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: Politics

Far-left Philadelphia Mayor Bans Guns From Public Places, Despite State Preemption Law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, September 28, 2022:  

Knowing full well that his executive order released Tuesday and declared to be effective immediately would be challenged in court, Jim Kenney, the thug mayor of Philadelphia, in concert with his Soros-backed district attorney, Larry Krasner, challenged the state anyway, declaring: “Bring it on!”

He and his far-left progressive DA have been working successfully to emasculate the city’s law-enforcement culture, resulting in record-setting gun violence by criminals released thanks to lenient/nonexistent prosecution of their crimes. Tuesday’s executive order prohibiting firearms at city parks and recreational centers is just an extension of Kenney’s agenda to limit and ultimately eliminate the private ownership and possession of firearms.

This is, of course, is a necessary step in turning a free republic into a communist dictatorship.

Said Kenney: “There’s no place for guns anywhere, but especially in pools, playgrounds, or rec centers.” This is consistent with his oft-stated belief that only police should have guns: “I would get every gun off the street and every gun shop should be closed.”

That would result in only criminals, the elite, and the state having firearms, thus eliminating any chance for law-abiding citizens to challenge the politicians instituting their tyranny.

Said Krasner, twice elected DA thanks to millions supplied to his campaigns directly by George Soros and indirectly by his many political action committees: “Even if you have a permit to carry, and you go on these premises, you’ve got a problem with me.”

Krasner already has a problem with the Republican-dominated state Legislature, which is considering whether he should be impeached for dereliction of duty. The committee looking into the matter has — not surprisingly — been stymied by Krasner’s unwillingness to comply with their subpoenas.

Lars Dalseide, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association (NRA), sarcastically noted:

Every law-abiding Philadelphian hopes and prays that the violent criminals Mayor Kenney and his woke district attorney carelessly [deliberately] release onto the streets abide by his directive.

 

A more prudent and effective approach would be to arrest, prosecute, and punish these savage criminals for their violent crimes.

He then noted that the Kenney/Krasner directive will go nowhere thanks to Pennsylvania’s preemption law holding that local municipalities may not enact laws stricter than those allowed at the state level:

The simple fact is that Pennsylvania state law prevents local jurisdictions from passing laws that are inconsistent with or more restrictive than state law.

 

This ban is more restrictive and therefore illegitimate.

Under the Kenney/Krasner administration, gun violence in Philadelphia has soared. According to Kathryn Ott Lovell, the city’s commissioner of Parks & Recreation, there have been nearly 300 incidents of gun violence in the city’s recreation facilities alone since 2019.

The Washington Times reports that:

Violent crime has surged during Mr. Krasner’s term, with Black residents overwhelmingly the victims.

 

The homicide rate in 2020 was the highest in three decades. The number of homicides was 499, up 40% from 2019, according to police department figures.

In response to the Kenney/Krasner regime’s attack on law enforcement, citizens have been arming themselves at record rates. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, concealed carry permit applications are “up 600% from recent years.”

Krasner’s “progressive” policies, aided and abetted by a supportive far-left mayor, include ending criminal charges against those caught possessing marijuana, ending cash bail for criminals charged with “minor” crimes, and demanding lenient sentences for certain crimes. In addition, the progressive reordering of justice in Philadelphia includes reviewing past cases and sentences in order to seek re-sentencing to lesser punishment, or even release from prison.

In his first month as district attorney, Krasner fired 31 pro-law-enforcement assistant attorneys and replaced them with his own brand of progressives.

While the Kenney/Krasner cabal has issued an order that on its face is illegal and contravenes state law, it is indicative of what the world would look like if thugs and criminal politicians like these two were allowed to operate freely: crime would soar, justifying still more government restrictions on the freedom of private citizens to defend themselves, leading ultimately to total government control. That’s the agenda of thugs like Kenney and Krasner and their funders.

RINO Liz Cheney to Support Democrats

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, September 26, 2022:  

Liz Cheney, whom Wyoming Republicans obliterated in the party’s primary in August, claimed a year ago that she would do “whatever it takes” to keep Donald Trump out of the White House for a second term.

She repeated her promise on Saturday while speaking at the Texas Tribune Festival. She told the news outlet’s CEO Evan Smith, “I will certainly do whatever it takes to make sure Donald Trump isn’t anywhere close to the Oval Office.”

She included Republican Kari Lake in that promise: “I am going to do everything I can to make sure that Kari Lake is not elected.” Lake, a Republican who is supported by Trump and believes the 2020 election was stolen from him, is presently tied in the polls with her Democrat opponent, Katie Hobbs, in the race for governor of Arizona.

She added that, in her deranged hatred of anything Trump, she would even campaign for Democrats if they were running against a pro-Trump Republican.

She continues to use her position on the faux January 6 “insurrection” investigating committee to keep her name in the spotlight. She said that the committee has just received 800,000 pages of correspondence from the Secret Service in response to a subpoena and that they contain “a lot” of new information.

As for making a criminal referral to the Justice Department, she continues to bide her time, likely waiting to spring her “revelations” as part of the expected “October surprise” designed to sully and damage Trump and his endorsed candidates just before the November midterm elections.

Lake expressed delight when she learned that Cheney was coming after her:

That might be the biggest, best gift I have ever received! The Republican Party — the new Republican Party — is the party of We, the People. It is no longer the party of warmongers.

Christian Ziegler, vice chairman of the Florida GOP, said Cheney’s promise to campaign against her own party “should mobilize a lot of our voters to the polls,” while Steve Bannon, a former Trump advisor, wrote, “This almost certainly guarantees a Kari Lake blowout.” He then added, tongue in cheek, that “Katie Hobbs [her Democrat opponent] should file an immediate protest!”

Christian Pastor Says He Will Not Back Down on School’s Policy Concerning Biblical Sexuality

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, September 22, 2022:  

Barry McKeen, a pastor and school administrator of Grace Christian School in Valrico, Florida, has been under attack ever since NBC News learned of an email he sent to parents in June. McKeen has remained strong and stalwart in the face of those attacks.

Grace Christian School, located about 14 miles east of Tampa, offers a strong Christian education to students from pre-K through 12th grade. In June, McKeen sent an email to parents planning on enrolling their children for the upcoming fall semester. The email was titled “Important School Policy Point of Emphasis … Please Read,” and included these statements:

We believe that God created mankind in His image: male (man) and female (woman), sexually different but with equal dignity.

 

Therefore, one’s biological sex must be affirmed and no attempts should be made to physically change, alter, or disagree with one’s biological gender — including, but not limited to, elective sex reassignment, transvestite, transgender, or non-binary gender fluid acts of conduct (Genesis 1:26-28).

 

Students in school will be referred to by the gender on their birth certificate and be referenced in name in the same fashion.

 

We believe that any form of homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, transgender identity/lifestyle, self-identification, bestiality, incest, fornication, adultery and pornography are sinful in the sight of God and the church (Genesis 2:24; Leviticus 18:1-30; Romans 1:26-29; I Corinthians 5:1; I Corinthians 6:9; I Thessalonians 4:2-7).

 

Students who are found participating in these lifestyles will be asked to leave the school immediately.

While the policy is not new, it must be understood and accepted completely, the email said, adding that parents would “have to agree to all policies and procedures before your student may start school in August.”

This was enough to light the fire of indignation among those who don’t follow Christ. In the days immediately after NBC reported on the email, the school came under withering attack, with threats of violence and death threats against McKeen, his family, and his staff.

The Epoch Times reached out to pastor/administrator McKeen on Monday to learn that he remains fixed in his policies and in his determination to keep the school grounded on its purpose:

To help every student to be “thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (II Timothy 3:17);

 

To encourage all students to “love the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul and with all their mind, and to love their neighbor as themselves.” (Matthew 22:37-39); and

 

To give Christ the pre-eminence in all things. (Colossians 1:18).

The Times asked if the tidal wave of indignation and threats had subsided. Said McKeen:

The backlash for about a day and a half was very severe, a lot of death threats, burn-my-house-down threats. And then after about a day and a half, most of our commentary turned positive, because some of the more, I guess you could say, conservative outlets started picking up the story.

