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

Republicans’ Trust in Establishment Media Cut in Half in Five Years

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, August 31, 2021:  

Barely a third of Republicans polled by Pew Research Center in June said that they trust the establishment media (ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, etc.) to provide them with unbiased, “fair and balanced” news. Five years ago, more than two thirds of them trusted the media as their primary news source.

Overall, fewer than three out of five Americans of all political persuasions have “some trust” in the mainstream media, down from 65 percent in 2016. There’s even been some substantial credibility slippage among Democrats as well, according to Pew. “This is,” wrote the group, “the smallest share over the past five years.”

Not surprisingly, Pew also reported that the percentage of those who don’t trust the media “at all” jumped from six percent five years ago to 14 percent currently.

This confirms what Statista.com reported on Monday: “The credibility of almost all the news media sources in [our] ranking was considerably lower in 2021 than in previous years, highlighting consumers’ growing concerns about reliability, bias, and trustworthiness in the news business.”

The media’s credibility has been slipping for years. In 2019, for example, ABC enjoyed a rating of 63 percent among those polled. Today it’s at 58 percent.

Similar declines are reported at CBS and NBC. The New York Times’ credibility has slipped from 53 percent two years ago to 50 percent at present, along with CNN. Fox News has slipped from 52 percent to 44 percent over the same period, while Huffington Post suffered the most grievous drop, from just 38 percent two years ago to 31 percent now.

Hugh Hewitt, a radio talk show host, law professor, and conservative political commentator, writes from inside the establishment media. He is a regular on NBC News and MSNBC and writes frequently for the Washington Post.

In May he declared in an article published by the Post that “the media has a big credibility problem”, adding, “Media bias has grown worse in recent years. From story selection to story framing, bias leaps off the page or screen and cannot be escaped. The hazard of this vast tilt left is the belief among millions — perhaps a majority — of Americans that [the] media cannot be trusted.”

That leaves those searching for reliable sources for their news in a quandary: where to go? Many are turning to The Epoch Times, which is enjoying a surge in popularity. So are Newsmax, OneAmerica News, and American Thinker.

The New American magazine and its website, TheNewAmerican.com, makes every effort to “tell the story behind the story.”

Missing from the conservation about media bias is the long and deep influence of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Established in 1921 as a private organization whose purpose was to “awaken America to its worldwide responsibilities,” it has insinuated itself into every major part of the culture since its founding.

Richard Harwood, a former Washington Post senior editor, described the CFR as “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”, adding that many members have enormous influence in the media:

The membership of these journalists in the Council, however they may think of themselves, is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their ascension into the American ruling class.


They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it. They are part of that establishment … sharing most of its values and world views.

Media personalities constitute only about five percent of the overall CFR network. Key members of the organization have included:

Several US Presidents and Vice Presidents of both parties;


Almost all Secretaries of State, Defense, and the Treasury;


Many high-ranking commanders of the U.S. military and NATO;


Some of the most influential Members of Congress (notably in foreign and security policy);


Almost all National Security Advisors, CIA Directors, Ambassadors to the U.N., Chairs of the Federal Reserve, Presidents of the World Bank, and Directors of the National Economic Council;


Many prominent academics, especially in key fields such as Economics and Political Science; and


Many top executives of Wall Street, policy think tanks, universities, and NGOs.

CFR insiders, including political journalist Richard Rovere, have revealed the influence of the CFR across the political, economic, educational, and cultural spectrum:

The directors of the CFR make up a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation. [I]t rarely fails to get one of its members, or at least one of its allies, into the White House. In fact, it generally is able to see to it that both nominees are men acceptable to it.

This is what makes The New American unique: it reveals “the rest of the story” — that is, little happens domestically or internationally (e.g., Afghanistan) without CFR influence and direction.

In the instant case Pew Research merely reveals the awakening of the American consumer to the extensive bias toward collectivism but without explaining that it is a deliberate part of an agenda to lessen America’s influence in the world, preparing it for its role as a part of a world run by CFR elites and its friends in the media, the culture, government, education, and in Hollywood.

Biden, Harris to Campaign for Newsom; Death Knell for California Governor?

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, August 26, 2021:  

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Wednesday confirmed that Joe Biden will travel to California in the near future to campaign for Governor Gavin Newsom. The governor is locked in a tight contest to keep his job thanks to a recall election to be held on September 14.

