, we abandon all of this which is so essentially human.

 

We abandon all good sense, which includes the exercise of our moral senses of worth and judgment….

 

This is what Social Security is: both irresponsible and inhumane. It is a program by which we abandon central human capacities and resort to brute force and arbitrary rules as substitutes.

Social Security cannot be “fixed.” Its ultimate demise can be delayed, usually at the last possible moment by an act of Congress, but its fundamental flaw — taking money from some who earned it and giving it to others who didn’t — remains.

Angry and Organized Voters Set to Recall California Governor Gavin Newsom

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 25, 2021:  

With just 24 percent of California’s voters registered as Republicans, one would assume that Governor Gavin Newsom will easily survive the recall election set for September 14.

Maybe not.

Nearly eight out of 10 of those Republicans are galvanized into action, while Democrats are remaining complacent. After all, California is the bluest of blue states. Why worry?

Katie Merrill, a Berkeley-based Democrat strategist, is worried: “I think, right now, if the election were held today, we’d probably have [just] a 30 percent turnout. That’s problematic.” She added, “Every poll has shown that the voters that are most engaged in the race right now are the ones who want to recall Gavin Newsom.”

Newsom’s shutdown of the state, bankrupting millions of small businesses, is just one reason why it’s likely that it will only take a third of those voting in the recall election to determine his future. It’s a case of organization versus complacency.

Said pollster Adam Probolsky, “It may sound silly to some people, but there is probably a large portion of the electorate that is quite uninterested in this election. They’ve heard something about a recall, something about Republicans being angry. But they’re not really engaged at all.”

It’s also a case of organization. Those angry voters — Republican, Democrat and Independent — have for months focused on a single theme: Remove Newsom from office. That is why more than 1.7 million of them were able to put Newsom’s future on the ballot — far more than the number needed.

Panic has set in, and the attacks on Newsom’s leading Republican opponent, talk-show host Larry Elder, have ramped up.

The incumbent governor has warned:

[Elder is] to the right of Donald Trump. To the right of Donald Trump. That’s what’s at stake in this election and don’t think for a second you can’t do damage in that role.

 

Think about the judges he could appoint. Who would he have appointed to replace Kamala Harris in the Senate? How would that impact the trajectory of this country?

 

What would that mean for the future of the Democratic Party in our efforts to keep the House of Representatives?

Newsom’s message is simple: “Just vote no. You don’t even have to touch the other part [of the ballot]. Don’t even touch it. Simple no. This is about the easiest ballot you ever had to fill out. Just vote no. No on the recall.”

So far his message isn’t getting through. A recent poll from SurveyUSA showed that 51 percent of likely voters would instead vote “yes” to remove him, while just 40 percent would keep him in office.

So, the establishment media has entered the fray. Los Angeles Times columnist Erika Smith wrote an article headlined, “Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy. You’ve been warned!”

In it she decries Elder’s facility for “cherry-picking” the facts he’s using to make the case for recall. One of those inconvenient facts was a rhetorical question asked by Elder:

Do we still have the phenomenon where a young Black man is eight times more likely to be killed by another Black man than a young white man?

Smith enlisted the help of BLM leader Melina Abdullah, who said that Elder “is a danger — a clear and present danger,” adding,

Anytime you put a Black face on white supremacy, which is what Larry Elder is, there are people who will utilize that as an opportunity to deny white supremacy….

 

But everything he’s pushing, everything that he stands for, he is advancing white supremacy.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is the Marxist group of street thugs working in conjunction with the mainstream media to change America’s culture from individual responsibility under law to rampant mobocracy. From there it’s a short step to a dictatorship to be installed when the violence exceeds local efforts to quell it.

The Sacramento Bee has joined the chorus of Elder naysayers. Quoting from his writings dating back 20 years ago the Bee claims they “make him wholly unfit to be California’s governor. Elder must drop out of the race immediately.”

Those attacks aren’t getting traction, according to Dan Walters. Writing for Cal Matters, he said they “are making an Elder governorship more likely.… If Newsom, the media and [other liberals] are ganging up on Elder, perhaps he’s just the man to lead the revolt against the political status quo.”

What’s causing Democrat panic is this: In a state with nearly 40 million people, fewer than two million of them have forced Newsom to face recall. They are small in number, but highly organized. A small, well-informed, and highly organized group of people can have an influence far beyond their numbers. That fact is being borne out in California.