In the last two weeks, thanks to those “conservative outlets picking up the story,” Grace Christian School has received more than 7,000 emails, with 80 percent of them positive, and many letters of encouragement, some of them enclosing checks.

Those letters and checks came from around the world, with the school receiving more than $45,000 in unexpected donations. Said McKeen, “One guy gave $5,000. I’ve never met him. He’s never been to our church or school. But he read about the story and said, ‘I believe what you’re standing for, and here’s some money.’”

The small school now has a waiting list of more than 100 potential students hoping to gain acceptance for the fall term.

McKeen expressed surprise and dismay that his email had generated so much reaction. Following the NBC story, he told Fox News:

If I backed down from something like this, I’m abandoning what God has said is the truth.

 

I [asked] how is this hard for people to understand? This is what God said. This is one of the many reasons we have a Christian school, and we’re not going to abandon this policy. God has spoken on these issues.

House Oversight Committee Rejects Republican Resolution to Investigate Hunter Biden

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, September 21, 2022:  

Following two hours of debate on Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee, dominated by Democrats, rejected a resolution from Republicans on the committee seeking documents from White House resident Joe Biden relating to Hunter Biden’s business deals with the Chinese communists, along with those involving other Biden family members.

James Comer, the ranking Republican on the committee said:

This resolution of inquiry requires President Biden to hand over documents in his possession that are related to the Biden family’s international business schemes and influence peddling.

 

Oversight Republicans’ ongoing investigation has revealed the Biden family has peddled access to the highest levels of government to enrich themselves.

 

And unfortunately, often to the detriment of U.S. interests.

 

By passing this resolution of inquiry we will provide the American people with much-needed transparency to understand the Biden family’s businesses.

 

It is time President Biden answers questions about his participation in his family’s business schemes with some of our most significant adversaries for years, including the Chinese Communist Party.

Predictably, the committee rejected the move along party lines, 23-19.

But the rebuff merely delays the inevitable. When Republicans retake control of the House in November, said Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), “We’re absolutely going to look into this stuff. We’re going to reveal it for the American people.”

Much of that “stuff” to which Higgins referred has recently been exposed to public view: “My Son Hunter” became available for live streaming on September 7. Based largely on Hunter’s own personal revelation Beautiful Things, the film warns viewers of its sordid, sinful, and degrading nature:

This picture contains Sex, Prostitution, Drugs, Cronyism, Money Laundering, More Sex, a Laptop from Hell, Chinese Spies, Ukrainian ‘Businessmen’, the CCP, the Selling Out of America, the Big Guy, Corn Pop, More Sex, Additional Drugs, and … Family.

Even Andrew O’Hehir, writing for left-wing Salon, was forced to admit after viewing the film that Hunter “used his dad’s name to get paid big-time by shady companies in China and Ukraine.”

Since 2018 Delaware’s United States Attorney General, David Weiss, has been doing his own investigation into Hunter’s “stuff” and has uncovered sufficient damning evidence to charge him with various felonies. In July Weiss’ investigation had reached what CNN called a “critical juncture” over which charges he and his team might make.

But that “critical juncture” came and went as it ran into an unwritten rule in the Department of Justice, revealed by various whistleblowers, that no charges be made within 60 days of an election.

This outraged 30 Senate Republicans, who sent Attorney General Merrick Garland a letter demanding that he allow Weiss authority to expand his investigation into additional areas of likely felonious behavior by the son of Biden.

From that letter:

As you know, the United States Attorney’s office for the District of Delaware — led by U.S. Attorney Weiss — has been investigating Hunter Biden. There is no way of knowing the entire scope of the investigation, but evidence seems to be mounting that Hunter Biden committed numerous federal crimes, including, but not limited to, tax fraud, money laundering, and foreign-lobbying violations.

 

Indeed, Senators Grassley and Johnson have conducted an investigation for several years that has resulted in the public disclosure of facts that support criminal concerns, including the disclosure of financial records showing the Biden family’s close financial connections to the communist Chinese government and questionable foreign nationals.

 

It is clear that Hunter Biden thrived off of a “pay to play” culture of access to his father, then Vice President Joe Biden, in exchange for financial compensation….

“We believe it is important to provide U.S. Attorney Weiss with special counsel and authorities and protections to allow him to investigate an appropriate scope of potentially criminal conduct…,” the senators said.

It is highly unlikely that Garland will grant such expanded authority to Weiss, thus leaving the door open, come January, for Republicans on the Oversight Committee and in the Senate to pick up where the investigations of Hunter Biden left off.

Review of “Letter to the American Church” by Eric Metaxas

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, September 20, 2022:  

Author Eric Metaxas, used his #1 best-selling book Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy as the basis for his latest one, Letter to the American Church. Released Tuesday, September 20, Metaxas’ book reveals parallel after parallel between events in the 1930s and events now. He warns that unless the American church awakens from its slumber and its focus on just the Gospel and nothing else, the destruction of America is imminent.

His target: pastors who offer “cheap grace,” i.e., the mental assent that Jesus Christ died for their sins, but leaving out the part about following Him through a totally changed life. He wrote:

Dietrich Bonhoeffer … called the German church to be the church in their time, and as I hope to make clear, his voice to them is his voice to us today, calling the American Church to actually be God’s church, with all that entails, so that we might avoid the mistakes of the German church in in the 1930s, and those direst consequences we know to have been their result….

 

I have written this book because I am convinced the American Church is at an impossibly — and almost unbearably — important inflection point.

 

The parallels to where the German Church was in the 1930s are unavoidable and grim.

 

So the only question … is whether we might understand those parallels, and thereby avoid the fatal mistakes the German Church made during that time, and their superlatively catastrophic results.

 

If we do not, I am convinced we will reap a whirlwind greater even than the one they did.

Example:

The church folded like an accordion in 1954 when then-Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, angered that local Texas churches called him out for his egregious sins, offered a bill granting tax exemptions to churches provided they don’t get political. It was passed into law and is now called the “Johnson Amendment.”

The parallel:

Pastors in the eighteenth century spoke boldly from their pulpits against the tyranny of King George III, and opposed him by name….

 

[But in the 1950s] it is astonishing that pastors in America allowed this wild idea to go uncontested. In this they behaved rather like many of the submissive pastors in Germany two decades earlier.

Example:

When we think of the death camps and the murder of so many millions … we need to understand that in the beginning [German citizens and their pastors] had no idea where it was leading, and had no idea there were facing nothing less than the forces of anti-Christ.

Parallel:

We are now facing those same forces [but] in different guises … those forces … have an agenda … that is globalist.

Example:

Part of this may be traced back to the 1960s, when the U.S. Supreme Court took prayer out of the public schools … part of a general trend down a path that was fundamentally mistaken in its views of [Thomas] Jefferson’s famous “wall of separation” between church and state.

 

Rather than protecting people of faith from government intrusion, as the Founders intended … the judiciary began to interpret it to mean that the public square should be stripped of faith entirely….

 

Because the American people did not see the dangers … and because Christian leaders did not speak out boldly, the drift toward an unconstitutional and secular view began to be enshrined in our laws and in our culture.

The Covid parallel:

What the Nazis did first, a mere four weeks into Hitler’s [takeover], was to use the incident of the Reichstag Fire — in which a Dutch madman set fire to the German Parliament building — to enact sweeping emergency decrees….

 

It was a stunning erasure of [legitimate] German government, with blitzkrieg swiftness….

 

[The Nazis used the incident] to demonize their enemies … and to crush dissent by instilling fear in anyone who wished to object.

Wayne Grudem, professor of theology at Phoenix Seminary and author of the massive and highly regarded Systematic Theology, was moved to say this about Metaxas’ effort:

[It is] bold and insightful.… Metaxas calls for pastors (and other Christian leaders) who … will be courageous enough to speak unambiguously against the massive anti-Christian forces that now threaten to permanently transform American society and bring to an end America’s role as a beacon of freedom for the world.

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Texas Bill Prohibiting Social Media From Censoring Content

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, September 19, 2022:  

The Appeals Court for the Fifth Circuit reversed a lower court’s ruling in NetChoice v. Paxton on Friday, setting the stage for another appeal to the Supreme Court.