The announcement comes just two days before Kamala Harris is due to arrive in the Bay Area to campaign for the besieged governor.

Pressure to remove the governor before the end of his term has been steadily building for months, thanks partly to his policies on immigration and his prolonged restrictions on the state’s economy using the COVID-19 pandemic as cover. Hundreds of businesses have failed as a result.

But Newsom hasn’t helped his cause with his outrageous hypocrisy over those restrictions, which appear to apply to everyone except himself. Last November the governor was caught attending a maskless dinner with 11 others at an exclusive restaurant after telling Californians to avoid gatherings of more than three households.

It didn’t help that he is sending his children to a private school while most public-school students were forced to stay home under his mandates.

It’s unclear just how Biden and Harris will “help” Newsom keep his office. Biden’s credibility has been badly damaged by the rolling catastrophe in Afghanistan and his policies that have allowed illegals to pour across the U.S. southern border, including California’s.

And Harris suffers from such low public esteem that she ended her campaign for president even before the first primary. In recent polling, she rates just ahead of Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney in popularity.

Newsom’s leading contender in the recall effort — popular conservative radio show host Larry Elder — is rejoicing at the prospect of having both Democrat politicos coming to help salvage Newsom. In an exclusive interview with Breitbart, Elder said,

I’ll believe it when I see Joe Biden come here. I’m not sure he’s going to.


I understand he’s supposedly going to come here to campaign on behalf of Gavin Newsom. His popularity now is in the low forties — I think I saw 41%.


Most Americans don’t even believe he’s home — that somebody else is in charge. So it’s going to backfire.


But let him bring it in. Let him have him come in, and try to defend Gavin Newsom’s record on crime, and on homelessness, and on the outrageous cost of living, and on the way he ignored science and shut down the state to the point where a third of small businesses are gone forever.


Let Joe Biden make that case for him. I want him to come here. Let him do it….


Out of all the major political figures in America, Gavin Newsom’s one of the few who’s praised the way he handled the Afghan crisis. And it has been a disaster after a disaster, one of the worst foreign policy mistakes America has ever made.


So if Joe Biden wants to come here and lend his presence to California, I welcome that opportunity. But I don’t believe he’s going to do it.

At the moment, Elder leads the pack of some 46 candidates running for governor in the event that Californians boot Newsom in September. His lead ensures that he would replace Newsom if a majority of voters say “yes” to the ballot question: “Shall GAVIN NEWSOM be recalled (removed) from the office of Governor?” on September 14.

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.

Newsom Continues to Lose Ground in Polling

This article appeared online at  TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, August 9, 2021:  

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s popularity continues its downward slide according to the latest poll from Survey USA/San Diego Union Tribune. Quizzing 1,100 Californians last week, it found that a majority now want to recall him, while only 40 percent want to keep him in office.

What is remarkable is that an Emerson College poll taken just two weeks earlier showed Californians saying that, despite his many faults, they wanted to keep him in office. In that poll, 48 percent said they supported Newsom, while 43 percent said they wanted him out. That is a staggering decline in just two weeks.

Newsom is fighting against the results of his own policies, some of which have just been ruled unconstitutional. On July 23, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled against Newsom by declaring that his order to prohibit private schools from holding in-person classes was unconstitutional.

His “get out of jail free” rulings for convicted felons and his unilateral declaration suspending the execution of murderers haven’t helped, either. According to Jane Holland of State Crime Watch, Newsom is directly responsible for the state’s “brand new wave of crime.”

Newsom has other baggage dragging down his campaign, such as California’s homelessness crisis, the lockdowns that have either shut down or dreadfully damaged 70 percent of the state’s small businesses, the wave of former residents fleeing the state’s mismanagement of wildfires and drought, high taxes and gasoline prices, the decline in quality of public schools, the rise in land and housing costs, and the spike in suicide rates and depression. Under his watch, California remains one of the most locked-down states in the union.

All of this is fodder for the Republican opponent most likely to win the recall vote on September 14: the “Sage from South Central,” author and talk-show host Larry Elder. Since his announcement that he was joining the fray in early July, Elder’s campaign has raised more than $4.5 million and continues to widen his advantage over his Republican rivals in the polls.

The first poll, taken just days after his announcement, showed him with a 10-percentage point advantage over his nearest rival. More recent polls show him with a 23-percentage point advantage.