In the same vein, this is the principle upon which The John Birch Society has operated since 1958, and explains why the influence of the JBS has never been greater as more and more concerned citizens are seeking ways to restore the Republic to its original intent as dreamed of by the Founders.

For more information, go to JBS.org.

Biden’s Approval Numbers Continue Slipping in Polls

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, August 23, 2021:  

The results of three separate polls taken last week show the public’s approval rating of Joe Biden continuing to fall. In at least one poll, the fall is astounding.

Hart Research Associates asked 1,000 adults last Sunday through last Tuesday, “In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Biden is doing as president?” Forty-nine percent approved, down from 53 percent in April. The percentage of those who disapproved leapt nine full percentage points, from 39 percent in April to 48 percent last week.

His approval rating was dragged down by the public’s perception of how poorly the economy is performing, and his disastrous botched withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. The public’s disapproval of his handling of the economy jumped from 43 percent in April to 52 percent last week.

But the catastrophe in Kabul was key to Biden’s fall in the polls: Sixty percent of those polled by Hart disapproved of his handling of the situation in Afghanistan, compared to just 25 percent of those who approved.

CBS News Poll taken later last week was nothing short of astounding. When 2,142 adults were asked, “Which of these [traits] do you feel describe or do not describe Joe Biden’s actions as President so far?” they responded:

Unifying? Only 43% said yes

Effective? Only 47% said yes

Distracted? Only 49% said yes

Focused? Only 48% said yes

Incompetent? 44% said yes

When they were asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Joe Biden is handling the removal of troops from Afghanistan?” 53 percent disapproved. Similar responses were recorded when asked about how Biden is handling “issues with Russia” and “issues with China.”

Further proof of the public’s disenchantment with the performance of the man sitting in the Oval Office came from Civiqs.com in its Poll Project USA. Since January 20, it has been asking registered voters how Biden is doing. Since May, his approval rating has dropped continuously and now shows just 42 percent of those voters approving, while 50 percent now disapprove.

On a state-by-state basis, Biden’s performance is even worse. Just seven of the 50 states — California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont — show voters giving Biden a 50 percent approval rating or higher. Thirty-seven states’ voters give Biden a failing grade, and Colorado — a former red state now turned blue — rated Biden even, with 46 percent approving to 46 percent disapproving.

Ronny Jackson, M.D., the former White House physician under both Presidents Obama and Trump and now a Republican representative from Texas, has been warning of Biden’s growing incompetency for months. In an interview with Fox News last week, he declared that it’s now time for Biden to leave the Oval Office:

We’re looking horrible right now on the world stage; this is an absolute national embarrassment. And instead of being out in front of this and talking about what’s going on, and what went wrong, and what the plan was, and what we’re going to do next, Biden’s just been in hiding again, as he always has.

 

Biden, once again, has failed us. He’s embarrassed us internationally. And, you know, honestly, it is time for him to leave.

 

I’ve been saying this for a long time. I’ve been saying that he’s not cognitively prepared to be our president. And this is just another example of his failure. And I think a lot of this is relevant to his cognitive ability.

 

But he’s created a national security disaster for this country right now. And it’s time for him to move on, and somebody else needs to do this job. He is not fit to be our commander-in-chief. It’s time for him to resign….

 

People have cut him slack because they know he’s got these cognitive issues, and he’s older…. There’s just too much liability with this man. They can’t cover for him anymore.

Vice President Kamala Harris isn’t doing any better than Biden in the polls. According to Hart Research, her ratings among voters have fallen as well. In January, just 41 percent of those polled rated her either “somewhat positive” or “very positive,” with an equal percentage viewing her as either “somewhat negative” or “very negative.”

Last week, just 37 percent of voters rate her “somewhat” or “very” positive, while her negative ratings jumped five points, to 46 percent.

Speaker of the House (third in line for the presidency under the Constitution) Nancy Pelosi fares equally poorly, with just 37 percent of voters rating her either “very positive” or “somewhat positive,” and her negatives coming in at 46 percent, up five points since January.

If Biden leaves, or is forced to vacate, the Oval Office, his replacement(s) don’t look any better. Voters seeking true leadership out of the swamp of collectivism will have to look elsewhere.

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2021 Bob Adelmann