At issue is the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free speech — “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” — and whether Texas House Bill 20 violates or upholds it.

When Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill into law last September, he stated:

Social media websites have become our modern-day public square. They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely — but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas.

 

That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas.

NetChoice disagreed:

The Act tramples the First Amendment by allowing [Texas] to force private businesses [i.e., Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube] to host speech they don’t want to … [and additionally allows Texas to] police and control speech online, overriding the First Amendment rights of [those businesses].

Fifth Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump nominee with a law degree from Harvard, minced few words in his decision:

A Texas statute named House Bill 20 generally prohibits large social media platforms from censoring speech based on the viewpoint of its speaker.

 

The platforms urge us to hold that the statute is facially unconstitutional and hence cannot be applied to anyone at any time and under any circumstances.

 

In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment. That Amendment, of course, protects every person’s right to “the freedom of speech.”

 

But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech. [Emphasis in original]

He and fellow appeals court judges Edith Jones and Leslie Southwick rejected outright that “rather odd inversion”:

Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.

 

Because the district court held otherwise, we reverse its injunction and remand [return it to the lower court] for further proceedings.

Because Friday’s decision is counter to a ruling by an appeals court in Florida on the same issue, it is certain to be appealed to the high court once again for final resolution.

Oldham lays the groundwork for that appeal:

The First Amendment protects speech: It generally prevents the government from interfering with people’s speech or forcing them to speak.

 

The Platforms [NetChoice, et al.] argue that because they host and transmit speech, the First Amendment also gives them an unqualified license to invalidate laws [like Texas House Bill 20] that hinder them from censoring speech they don’t like.

 

And they say that license entitles them to pre-enforcement facial relief against HB 20.

 

We reject the Platforms’ attempt to extract a freewheeling censorship right from the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

 

The Platforms are not newspapers. Their censorship is not speech. They’re not entitled to pre-enforcement facial relief. And HB 20 is constitutional because it neither compels nor obstructs the Platforms’ own speech in any way.

 

The district court erred in concluding otherwise and abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Big Social Media sued in December, getting a judge to block the bill’s enforcement.

Texas appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which lifted the sanction, but NetChoice et al. immediately appealed to the Supreme Court. The high court suspended the law pending a full review by the Fifth Circuit. Friday’s decision by the Fifth Circuit overruled the lower court’s sanction, setting in motion another appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Texas law bars social media platforms from acting to “block, ban, remove, de-platform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression.”

Oberlin College Finally Gives Up, Pays Up in False Racism Charges Against Local Bakery

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, September 13, 2022:  

The board of trustees of Oberlin College — a proud incubator of radical student progressivism almost since its founding — gave up the fight last Thursday, declaring it “would not pursue the matter further.” It has begun paying out to Gibson’s, a local bakery in Oberlin since 1885, the $36,590,000 awarded by the court.

The “matter,” put succinctly, is the attack on the bakery by Oberlin College officials, professors, and several hundred students that occurred six years ago.

Three black students entered the store (which also sells wine) on November 9, 2016, and the police recorded what happened next:

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016, at approximately 4:58pm, officers responded to the area of Gibson’s Bakery in reference to a report of a fight in progress.

 

As officers were responding to the area, dispatch advised that this was involving an alleged theft complaint.

 

Dispatch advised that Allyn Gibson, who is an employee of Gibson’s Bakery, was attempting to apprehend a subject who Allyn had witnessed attempt to steal several items.

 

As officers approached the area, Sgt. Ortiz, and Officer Feuerstein both stated they observed Allyn Gibson lying on his back with several individuals kneeling over him punching and kicking him….

 

Officers attempted to gain control of the situation and were met several times with resistance from several different individuals.

 

After a few minutes officers were finally able to take one female into custody and calm the incident and attempt to figure out what had taken place.

Please note the day: This was the day after Donald Trump was surprisingly (and legally) elected president of the United States, and the students and faculty of this communist training center in the small town of Oberlin, Ohio (population 8,000), were suffering mightily. There were tears, mourning, whining, weeping — and anger.

When Jonathan Aladin (aka Elijah Aladin), who was accompanied by two female associates, tried to purchase some wine using a fake ID, the owner of the store, Allyn Gibson (son and grandson of the owners), turned him down. Gibson noted that Aladin had two bottles of wine inside his coat, and when Gibson pulled out his iPhone to take a photo, Aladin slapped it away, striking Gibson’s face.

The three then ran out of the store, with Gibson in hot pursuit. Gibson attempted to detain Aladin, but Aladin knocked him to the ground and the two female associates joined in the melee. They were punching and kicking Gibson when the police arrived.

Those are the facts.

But to the upside-down, truth-is-falsehood, criminals-are-the victims world in which Oberlin College lives, this was an act of racism, pure and simple: a white man attacking a black man. End of discussion.

School officials supported a student-led riot involving some 200-300 radicals outside the bakery the following day. Some of the school’s staff, including the dean of students — one Meredith Raimondo — distributed flyers that said: “This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION. PLEASE STAND WITH US.”

The flyer, created by Raimondo and copied by the thousands on college copy machines, gave this view of the incident:

A member of our community [Aladin] was assaulted by the owner [Gibson] of this establishment [Gibson’s] yesterday.

 

A nineteen y/o young man [Aladin] was apprehended and choked by Allyn Gibson of Gibson’s Food Mart & Bakery.

 

The young man, who was accompanied by 2 friends [Cecelia Whettstone and Endia Lawrence] was choked until the 2 forced Allyn to let go.

 

After [t]he young man was free, Allyn chased him across College St. and into Tappan Square.

 

There, Allyn tackled him and restrained him again until Oberlin police arrived.

 

The 3 were racially profiled on the scene.

 

They were arrested without being questioned, asked their names, or read their rights.

 

2 were released shortly after and charged with assault.

 

The young man is being held in Lorain County Jail, charged with robbery….

 

If you have been victimized by this establishment in any capacity, we ask you to stand with us in support of our community member.

Oberlin’s student senate participated in the canard, publishing this:

A Black student was chased and assaulted at Gibson’s after being accused of stealing.

 

Several other students, attempting to prevent the assaulted student from receiving further injury, were arrested and held by the Oberlin Police Department.

 

In the midst of all this, Gibson’s employees were never detained and were given preferential treatment by police officers.

 

Gibson’s has a history of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment of students and residents alike.

This statement appeared in the college public square, where it remained posted for a year after the incident.

This is the “reality” in which Oberlin students are immersed, ready to spread their poison to the culture upon graduation. They have both the dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, and the college’s vice president of communications, Ben Jones, as role models.

When retired Oberlin professor Roger Copeland (from another time and, to the students, another planet) wrote a year after the incident, “The time has come for the Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo, on behalf of the College, to apologize to the Gibson family,” she texted: “F**k him….”

Jones remained unrepentant for his and his school’s support of the boycott of Gibson’s. In an email, he posted this screed:

All these idiots complaining about the college hurting a “small local business” are conveniently leaving out their massive (relative to the town) conglomerate and price gouging on rents and parking and the predatory behavior toward most other local business. F**k ’em.

The school had been fighting the lawsuit brought by Gibson’s since 2016, finally giving up when the state’s Supreme Court refused to hear its appeal. The award — the largest in state history — would have been vastly larger except that the state has capped such damage claims at just $25 million. The balance due is legal fees incurred by Gibson’s.

The school said it has begun the process of transferring the funds demanded by the court to Gibson’s, announcing that “this does not diminish our respect for the law and the integrity of our legal system.”

Nor its mission to turn students into radicals.

Court Beats Back New York State From Forcing Christian Adoption Agency to Allow Same-sex Parents to Adopt Their Kids

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, September 12, 2022:  

The same court that originally upheld New York state in its determination to force New Hope Family Services — a privately-funded Christian adoption agency that has placed more than 1,000 children with traditional parents since its founding in 1965 — to comply with a new state law demanding placement of children with unmarried or same-sex parents was forced to reverse that decision last week.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Mae A. D’Agostino found cogent reasons to reverse her previous ruling, thanks to demands from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that she do so.