Part of his momentum must be attributed to the Democrat Secretary of State Shirley Weber. She deliberately and intentionally kept him off the recall ballot, claiming the weakest of reasons that were shortly laughed out of court.

Now she is using something called the “Remote Accessible Ballots for Eligible Voters,” a method by which voters can download ballots “in the comfort of their own home,” mark them, sign them, and mail them back.

But, as Monica Showalter noted at American Thinker, “When the numbers are big enough, they can’t cheat.” With the recall election just a month away, and Elder’s commanding lead over his opponents while Newsom is losing ground, the response to the first question on the ballot — “Should Gavin Newsom be recalled as Governor?” — is increasingly likely to be bad news for Newsom. Then, voters will answer the second question — whom do you want to replace him? — with the increasing likelihood that it will be Elder.

Chip Roy: Biden Should Be Impeached Over Immigration Crisis

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, August 3, 2021:  

Representative Chip Roy (R-Texas) essentially gave 200,000 reasons why he believes President Joe Biden should be impeached and removed from office. After noting that more than 200,000 illegals were taken into custody in July, Roy told the Daily Wire:

Over the past several months President Biden and [DHS Secretary] Mayorkas have blatantly and consistently refused to do their constitutional duty to take care that the immigration laws be faithfully executed, as required by Article II [of the U.S. Constitution], endangering countless American and foreign lives in the process.

An average of 6,779 illegals crossing the southern border of the United States every day in July. That’s more than 200,000 for the month and, if left unchecked, would approach two and a half million for the year.

Chip Roy’s reasons for impeachment add to those outlined by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in her impeachment filing the day after Joe Biden entered the Oval Office:

President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the presidency. His pattern of abuse of power as President Obama’s Vice President is lengthy and disturbing.


President Biden has demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to bail out his son, Hunter, and line his family’s pockets with cash from corrupt foreign energy companies.


President Biden is even on tape admitting to a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government threatening to withhold $1,000,000,000 in foreign aid if they did not do his bidding. President Biden residing in the White House is a threat to national security and he must be immediately impeached….


Joe Biden abused the power of the Office of the Vice President, enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, by allowing his son to influence the domestic policy of a foreign nation and accept various benefits — including financial compensation — from foreign nationals in exchange for certain favors.

After detailing Hunter’s efforts to sell his father’s influence to officials of foreign governments, Greene concluded in her articles of impeachment:

President Biden gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government. Through blatant nepotism, he enabled his son to influence foreign policy and financially benefit as a result of his role as Vice President.


He supported his son engaging in collusion with Chinese Communist party-linked officials. He allowed his son to trade appointments with his father and other high-ranking administration officials in exchange for financial compensation. He permitted his son to take money from Russian oligarchs, including Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow.

By enabling the flow of illegals to become a flood, some say Biden and his DHS secretary are threatening the very foundations of the Republic. This is the same Republic that Biden swore to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Instead, he is allowing those enemies, both foreign and domestic, including his son Hunter, to run wild, without restraint.

The 200,000 who just entered the U.S. illegally last month merely add to the lengthening list of reasons why many say Biden should be impeached. Of course, since there is a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress, the possibility of this happening are basically zero.

Mike Lindell Pulls My Pillow Ads From Fox

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, July 30, 2021: 

Fox News declined to run an ad by My Pillow’s Mike Lindell promoting a cyber symposium on the November 2020 presidential election. In retaliation, on Thursday, Lindell pulled all of his ads promoting his My Pillow company from Fox News.

That decision by Fox News cost them $50 million, the amount Lindell spent last year promoting his company. In the eyes of many viewers, it also cost Fox News any remaining credibility as a conservative, dependable outlet for news the liberal mainstream media is unwilling to cover.

Fox News said Lindell’s decision was only a “pause,” while Lindell made it clear that he’s pulling his My Pillow ads “immediately and indefinitely.”

The symposium in South Dakota from August 10-13 is by invitation only, but will be live-streamed by Lindell’s own network, Frank. Lindell said the ad he planned to run on Fox News didn’t make the case for election fraud, but only alerted viewers to the 72-hour marathon attempting to expose voter fraud in the November 2020 presidential election.

This was more than Fox News could handle, as the ad challenged its — and the mainstream media’s — narrative that there was no fraud. It violated the diktat from on high: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and let no one question the evil.