Initially she upheld the complaint of New York State’s Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) against New Hope that the Christian agency — by refusing to place children with unmarried and/or same-sex couples, according to their Christian beliefs — violated the state’s new law. She found that New Hope’s policy was “discriminatory and impermissible” under that law.

For years New York prohibited adoption by any couple other than a heterosexual, married couple. In 2010, however, the state — reflecting the continued erosion of Christian, traditional values and their consequent replacement with secular, non-Christian values — reversed. It rewrote the law, allowing — not demanding — adoption agencies to place children with unmarried or same-sex parents.

Later, that law was turned into a demand. When the agency turned its attention and its new anti-Christian-religion animus toward New Hope, demanding that the agency change its policy, the agency sued.

They lost. But on appeal, they won. With the assistance of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a nonprofit law firm focused on providing legal assistance in cases like this one, the appeals court demanded that Judge D’Agostino reverse her previous decision.

Which she did, in spades:

“‘At the heart of the First Amendment’ is the principle ‘that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence.’”…

 

“Consistent with this principle, freedom of speech means that the ‘government may not prohibit the expression of an idea,’ even one that society finds ‘offensive or disagreeable.’”…

 

“For much the same reason, [the] government also cannot tell people that there are things ‘they must say.’”…

 

“Thus, when [the] government ‘direct[ly] regulat[es] … speech’ by mandating that persons explicitly agree with government policy on a particular matter, it ‘plainly violate[s] the First Amendment.’”…

She concluded:

New Hope has demonstrated that it is entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting the State of New York from requiring New Hope to provide adoption services to unmarried or same-sex couples.

 

First, New Hope has succeeded on the merits of its First Amendment claim against OCFS, as detailed above.

 

Second, “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” [From Elrod v. Burns, 1976.]

As Douglass Dowty noted on Syracuse.com:

D’Agostino this week ruled in favor of New Hope after the higher court’s decision. She found that New Hope had a First Amendment right [after all] to deny adoptions to same-sex or unmarried couples.

The appeals court sending the case back to D’Agostino uncovered a “suspicion of religious animosity” by the state’s commission given the way it used the law as a bludgeon to force New Hope to violate its First Amendment rights. The court wrote:

It is plainly a serious step to order an authorized adoption agency such as New Hope — operating without complaint for 50 years, taking no government funding, successfully placing approximately 1,000 children, and with adoptions pending or being supervised — to close all its adoption operations.

ADF senior counsel Roger Brooks celebrated the legal victory:

The court’s decision is great news for children waiting to be adopted and for the parents partnering with New Hope Family Services to provide loving, stable homes.

 

New Hope is a private religious ministry that doesn’t take a dime from the government. Shutting down an adoption provider for its religious beliefs—needlessly and unconstitutionally reducing the number of agencies willing to help—benefits no one—certainly not children.

 

New Hope’s faith-guided services don’t coerce anyone and do nothing to interfere with other adoption providers who have different beliefs about family and the best interests of children.

 

The decision from the court simply allows New Hope to continue serving the community so that more kids find permanent homes, more adoptive parents welcome a new child, and more birth parents enjoy the exceptional support that New Hope has offered for decades.

 

The state’s attempt to shutter New Hope did nothing other than violate core rights protected by the First Amendment—the freedom to speak what you believe and the freedom to practice the teachings of your faith.

The victory is just one in the long, sustained, and accelerating battle between atheists and Christ and His followers. The office violating New Hope’s First Amendment rights said it was “deeply disappointed with the decision and maintains that discrimination on any basis should not be tolerated. We’re reviewing our options for next steps.”

Stacey Abrams Looking to Lose to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, Again

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, September 8, 2022:  

Stacey Abrams, the far-left Democrat who lost to Brian Kemp in the race for Georgia governor in 2018 by 55,000 votes, is poised to lose again. Only this time, the margin is likely to be vastly larger, perhaps by 200,000 votes or more.

She claimed in 2018 that she lost due to voter fraud, and to this date has refused to concede that race.

In every poll since January, however, she has trailed her Republican rival by anywhere between one and seven points (with the exception of a single “tie” by Quinnipiac in June). Even FiveThirtyEight, a licensed pollster with The New York Times, shows Abrams trailing Kemp by five percentage points.

This late in the game, that amounts to an insurmountable gap for Abrams to overcome in the next two months.

Funded mostly with out-of-state money, Abrams (who has raised $18 million more than her Republican opponent) has tried everything, including the get-out-the-vote campaign that narrowed the gap in 2018. But the black vote is going against her. She has played the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision card, hoping that the high court’s decision in Dobbs would galvanize her liberal pro-abortion base.

But nothing has worked, and now the national media has virtually surrendered to the political reality. The New York Times and other mainstream media are seriously questioning whether she can pull off a political miracle (or fraud sufficient to overcome the gap). Newsweek, for example, complained that “the New York Times and others are questioning whether Abrams risks falling flat in a second matchup against Brian Kemp in a race many observers believed winnable for Democrats.”

In trying to explain away the reason for Abrams’ impending second defeat in November, the media is blaming “sexism” — the fact that she is a female, and — if by some miracle she pulled out a victory in November — would be the first woman governor in Georgia history. As the Times suggested, “She is running in the Deep South for an office that has long been elusive to women and candidates of color.”

The real reason likely has nothing to do with color (she is black) or sex (she is female). It’s much more likely that her far-left political positions on issues voters care about are increasingly making her candidacy less and less attractive.

According to Discover the Networks and other sources, Abrams’ positions include:

  • Disparaging the free market private capitalist system that created the highest standard of living of any country in history;
  • Opposing the Second Amendment that continues to be the main bulwark against tyranny in the United States;
  • Supporting, through her board membership in the Marguerite Casey Foundation, efforts to defund the police;
  • Supporting red flag laws that would disarm law-abiding gun owners;
  • Supporting noncitizen voting;
  • Supporting reparations for slavery;
  • Supporting lowering the voting age to 16;
  • Abolishing the Electoral College;
  • Condemning America for its alleged “systemic racism”; and
  • Declaring that Donald Trump is a racist.

With a record like that, one wonders why the five-to-seven-point gap is so small.

Court Gives Trump a Partial Victory in Mar-a-Lago Documents case

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, September 6, 2022:  

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled on Monday on Donald Trump’s motion to appoint a “special master” (typically a retired judge or lawyer) to review all of the documents seized by the FBI from his home in Palm Beach, Florida on August 8.

In her statement, she declared that:

Pursuant to the Court’s equitable jurisdiction and inherent supervisory authority, and mindful of the need to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances presented, Plaintiff’s Motion … is GRANTED IN PART.

What does “to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity” mean? Is this a disclaimer that the entire incident is fraught with intrigue, illegality, and falsehoods? Is it a warning to the FBI and the Department of Justice that she will brook no further outrageous behavior going forward?

She approved Trump’s demand for a special master:

The Court hereby authorizes the appointment of a special master to review the seized property for personal items and documents and potentially privileged material subject to claims of attorney-client and/or executive privilege.

That covers the more than 33 boxes the FBI seized which, it was later learned, contained more than 11,000 documents.

It also prevents the DOJ and its FBI from “reviewing” the seized documents, despite the fact that the government had informed her that they had already completed their “review”:

Furthermore, in natural conjunction with that appointment, and consistent with the value and sequence of special master procedures, the Court also temporarily enjoins the Government from reviewing and using the seized materials for investigative purposes pending completion of the special master’s review or further Court order.

So, while the government agencies have completed their “review” of all of those 11,000-plus documents, she ordered them not to use them for “investigative purposes,” whatever that means.

But the separate investigation being performed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) will be allowed to continue unimpeded:

This Order shall not impede the classification review and/or intelligence assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The present DNI, Avril Haines, is likely no fan of Donald Trump, having served as assistant to the president during the Obama administration.

According to the enhanced listing of documents reluctantly and belatedly provided by the FBI, its two dozen agents, over a nine-hour period on August 8, seized 11,385 documents, but only 103 of them were marked “classified.”

Small matter: The search warrant issued by the notoriously anti-Trump magistrate was written so broadly that the agents raided the entire facility, including Melania’s closet and underwear drawer along with, it is now revealed, Trump’s son Barron’s bedroom. Trump should be happy they didn’t take the furniture and his grand piano.

Trump asked the court to return everything that wasn’t classified. The judge said no — not until the soon-to-be-named special master has completed his/her “review” of all those documents. The judge also failed to suppress any “evidence” that the FBI might have already uncovered as part of its investigation.

As Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich declared, “This unprecedented and unnecessary raid of President Trump’s home was not some surgical, confined search and retrieval that the Biden administration claims. It was a SMASH AND GRAB!”

In light of all that has been revealed so far, many believe the raid was conducted nefarious purposes: 1) to keep Trump so preoccupied with the legal wrangling that is likely to go on for years (a la the Mueller investigation) that he’ll be unable to focus all of his time and attention on supporting candidates and holding rallies; and 2) to continue to sully his name in the public eye and make it so toxic that candidates being supported by him or claiming to support him and his policies will lose support from voters come November.

The special master will be named on Friday. So far, the first list that appeared with potential candidates contains at least one with a history of virulent hatred of Trump.

CNN’s White House Correspondent John Harwood Just the Latest to Exit the Liberal Network

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, September 5, 2022:  

Friday’s exit of CNN’s longtime White House correspondent John Harwood should have caught no one by surprise. He is just the latest, with many more to come.

On Friday, at the end of his last show, Harwood said:

Personal news: today’s my last day at CNN. Proud of the work. Thanks to my colleagues. I’ve been lucky to serve the best in American media — St. Petersburg Times, WSJ [Wall Street Journal], NYT [New York Times], the NBC family, CNN. Look forward to figuring out what’s next.

The exit of key CNN personnel began even before the influence of John Malone, the network’s new head, began to be felt. Last December the network’s “evening star,” Chris Cuomo, was fired for his involvement in his brother Andrew’s sexual harassment scandal that cost him his job as governor of New York.

Following the merger of AT&T with Warner Bros. Discovery earlier this year, Malone’s influence as a board member began to be felt. At the time of the merger, which brought CNN under Discovery control, Malone made his displeasure about CNN’s left-leaning profile known. In an interview on CNBC following the merger, he said:

I would like to see CNN evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing.

In February, after the merger, CNN’s president Jeff Zucker was shown the door and replaced by Chris Licht.

A few months later CNN’s heavily promoted streaming service, CNN+, was shuttered after the $300 million investment resulted in just 10,000 subscribers in its first month of operation.

And last month, Brian Stelter and his program, Reliable Sources, were terminated, followed by CNN’s longtime legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Licht, whose background includes stints at MSNBC and CBS, informed CNN staffers that there was a new sheriff in town, and to get used to it:

Sadly, too many people have lost trust in the news media.

 

I think we can be a beacon in regaining that trust by being an organization that exemplifies the best characteristics in journalism: fearlessly speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo, questioning “group-think” and educating viewers and readers with straightforward facts and insightful commentary, while always being respectful of differing viewpoints.

 

First and foremost, we should, and we will be advocates for truth.

How, exactly, Licht plans to do this is unclear, given his liberal bias that has catapulted him to the very top of the mainstream media. Jon Nicosia, a former managing editor at Mediaite and a former breaking news editor at DCExaminer, predicts that the first thing Licht will do is continue to excise far-left liberals from top positions. In a series of tweets, Nicosia spelled out who’s next to leave CNN:

Once the coming shakeup at CNN is done, don’t expect John Berman, Alisyn Camerota, Jim Acosta, Brianna Keilar, Jake Tapper, John King, and Don Lemon to still be at the network OR have their current show assignments….

 

The final “stay or go” has not been finalized and more names will be added….

 

Stelter was a “go” because [quoting one of his CNN sources] “he was seen as working against current management’s goals. Leaking, stirring dissatisfaction internally … he started believing he was the only thing between ‘democracy’ and anarchy.”

Malone is described as a libertarian, serves on the board of the conservative Cato Institute, and donated $250,000 (he’s reportedly worth $9 billion) to help fund Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2017. Hiring a liberal to drain the liberal swamp at CNN may not be the best answer, but ridding CNN of the worst of the voices there (who steadfastly continue to call themselves journalists and not propagandists for the Left) is a good start.

Biden Attacks Trump and His Supporters in “Non-political” Speech

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, September 2, 2022:  

In a speech billed as “non-political” by the White House, Joe Biden seized the opportunity in Philadelphia last night to reveal his true colors. His 24-minute speech was filled with what many see as outrageous misstatements, falsehoods, innuendoes, and hatred of traditional Americans and traditional American.

Below we quote extensively from the White House transcript of the screed:

Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic….

 

But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country….

 

MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people.

 

They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

 

MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards — backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love.

 

They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

 

They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on January 6th — brutally attacking law enforcement — not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger to the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots.

 

And they see their MAGA failure to stop a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections.

 

They tried everything last time to nullify the votes of 81 million people. This time, they’re determined to succeed in thwarting the will of the people.

 

That’s why respected conservatives, like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig, has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans, quote, a “clear and present danger” to our democracy….

 

And now America must choose to move forward or to move backwards. To build the future or obsess about the past. To be a nation of hope and unity and optimism, or a nation of fear, division, and of darkness.

 

MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies….

 

Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy….

 

Democracy cannot survive when one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election: either they win or they were cheated. And that’s where MAGA Republicans are today….

 

MAGA Republicans look at America and see carnage and darkness and despair. They spread fear and lies — lies told for profit and power….

 

The MAGA Republicans believe that for them to succeed, everyone else has to fail.

The speech was interrupted frequently by avid Biden supporters when he reiterated a statement with which they agreed.

Very few people actually watched the speech. That was likely because of a local college football game going on simultaneously, and because only CNN among the major networks covered it from start to finish. Other networks, including ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox News didn’t cover it live.

There was a very clear ominous militaristic theme to the speech, with Marines standing behind Biden, backlighted in 1930’s Hitler-style red. Erick Erickson called the presentation reminiscent of Hitler’s Third Reich, with Biden “flanked by Marines and backlit by mid-1930s German red mood lighting.”

In addition, Biden revealed either his ignorance or his deliberate misunderstanding of the word “democracy,” which he used dozens of times to describe what the Founders actually created: a constitutional republic. Those Founders knew the dangers of democracy as being just one short step toward mobocracy and then tyranny.

This follows Lenin’s instruction, “First confuse the vocabulary.” As Founding Father James Madison wrote in The Federalist, No. 10:

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.

Biden implied the use of force to correct the errors of his enemies:

I have come to this place … to speak as plainly as I can … about the power we have in our own hands to meet these threats….

 

Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic….

 

There is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country….

 

It is within our power, it’s in our hands — yours and mine — to stop the assault on American democracy.

He said nothing about the FBI raid on Trump’s private residence. He didn’t have to. There, in full public view, is precisely how Biden will use agencies such as the FBI to “stop the assault on American democracy.”

He said nothing about the failures of his administration: inflation, invasion, military disaster, and loss of respect abroad. Instead, he claimed that his policies are working to improve the economy, while the economy itself is poised on the brink of recession.

Biden is guilty, after all is said and done, of projecting onto his enemies the very charges that are rightly applied to him and his administration. By offending the 70-plus million people who voted for Donald Trump in 2020, Biden has sown the seeds of his own demise.

Pressure Mounts on FBI as Agents Claim Director Wray Has “Lost Control” of the Agency

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, September 1, 2022:  

A former FBI agent who now represents several current FBI “whistleblowers” has just added another log onto the fire that is burning the FBI. Kurt Siuzdak, a lawyer and former FBI agent, told The Washington Times on Wednesday that “they’re saying, ‘How does this guy [Christopher Wray] survive? … He’s got to leave.’”

Siuzdak, a 25-year veteran of the agency, left in March due to what he perceived to be a strong partisan political bias at the very top of the FBI.

At the “very top” sits a Trump appointee, Christopher Wray, who replaced Jim Comey as head of the agency after Trump fired him in May 2017. As Wray is a Yale law graduate and a member of the prestigious Federalist Society, with a long history in both public service and private practice, Trump thought he was appointing someone who would clean house.