There is plenty of evidence of election fraud for those with eyes to see. One hour and 36 minutes into Lindell’s “Absolute Proof” video production one can see evidence of Chinese intervention into the election. For additional support, Peter Navarro has narrated a three-part series, The Navarro Report, that provides additional evidence that the November election was stolen from Donald Trump.

So confident is Lindell about his claims that he is offering to his symposium attendees $5 million if anyone in the audience can prove him wrong. He will reveal the “packet captures” from the November election, which he says will show deliberate and intentional Chinese intervention into election computers in nearly all of the more than 3,000 counties in the United States that conducted the election.

On his Frank website, Lindell wrote:

Despite the mockery [of the mainstream media], it doesn’t hide this simple truth. Regardless of political affiliation, a corrupt election system is disastrous for all of us.


That is why everyone should be fighting to find out the truth.


And this 72-hour event has been put together to do just that. Our voting system should not be second-guessed, and when it is, Americans need to stand up.

AAPS Pushes Back Against AMA’s “Demand” that Everyone Get Vaccinated

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, July 29, 2021: 

Days after the American Medical Association (AMA) issued its “Joint Statement in Support of COVID-19 Mandates for All Workers in Health and Long-Term Care,” the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) issued a rebuttal: Those workers have “the right to decline.”

In its statement, the AMA listed some 58 healthcare organizations (from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy to the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society) that all signed on to the demand that all workers get the jab.

The AMA statement made it clear that no personal choice is to be considered. No religious exemptions are to be allowed. Everyone — everyone — in the healthcare industry must get vaccinated:

Our health care organizations and societies advocate that all health care and long-term care employers require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine….


All health care workers should get vaccinated….


Many health care and long-term care organizations already require vaccinations for influenza, hepatitis B, and pertussis….


We stand with the growing number of experts and institutions that support the requirement for universal vaccination of health workers….


The health care community leads the way in requiring vaccines for our employees….

The statement acknowledged that some remain unconvinced: “We recognize the historical mistrust of health care institutions, including many in our own health care workforce.”

One of which includes the AAPS, which responded to the AMA:

[We] declare that all human beings have the right to liberty, which they do not forfeit when they serve the sick or the disabled.


The ethical commitment to protect others does not require workers to surrender their bodily integrity and self-determination and accept “the” intervention dictated by a governmental or quasi-governmental authority.

Regarding the vaccination itself, the AAPS said that merely “achieving a premature stamp of approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — premature because studies are not scheduled to be complete until the end of 2022 — does not confer safety or effectiveness. FDA-approved products have frequently been withdrawn in the past.”

As a result, “long-term effects of these novel, genetically engineered products cannot possibly be known at this point” in time. These include “autoimmune disorders, antibody-enhanced disease, infertility, cancer, or birth defects.”

The AAPS statement added:

The benefit to the public … is purely hypothetical.… Vaccinated persons can still infect others….


[We favor] insistence on fully informed, truly voluntary consent for all medical interventions.

Said the AAPS: “Workers are being conscripted into a mass experiment, one which would not be approved [for these reasons]:

No consent;


No disclosure of the experimenters’ conflicts of interest;


No control group;


No follow-up of subjects for COVID status, immune parameters, or adverse effects;


No provision for medical care of the subjects; and


No criteria for stopping the experiment if subjects are being harmed.

There is prophylactic and proactive early treatment, which is generally not being provided by the medical establishment. AAPS has produced a guide for home-based care: “A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment – Step-by-Step Doctors’ Plan That Could Save Your Life.” The guide provides detailed instructions for the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCL) or ivermectin, along with zinc sulfate and supplemental vitamin D.

Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of AAPS, asked whom the medical profession serves: the state, or their patients?

That is the question we will increasingly face as government forces its power into every nook and cranny of our professional lives.


I once belonged to all the standard societies — my specialty, my state and local medical society and — dare I admit this? — even the AMA.


But I discovered that none of these societies stood on the principle I hold dear: individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and the ability to freely practice medicine according to time honored Hippocratic principles.


The AAPS has a record of exposing the lies, canards, and frauds being perpetrated by establishment medicine. For example, the AMA recently claimed that 96 percent of all doctors are vaccinated. The AAPS uncovered the fact that the AMA only quizzed 301 of its members and so it decided to conduct a survey of its own.

Wrote Orient:

The AAPS decided to check out the AMA’s 96 percent claim….


It turns out that the AMA’s 300 survey respondents were not inclusive of all doctors. In [our] survey, nearly 60% of some 700 respondents said they were not fully vaccinated.


Of these, 80% said “I believe risk of shots outweighs risk of disease.”

The AAPS stands for the same principles as the John Birch Society, which has, and continues to, explore and expose the lies behind the COVID-19 scare.

Appeals Court: Colorado Can Both Compel and Prohibit Speech

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, July 28, 2021:  

A three-member panel of Colorado’s 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Monday that Lorie Smith, a Denver website developer, cannot refuse to create websites celebrating same-sex marriages. The panel also ruled that she cannot express her religious beliefs in explaining why she won’t.

Smith is being assisted by the public-interest law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), and ADF’s Senior Counsel John Bursch, summed up the case:

The government should never force creative professionals to promote a message or cause with which they disagree. That is quintessential free speech and artistic freedom.


Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips has been harassed for years; Washington floral artist Barronelle Stutzman stands to lose nearly everything she owns; and now Lorie Smith is being told that she must speak views she opposes and can’t post about her beliefs on her own business website.


How many more creative professionals will have to suffer before they receive recognition of their constitutionally protected freedoms — the rights they have always had in this country? Lorie is happy to design websites for all people; she simply objects to being forced to pour her heart, imagination, and talents into messages that violate her conscience.

The dispute dates back to 2016, when Smith first filed suit claiming that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) would, if enforced, violate her First Amendment-protected right to free speech and free exercise of religion. This is the same law that Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission used to harass Phillips — a case that went to the Supreme Court, which narrowly ruled in Phillips’ favor.

The court ruled on Monday that the commission could force Smith to create messages celebrating same-sex weddings, but issued a “gag” order preventing her from publishing her dissenting reasons on her business website, 303Creative.com. This is what she wanted to publish:

These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs.


So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage — the very story He is calling me to promote.

The two-judge majority on the panel put Colorado’s law ahead of the U.S. Constitution:

We agree with [Smith] that “the protection of minority viewpoints is not only essential to protecting free speech and self-governance but also good in and of itself.”


Yet, we must also consider the grave harms caused when public accommodations [such as Smith’s] discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Combatting such discrimination is … “essential” to our democratic ideals.


And we agree with [Smith] that a diversity of faiths and religious exercise … “enriches” our society. Yet, a faith that enriches society in one way might also damage society in another, particularly when that faith would exclude others from unique goods or services.


In short, [Smith’s] Free Speech and Free Exercise rights are, of course, compelling. But so too is Colorado’s interest in protecting its citizens from the harms of discrimination.

Chief Justice Timothy Tymkovich dissented, calling this ruling “remarkable” and “novel”:

The majority takes the remarkable — and novel — stance that the government may force Ms. Smith to produce messages that violate her conscience.… [It] concludes … that Colorado has a compelling interest in forcing Ms. Smith to speak a government-approved message against her religious beliefs.


No case has ever gone so far.

The majority’s ruling, wrote Tymkovich, ushers in “a brave new world”:

The Constitution is a shield against CADA’s discriminatory treatment of Ms. Smith’s sincerely held religious beliefs … [but] the majority ushers forth a brave new world when it acknowledges both speech and silence — yet finds this intrusion constitutionally permissible.


CADA [according to the panel’s ruling] forces Ms. Smith to violate her faith on pain of sanction both by prohibiting religious-based business practices and by penalizing her if she does speak out on these matters in ways Colorado finds “unwelcome” or “undesirable.”

ADF intends on filing an appeal to the Supreme Court. Wrote ADF’s Maureen Collins: “No one should be banished from the marketplace simply for living and working consistently with their religious beliefs. Not a cake artist. Not a floral artist. Not a web designer. That’s why ADF will appeal this decision to the U. S. Supreme Court on Lorie’s behalf.”

Conservative Republican Senators Urge SCOTUS to Overturn Roe v. Wade

This article was published at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, July 27, 2021:  

Republican Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, Mike Lee of Utah, and Ted Cruz of Texas filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on Monday urging the high court to overturn Roe v. Wade and its follow-up decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which affirmed Roe). The trio made the case that the original decision was flawed and the follow-up decision just made things worse. The whole issue, said the senators, is best resolved by following the Constitution and returning the power to make legislation regarding abortion back to the states.