Instead, the man he chose turns out to be part of the problem instead of the solution.

Thanks to numerous FBI whistleblowers — agents inside the agency seeing firsthand how political bias is playing out against Trump and for Biden — Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley has brought the situation to light. Serving as the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has been privy to numerous agents’ complaints about that bias and has written repeatedly to Wray asking for explanations.

In his letters, dating back to May of this year, Grassley wrote of his concerns:

In light of these allegations [by FBI whistleblowers], I remain very concerned that political bias by a select group of Justice department and FBI officials has infected the Justice Department and FBI’s usual process and procedure to open and pursue high-profile and politically charged investigations.

There is a blatant double standard at play in the agency:

The double standard in the application of Justice Department and FBI policies has resulted in investigations opened in a manner appearing to benefit the political aims and objectives of a select few Justice Department and FBI officials.

 

Further, it is my understanding from whistleblowers that when FBI agents sought a uniform and consistent application of these standards, their concerns were marginalized or otherwise not acted upon.

Grassley noted specifically the actions of FBI Assistant Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault, noting that he exhibited a “pattern of active public partisanship” and requesting an investigation into that “pattern.” Thibault exhibited his bias against Donald Trump in a series of social media posts which, when Grassley’s letter became public, were deleted.

Thibault also had a hand in dismissing demands that Hunter Biden’s laptop information be investigated, calling any such evidence “disinformation.” Grassley wrote that the whistleblower information available to him “involves concerns about the FBI’s receipt and use of derogatory information related to Hunter Biden, and the FBI’s false portrayal of [that] evidence as disinformation.”

Grassley noted:

In fact, the information I have received reveals that Thibault’s political partisanship went much deeper than the inappropriate social media posts. Instead, it impacted his official decision-making on sensitive public corruption investigations.

 

Equally concerning is that, based on Justice Department and FBI policies, Thibault’s partisanship likely affected investigations briefed to, and approved by, senior Justice Department and FBI officials.

Thibault was put on temporary leave following Grassley’s claims, and that temporary leave became permanent this weekend when Thibault announced his retirement from the agency. His lawyer, not surprisingly, said that his client’s retirement from the agency had nothing whatsoever to do with Hunter Biden “misinformation” or his political bias exposed in those deleted social media posts.

Sending Thibault off into retirement isn’t going to end the corruption at the very top of the FBI, though. Hopefully he will serve not as the scapegoat, but as the first of many at the top to be exposed. Wrote Grassley:

Starting on May 31, 2022, I’ve written three letters to you [Director Wray] regarding political bias that has infected the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

 

Two of those letters provided specific and credible allegations based on numerous whistleblowers that have approached my office with information that one can only conclude is indicative of a deeply rooted political infection that has spread to investigative activity into former President Trump and Hunter Biden.

So far, the only response to Grassley’s demands has been the canning of a minor player in the agency’s grand scheme to sully Trump and protect Biden. If Republicans regain control of the Senate in November, then one may reasonably expect Grassley’s demands will be taken much more seriously.

Articles of Impeachment of Biden Filed by Republicans on Tuesday

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 31, 2022:  

Several members of the House of Representatives filed articles of impeachment on Tuesday declaring that Joe Biden’s conduct “warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”

Those House members feel that there are plenty of reasons why the current occupant of the Oval Office should be impeached, including:

  • The lack of border enforcement that has let millions of illegals, including many criminals, into the U.S.;
  • The handling of the coronavirus pandemic;
  • The dreadfully mismanaged and damaging withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan;
  • The unilateral and illegal cancellation of student loan debts;
  • The eviction moratorium prohibiting property owners from evicting renters who violate their leases by not paying rent; and
  • The “Hunter Biden issue” that the mainstream media continue to ignore.

Said Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.):

I have consistently said President Biden should be impeached for intentionally opening our border and making Americans less safe.

 

Congress has a duty to hold the President accountable for this and any other failures of his Constitutional responsibilities, so a new Republican majority must be prepared to aggressively conduct oversight on day one.

Previous articles of impeachment, including one filed by conservative firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) the day after Biden was sworn into office, addressed most of these.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) thinks Biden isn’t the only legitimate target for impeachment:

Mayorkas and Garland have purposefully made our country less safe, politicized their departments, and violated the rule of law. In some instances, they have instructed their subordinates to disobey our laws. That is unacceptable.

 

Next January I expect the House to pursue my impeachment articles against Mayorkas as well as Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s impeachment articles that I co-sponsored against Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former advisor, expressed his confidence in January 2022 that Republicans would impeach Biden once they took control of the House starting next January:

You have stood down ICE and you’ve stood down Border Patrol, and guess what? That’s the impeachment hearing I want to hear!

 

You’re going to sit there for day after day and week after week and we’re going to bring the witnesses. We’re going to bring the witnesses of what you did to this country and what you did on the southern border….

 

This November is about one thing: it’s about impeaching Joe Biden to stop this madness and to stop this illegitimate regime from destroying our nation.

Under the Constitution, only the House can consider impeachment charges, and the Senate has the power to try any impeachments passed by the House. Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6-7 make it clear that

No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the [Senate] Members present … and shall not extend further than to removal from office.

The pending “red wave” expected in November won’t be sufficient to give Republicans anywhere close to that two-thirds vote required to remove Biden. But if the House does make impeaching the present occupant a priority, it will further enlighten an already-awakening body politic as to the gross violations the present administration has committed and permitted, and set the stage for the presidential election in 2024.

Former FBI Official Declares Government Has “No Case” Against Trump in Mar-a-Lago Raid

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, August 29, 2022:  

In its attempt to justify the illegal, unconstitutional, and outrageous raid by FBI agents on Donald Trump’s home in Florida three weeks ago, CNBC claimed that “the FBI had probable cause to believe that records containing classified national defense information would be found” at his home.

CNBC quoted from an unredacted portion of the affidavit, written by an FBI agent (whose name was blacked out):

Based upon this investigation, I do not believe that any spaces within the PREMISES have been authorized for the storage of classified information at least since the end of FPOTUS’s [former president of the United States] Presidential Administration on January 20, 2021.

That’s all that the biased left-wing media outlet could find to justify the raid: a single, unnamed FBI agent, charged with creating the document used to justify the issuance of the warrant that led to the raid, concluded that Trump’s home hadn’t “been authorized” for the storage of the documents the FBI seized in the raid.

That the mere statement made by the unnamed agent justified the raid is laughable on its face. So says Kevin R. Brock, a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI. After reviewing the 11 pages of that 32-page document that weren’t blacked out, Brock stated:

I don’t believe the affidavit articulates how a federal law was or is being broken. For those [on the left] who hold out hope that the affidavit’s redacted sections fill that gap, there is almost no chance that they do.

Brock points out that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was breached by the agent who authored the affidavit:

A criminal violation of [federal] statutes only exists if it can be established that the person being investigated was not authorized [to store the documents].

But the agent/author failed:

The unredacted parts of the affidavit make no attempt to articulate cause that Trump was not authorized to have these documents in his home.

 

The reason is that, as president, he had broad, legally intimidating authority, established by law and court determinations, to declassify any and all documents and to determine what is and is not a presidential record.

In the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of the Navy v. Egan, the majority opinion included this:

The President, after all, is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

 

His authority to classify and control access to information … flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

This was reiterated by Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law: “There’s no question that the president has broad authority to declassify almost anything at any time without any process….”

Any attempt to find Trump guilty under U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2017, is also without merit. On the surface, that section appears to apply to Trump, and, according to anti-Trump lawyer Marc Elias, a conviction would keep him from ever holding office again:

Whoever, having the custody of any such record [filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States], proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. [Emphasis added.]

But Hillary Clinton escaped prosecution under this identical law when she destroyed those thousands of emails.

So, one is left with only one conclusion: the raid was a political hit, without substance in law, precedent, or history. Concluded Brock:

The situation does not look good for the government.

 

The Ivy League-educated attorneys of the DOJ had to know this adventure had little chance of an eventual successful prosecution.