The senators wrote that the high court’s initial decision in Roe was “controversial and conceptually flawed from the outset.” The court used the term “viability” in determining when abortion may be allowed, a waffle term that may occur sometime during the 24th week of pregnancy.

In Casey, wrote the senators, the high court just made things worse by using the term “undue burden” on the mother. They called it “ambiguous,” “too subjective,” “unworkable and unpredictable.”

Instead of wading into political waters not specifically prescribed by the Constitution — “this status quo is untenable” they said — the court “engenders unpredictable consequences” as well as “usurping the constitutional prerogatives of the [states].”

This opportunity arose when the Supreme Court agreed back in April to take on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In 2018, Mississippi passed a law banning abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO) immediately sued, found an Obama-appointed judge to agree, and the law was blocked.

The brief filed by the Republican senators said that just because Roe is nearly 50 years old, and Casey 20 years old, doesn’t mean the issue was decided correctly:

Stare Decisis [to stand by things decided in the past] considerations may be important to the judicial process, but they are not absolute. Where prior precedents are demonstrably unworkable, it is appropriate for the Court to reconsider them.

The high court’s previous decisions are, wrote the senators, demonstrably unworkable:

A precedent can prove unworkable in several ways. A history of confusion in the lower courts, an unstable pattern of Supreme Court decisions, and a persistent lack of judicially manageable standards all suggest that a precedent is or has become unworkable.

For example, wrote the senators, consider the “undue burden” standard the court used in Casey to replace the “viability” standard in Roe:

Casey has forced the Court to distort other generally applicable standards that are themselves unworkable.


Casey does not represent long-settled doctrine, rests on a foundation of flawed judicial reasoning, and boasts no traditional reliance interests.

They concluded:

Stare Decisis is not an absolute shield that protects failed precedents from subsequent review….


As the Court has repeatedly explained over the course of many decades, decisions that have proven unworkable … are prime candidates for reversal.


This is particularly true where, as here, the underlying decision [Roe] is egregiously wrong.

The three conservative Republican senators are not alone in filing such briefs. One written by Jacob Weaver, a graduate of the University of Michigan School of Law, has gained the support of 22 pro-life groups and signatures from more than 300 lawmakers in 35 states.

Wrote Weaver: “The power to regulate abortion falls squarely into States’ police powers” just as it did for 150 years prior to the flawed decision in Roe.

He added: “We argue that [overturning Roe and Casey would] depoliticize the court and … return states to their rightful place in the constitutional scheme.”

Constitutional scholar and law professor Rob Natelson was more pointed:

Judicially, Roe v. Wade was … a “rogue decision,” because it violated accepted judicial standards. Courts normally respect precedent, but Roe reversed hundreds of years of Anglo-American law.… Roe effectively voided statutes in all 50 states. Roe converted democratic resolution into Supreme Court diktats….


Roe v. Wade pretends to be constitutional law, but it’s not. It’s an absurd ruling stemming from arrogant decision-making and misuse of history.

A core issue regarding Roe and Casey is the high court’s overreach in those decisions. As Walter Weber, senior legal counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), wrote:

One of the problems we face is that the Supreme Court has acted as if it is the Constitution [itself] — that whatever it says becomes part of the text [of the Constitution].


That is not what the Constitution says.… When the Supreme Court says we have a decision that we know is wrong but we are going to follow it anyway … what they are saying is that our rulings take a higher priority than the Constitution itself.

At bottom the issue is about the right to life. As former Chaplain Colonel Wes Smith noted:

If you end a life — that is killing. Whatever the justification is, it is killing.


We need to call it for what it is.


What the people who are pro-abortion [are calling for] is state sanctioned killing.

The high court will hear arguments in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in early October, with a ruling due next spring. If it overturns Roe and Casey in its ruling, it will change everything. It would signal the end of the abortion holocaust and take a huge step toward repairing the culture that has been so badly damaged by those decisions. While the millions of lives that have been lost since 1973 cannot be restored, the lives of millions more can be saved from state-sanctioned killing in the future.

Latest Poll Shows Newsom in Trouble Ahead of Recall Election

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, July 26, 2021:  

The latest Emerson College poll shows support for California Governor Gavin Newsom shrinking. Two months ago, voters — by double digit margins — wanted him to remain as their governor ahead of the upcoming recall vote in September. Now his support has shrunk to just a five-point margin.

In that poll, when voters were asked “to recall or keep Gov. Newsom,” 43 percent said to recall him while 48 percent said they’d keep him, with nine percent undecided.

It gets worse. When asked, “Regardless of the recall effort, would you vote to re-elect Gov. Newsom in 2022, or do you think it is time for someone new?” nearly six out of 10 said it was time for Newsom to go.

It gets even worse. When asked about how he is handling California’s horrendous homeless crisis, more than half rated him “poor.”

And still worse. When asked about how Newsom handled the COVID-19 pandemic, a third rated him “poor” and another 19 percent rated him “fair.” When asked about how he handled the wildfires, more than half rated his response as “poor” or “fair.”

A third rated his response to the current drought as “poor” and another quarter rated it only “fair.”

On Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled against Newsom by declaring that his move to prohibit private schools from holding in-person classes was unconstitutional. “California’s forced closure of their private schools [violates] a right that has long been considered fundamental under the applicable state law: the right of parents to control their children’s education and to choose their children’s educational forum.”

The surge in crime that is directly related to Newsom’s “get out of jail free” rulings for convicted felons and his unilateral announcement suspending the execution of murderers isn’t helping, either. According to Jane Holland, writing for State Crime Watch, voters moving to recall Newsom “joined crime sufferers at the state Capitol on Tuesday to accuse the governor of being too lenient on lawbreakers [resulting in] the state’s … brand new wave of crime.”

Perhaps the death knell was rung when it was announced that Vice President Kamala Harris is supporting Newsom. Wrote Monica Showalter at American Thinker:

Harris is miserably unpopular … with voters, with polls showing that her ratings are underwater….


A normal pol in trouble gets a more popular pol to do some endorsing for him. Not Newsom. He chooses the least-liked politician in America, one who won’t do her job, either on the border or on voting rights, to vouch for him….


[Does it] sound like that will work?

Perhaps the best measure of Newsom’s unpopularity is this: to put a recall measure on the ballot, California required 600,000 signers on the petition. Newsom’s recall got 2.1 million. Add in job losses from business closures and wallet-draining taxes, and his prospects for survival in September are increasingly dim.

In that same poll voters were asked “which candidate would you vote for to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom?” Conservative author and radio show host Larry Elder, initially denied a position on the ballot, leapt into first place, at 16 percent, a full 10 points ahead of his nearest rivals. With 53% undecided, and Newsom’s popularity dropping, Elder could very well be Newsom’s replacement come September.

ABC News’ “One Nation Under Fire” Will Promote the Lie About Gun Violence in the U.S.

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, July 23, 2021: 

ABC News is launching another attack on gun rights, starting Sunday. Its project, called “One Nation Under Fire”, will join with ABC affiliates across the country as well as with Good Morning America and GMA3Variety, which made the announcement, breathlessly rejoiced that “various ABC-owned stations may also contribute their own reports on findings in their area of coverage.”

So, what will ABC News be using as its source to back up the attack? False data from the Gun Violence Archive, long considered to be biased in favor of more gun regulations and controls.

Said Pierre Thomas, ABC News’ chief justice correspondent, “We hope this is going to give us a better sense of who, what, where and why and that people will walk away from this with a much better sense of what’s happening.” That would include, of course, according to Variety, “solutions that might help reduce gun violence.”

Those watching to the end will no doubt have their opinions formed in the cauldron of canards, misinformation, and distortions served up by Gun Violence Archive.

For one example, according to the FBI, the media’s portrayal of “mass shootings” is more than 10 times higher than reality. The FBI reported that in 2016 there were 20 mass shootings, while GVA reported that there were 382. In 2017, the FBI reported 31, while GVA reported 346.

In 2018, the FBI reported 30 mass shootings, but GVA reported that there were 337. In 2019, the last year for which comparisons are available, the FBI reported there were 30 mass shootings, while the GVA reported that there were 417.

Why the great discrepancy? The GVA explains: “GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter.” It adds:

GVA does not … exclude … victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.

That means the GVA includes any and all incidents, including gang- or drug-related shootings. It includes self-defense shootings, domestic disputes, shootings that include crossfire as a byproduct of another criminal act, and accidents (“actions that appeared not to have put other people in peril”).

The media, including ABC News, fails to mention the huge chasm between what the FBI reports and what GVA reports.