 

The use, therefore, of a highly intrusive search of a home simply as a forcing function to retrieve documents for the National Archives — and then not follow through with actual charges — spikes the potential abuse needle dramatically and will not help quiet the growing suspicion that this was more of a political [hit job] to take Trump off the chessboard than it was the pursuit of blind justice.

Smith & Wesson CEO Fires Back Against Anti-gun Democrats

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, August 26, 2022:  

Mark Smith, the CEO of Smith & Wesson, the 170-year-old iconic firearms manufacturer, finally had enough. After being bullied, harassed, and excoriated by the anti-gun Democrat-laden House Committee on Oversight and Reform over his unwillingness to be subjected to the committee’s intended effort to sully the gun maker’s reputation, his company published a letter in response.

Smith did not hold back:

A number of politicians and their lobbying partners in the media have recently sought to disparage Smith & Wesson.

 

Some have had the audacity to suggest that after they have vilified, undermined and defunded law enforcement for years, supported prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable for their actions, overseen the decay of our country’s mental health infrastructure, and generally promoted a culture of lawlessness, Smith & Wesson and other firearm manufacturers are somehow responsible for the crime wave that has predictably resulted from these destructive policies.

 

But they are the ones to blame for the surge in violence and lawlessness, and they seek to avoid any responsibility for the crisis of violence they have created by attempting to shift the blame to Smith & Wesson, other firearm manufacturers and law-abiding gun owners.

 

It is no surprise that the cities suffering most from violent crime are the very same cities that have promoted irresponsible, soft-on-crime policies that often treat criminals as victims and victims as criminals.

 

Many of these same cities also maintain the strictest gun laws in the nation. But rather than confront the failure of their policies, certain politicians have sought more laws restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, while simultaneously continuing to undermine our institutions of law and order.

 

And to suppress the truth, some now seek to prohibit firearm manufacturers and supporters of the Second Amendment from advertising products in a manner designed to remind law-abiding citizens that they have a Constitutional right to bear arms in defense of themselves and their families.

A firearm, adds, Smith, never committed a crime:

To be clear, a Smith & Wesson firearm has never broken into a home, a Smith & Wesson firearm has never assaulted a woman out for a late-night run in the city, a Smith & Wesson firearm has never carjacked an unsuspecting driver stopped at a traffic light.

Without saying as much, it’s clear he isn’t going to appear before the committee to be attacked, intimidated, and sullied. On that heavily weighted Democrat committee are such notorious anti-gunners as Carolyn Maloney, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Rashida Tlaib, and Cori Bush.

That committee successfully attacked the CEOs of two other gun makers who agreed to submit to its harassment. Smith originally agreed to join them, but when it was clear that their motives were strictly political, he told them he wouldn’t “be available” to be subjected to their inquisition.

In response, Maloney, who for the moment (she just lost her primary) chairs the committee, notified Smith that her committee has issued a subpoena to obtain various documents that the committee would use to build a case for more infringements on rightful gun owners.

In her committee’s initial demand for his attendance, she made clear exactly how the inquisition would operate:

As the chief executive officer of a major firearms manufacturer that sells millions of assault weapons, your testimony is crucial to understand why your company continues to sell and market these weapons to civilians, what steps your company plans to take to protect the public, and what additional reforms are needed to prevent further deaths from your products.

In other words, Maloney and her anti-gun majority had already declared Smith & Wesson guilty, and Smith would be given the privilege of attempting to defend himself and his company.

He saw the ruse, and politely bowed out.

The committee tried to reschedule, and again Smith refused.

Maloney ran out of patience, and on August 1 announced that her committee is issuing a subpoena:

I am writing to notify you that I have issued a subpoena to Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. (“Smith & Wesson”) for documents related to your company’s manufacture and sale of AR-15- style firearms.

 

Your company collects hundreds of millions of dollars selling assault weapons that are used in mass shootings, including the horrific murder of seven Americans and the wounding of dozens more during a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois.

 

This subpoena was necessitated by your unwillingness to voluntarily comply with the Committee’s investigation, including your refusal to testify about your company’s troubling business practices at the Committee’s July 27, 2022, hearing, and your refusal to voluntarily produce key information about your company’s sale of assault weapons to civilians.

Time is working against Maloney and her anti-gun committee, and both she and Smith know it. Come January she will no longer chair the committee or even be in the 118th Congress.

The momentum for the private ownership of firearms continues to build. On April 1, the National Rifle Association celebrated the 25th state — Georgia — to pass constitutional-carry laws. As the NRA noted:

The NRA paved the way for constitutional carry by first leading the charge for right-to-carry nearly 40 years ago.

 

Today, every state, and the District of Columbia, provides for the carrying of a firearm for self-defense outside the home in some form, and half the nation recognizes [that] the Second Amendment protects law-abiding citizens’ right to self-defense as an inherent and inalienable right.

So, Smith ended his letter making clear that he would be happy to participate in future discussions with honest and honorable members of Congress seeking information, and not harassment and humiliation:

We will continue to work alongside law enforcement, community leaders and lawmakers who are genuinely interested in creating safe neighborhoods. We will engage those who genuinely seek productive discussions, not a means of scoring political points.

As for his company’s customers, Smith added:

We will continue informing law-abiding citizens that they have a Constitutionally-protected right to defend themselves and their families. We will never back down in our defense of the 2nd Amendment.

New Polling Shows America Becoming Less Liberal

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, August 25, 2022:  

Over the last five years, the number of voters identifying themselves as “liberal” has dropped from more than a third to just a quarter, according to Morning Consult. This international polling firm surveys tens of thousands of people every day to get their opinion on everything from the Wells Fargo fraud to politics.

In 2017, 34 percent of those polled claimed they were either “very liberal,” “liberal,” or “somewhat liberal.” Five years later, that number has dropped to 27 percent, a 20 percent decline. As Eli Yokley, a senior reporter at Morning Consult, expressed it: “The left is losing the battle for the minds of the American electorate.”

The shift is happening across nearly every demographic. The share of black Republicans identifying themselves as “conservative” jumped from 37 percent to 58 percent, while Hispanic Republicans declaring themselves as conservative rose from 48 percent to 66 percent.

The share of young people — ages 18-34 — who identify themselves as liberal has dropped more than any other age group. And, even more surprising, the share of Democrats identifying themselves as liberal dropped from 60 percent to 55 percent.

Buried in the study was additional cause for optimism: The share of those who declared themselves as “moderate” in their politics, along with those who really don’t know what they are, has grown from 30 percent to 35 percent.

That’s the third of the electorate who typically carry the day in elections. If efforts to educate that large swath of moderates or “don’t knows” back to America’s founding principles are even modestly successful, then the American Republic has an increasingly favorable chance of being restored.

The jump in homeschooling during the Covid-inspired public-school shutdowns is cause for optimism. Best estimates are that, before Covid, about three percent of school-age children were being homeschooled. During the shutdown that percentage jumped to nearly 20 percent, and has fallen back only slightly since then.

On average, homeschoolers not only learn better (outpacing their compatriots in public schools), but also are more politically active once they graduate. And most homeschool agendas reflect Americanist values.

One of the key players in the campaign to educate on Americanism is The John Birch Society. And one of its most effective tools is “Overview of America,” hosted by John McManus, former president of the Society.

It clarifies, in less than 30 minutes, just what “liberal” and “conservative” labels really mean — or don’t mean. The presentation also lays to rest the false narrative of “right” and “left” in politics.

The shift in voters’ attitudes reported by Morning Consult is a welcome sign. It reflects not only the “awakening” of many to the threat of tyranny stalking the nation, but also the decades of real education on why America is unique in all of human history. More and more people are seeing through the false promises of liberals, who, according to Merriam-Webster’s definition, “believe that government should be active in supporting social and political change,” and conservatives, who only “want lower taxes and more personal freedom.”

The war for freedom is far more than that, though, and it’s encouraging that some who used to call themselves liberal are backing away from the label because of the dangerous and freedom-threatening policies being imposed on the country in that name.

Poll: Cheney Run in 2024 Guarantees a Trump Victory

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 24, 2022:  

The results from the latest poll from Yahoo News/YouGov released on Tuesday show that Liz Cheney, the loser in Wyoming’s Republican primary two weeks ago, would spoil Biden’s chances for reelection if she were to run as an Independent in 2024. She would, in a word, flip a close contest without her into a runaway victory for former President Donald Trump.

The poll, taken days after Cheney’s historic defeat, asked 1,563 adults these key questions:

  1. Should President Biden run for president again in 2024? 62 percent of them said no.
  2. If the 2024 election were held today [Trump vs. Biden], who would you vote for? Biden: 42 percent; Trump: 39 percent. A margin of victory for Biden of three points.
  3. If Liz Cheney were to run as an independent and the 2024 election for President were held today, who would you vote for? Biden: 29 percent; Trump: 37 percent; Cheney: 11 percent. A margin of victory for Trump of eight points.

In other words, Cheney entering the 2024 race as an Independent would not help Biden at all, flipping the contest in Trump’s favor by 11 points.

This is not the result Cheney is hoping for. Following her thrashing in Wyoming’s Republican primary, Cheney doubled down in her quest to burn Trump to the ground. She told Savannah Guthrie on NBC’s Today show the day after her defeat:

I believe that Donald Trump continues to pose a very grave threat and risk to our republic. And I think that defeating him is going to require a broad and united front of Republicans, Democrats and independents, and that’s what I intend to be a part of.

So determined is she to keep Trump out of the White House that Cheney announced the formation of a political action committee called “The Great Task,” and funded it with the remains of her reelection campaign kitty of more than $7 million.

She despaired that Trump remains in control of the Republican Party:

We’ve now got one major political party, my party, which has really become a cult of personality, and we’ve got to get this party back to a place where we’re embracing the values and the principles on which it was founded.

When pressed about her plans to enter the 2024 presidential race, she demurred but without conviction:

That’s a decision that I’m going to make in the coming months, and I’m not going to make any announcements here this morning — but it is something that I am thinking about.

The results of Tuesday’s poll are going to give her plenty to think about. Biden’s unfavorable rating is so high that voters, including Democrats, would likely seize the opportunity to vote for Cheney instead of Biden, given the chance.

Three of the last seven polls reported at RealClearPolitics prove the point: The Harvard/Harris poll reveals Biden has a 55-percent disapproval rating among registered voters, while Quinnipiac University’s poll shows him with a 57-percent disapproval rating among those same voters. And the New York Times/Siena College poll gives Biden a 58-percent disapproval rating, also among registered voters.

So, Cheney’s entry into the 2024 race would be a welcome relief to Democratic voters who don’t like Biden but detest Trump. And as a result, they would flip the contest in Trump’s favor.

“My Son Hunter” Film Coming in September

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, August 19, 2022:  

Conservative news outlet Breitbart announced on Thursday its initial foray into film — what it called “scripted entertainment” — with the pending release of My Son Hunter. The trailer will be available to the public next week, and the film will be available via streaming starting September 7 at MySonHunter.com.

Directed by Robert Davi (whom many James Bond fans will remember as the villain Franz Sanchez in License to Kill), the film, although fictional, is largely based on Hunter Biden’s own personal revelation Beautiful Things, released in April 2021.

The film, according to Breitbart, follows Hunter Biden “as he navigates a tangled web of prostitution, partying, international business dealings, drugs, sex, Chinese spies, a laptop from Hell, Ukrainian oligarchs, more sex, more drugs, and, of course, his responsibilities to [his father, Joe Biden].”

Breitbart makes clear that the film is not a documentary, “but it may as well be,” as it is based on numerous credible sources. Added Breitbart:

My Son Hunter puts the lens squarely on Hunter, his corrupt business dealings, his relationship with his father, and a lifestyle that would make rock stars jealous.

 

But through the haze of a crack pipe and above the din of the parties and the outbursts … somewhere lies the truth.

The film comes with a warning:

This picture contains Sex, Prostitution, Drugs, Cronyism, Money Laundering, More Sex, a Laptop from Hell, Chinese Spies, Ukrainian ‘Businessmen’, the CCP, the Selling Out of America, the Big Guy, Corn Pop, More Sex, Additional Drugs, and … Family.

Stills from the movie are themselves nearly R-rated, so viewers should be aware that the film reveals just how far Hunter Biden has descended into the netherworld of sin and degradation.

The film is likely 1) to be shunned by the mainstream media as it depicts the media’s deliberate coverup of Hunter’s “laptop from hell” prior to the 2020 presidential election; 2) to be ignored by Democrats who want to remain inside the bubble of ignorance about the true state of the Biden family and its connections with America’s No. 1 enemy, China; and 3) to confirm for Republicans what they already suspected all along.

Breitbart CEO Larry Solov hopes others will see the movie:

Breitbart has always believed freedom flourishes with more voices, not less. As we begin distributing films, that belief will be a guiding light.

 

In 2020, Big Tech colluded with the mainstream media to bury one of the biggest political scandals to protect their chosen presidential candidate. It was unprecedented and outrageous.

 

My Son Hunter is a film they never wanted you to see, which is precisely why Americans must.

Elon Musk Wins Court Approval to Gain Access to Twitter’s Real Number of Bots

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 17, 2022:  

A court ruled on Monday that Twitter must “collect, review and produce” documents from Twitter’s former consumer-product head Kayvon Beykpour and provide them to Elon Musk.

This is the breakthrough Musk has been seeking, and it could, depending upon what those documents show, be the end of Twitter’s resistance and the beginning of a truly “free speech” platform on social media.

Initially Musk asked the court for permission to quiz 22 Twitter executives about those bots, but the key executive he wanted was Beykpour.

Around the time that Musk formalized his bid to take the social media company private in April, Beykpour was fired. Although the court denied Musk the opportunity to quiz the others, Beykpour is the one Musk most needs to prove that Twitter inflated — and has continually inflated since its beginning — the number of real users the platform enjoys.

Called MDAUs — monetizable daily active users, or real people with money to spend — Twitter claims 238 million of them. Musk thinks a more accurate number is 173 million, a difference of 65 million.

Musk’s attorney, Alex Spiro, can hardly wait: “We look forward to reviewing Beykpour’s communications and will continue to seek information and witnesses until the full truth comes out.”

According to Dan Brahmy, CEO of the Israeli tech company Cyabra, Twitter has understated the number substantially, and the share of fake accounts is 13.7 percent, not the five percent Twitter claims.

If that proves true then Musk will have a decision to make: 1) withdraw his bid to buy the platform, or 2) renegotiate the purchase price down from the original $54 a share and complete the purchase.

As the richest man in the world, Elon Musk doesn’t need to turn a profit, although he wouldn’t turn it down. His primary purpose, according to his own words, is to make Twitter a public free-speech zone for its users, who will pay $3 a month for the privilege of speaking/tweeting their minds without fear of reprisals or being censored or canceled.

Musk had asked his 80 million Twitter followers what to do back in March:

Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy.

 

Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?

More than 70 percent of those who responded said no. Then Musk asked, “Is a new platform needed?” One responded: “Just buy Twitter!”

In his letter to Twitter’s chairman to do just that, Musk reiterated his support for free speech:

I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.

 

However, since making my [initial] investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form.

 

Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.

Musk knew that the company was in thrall to commercial interests selling advertising to those MDAUs: “The power to dictate policy [to Twitter] is greatly enhanced if Twitter depends on advertising money to survive.”

Musk also knew that Twitter was almost completely staffed with liberal Democrats. Many acted as self-appointed censors of conservatives, dropping not only Donald Trump from the platform but hundreds of others of like mind, including Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Dr. Robert Malone, a contributor to mRNA vaccine technology.

As Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor noted:

From the top to the bottom, these companies [Google and Twitter] are overwhelmingly liberal, overwhelmingly pro-Democrat.

 

At the top, they contribute to Democrat causes. At the bottom, they contribute to Democrat causes in overwhelming numbers.

The trial begins on October 17, just two months away. This should give Twitter plenty of time to not only reveal the true numbers to Musk but also negotiate a better (lower) price so Musk can begin the process of turning Twitter into a free-speech zone. And do so profitably.

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