John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, complained that the focus on guns, both by the media and the White House, ignores this basic fact: More than 90 percent of violent crimes in American do not involve firearms at all.

Lott explains that, in attempting to rein in violence, many other relevant factors are ignored: unrest over the George Floyd murder; the impact of the COVID restrictions, including mass layoffs and youths being kept out of schools; the early release of many convicts from prison; softening of bail rules that allow those accused of crimes to remain on the streets; police ordered to stand down; police departments having their funding reduced; and liberal prosecutors in many major urban areas refusing to prosecute violent criminals.

Lott also points out facts that are conveniently missing from the mainstream media’s (and likely ABC News’ “One Nation Under Fire”) including: More than half of all murders in the country take place in just 60 of the nation’s 3,140 counties, most of them occurring within a 10-block area. Gun violence there is overwhelmingly gang related.

For those intending to watch ABC News’ “One Nation Under Fire,” they would do well to remember that what is being presented is propaganda, not reality. It will be another part of the effort to separate gun owners from their firearms, turn local police departments into mere appendages of a national police force, and prepare the nation for the imposition of the left-wing Marxist agenda.

Michigan Legislators Repeal Law Governor Whitmer Abused During Pandemic

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, July 22, 2021:  

Members of the Michigan House of Representatives voted 60-48 on Wednesday to end permanently the odious and unconstitutional 76-year-old law that Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer used and abused to inflict untold damage on her citizens during and after the COVID pandemic.

The Senate had already passed the measure ending the law — the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act, or EPGA — which dates back to 1945. The Michigan Supreme Court had previously ruled that the law was unconstitutional:

The Governor did not possess the authority to exercise emergency powers under the EPGA because the act unlawfully delegates legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Michigan Constitution.

Whitmer unconstitutionally implemented draconian measures on her citizenry, including applying criminal charges for operating a motorboat, visiting a secondary home, and banning stores from selling gardening supplies. Pushback was almost immediate, with lawsuits being filed and public protests arising over those measures.

Her mandates resulted in the creation of Unlock Michigan, a citizen campaign that forced the issue when it gathered more than 540,000 signatures on a petition to repeal the law. It wasn’t sufficient for the state’s high court to declare it unconstitutional; citizens wanted to repeal the law entirely to keep it from being resurrected some time in the future. As one state legislator said, “Bad ideas never die in Lansing, they just take naps. And this one could wake back up.”

Whitmer is powerless to veto the measure, as it was a citizen petition rather than a bill offered by the state legislature. Previous attempts to repeal the unconstitutional law were passed but then vetoed by Whitmer and her veto couldn’t be overridden. This way she is powerless to keep the law in place.

State Representative Andrew Fink, a Republican, said that the law “is discordant with the principles of American government, which are designed to prevent a single part of the government from acting unilaterally.”

Said House Speaker Jason Wentworth: “Hundreds of thousands of our families, friends and neighbors changed Michigan forever when they decided they had enough and stood up to make a difference.”

State Representative Matt Hall added:

Our action today helps reestablish needed balance between the executive and legislative branches during an emergency, something that has been so desperately missing during this pandemic.

This is the essence of the unique American experiment: that citizens are sovereign over their government, and not the other way around. The lesson from history is that governments, given the opportunity, will shortly become oppressive and destructive of citizens’ liberties. Unless bound down from such mischief by the chains of a constitution, governments will become tyrannical.

Another lesson from the victory in Michigan is that it is repeatable. California Governor Gavin Newsom is shortly to face a recall election by unhappy citizens over the same excessive use of government force, using COVID as the excuse.

Unlock Michigan is far from done. It shortly will begin circulating petitions to revise another law that Whitmer’s executive branch abused, which allowed the state health department to continue to promulgate and enforce Whitmer’s directives even after the Supreme Court ruled the 1945 law unconstitutional. If successful, the new petition will rein in the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, making its orders such as masking and capacity restrictions unenforceable after 28 days unless extended by the legislature.

Tyrants can have their wings clipped and their overreach reined in only if an aroused citizenry takes action. As Thomas Jefferson said, “they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”

Gun-rights Groups Weigh in on Supreme Court Case on New York’s Concealed-carry Restrictions

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, July 21, 2021:  

Two gun-rights groups — the National Foundation for Gun Rights and the National Association for Gun Rights — have entered the fray over the Second Amendment. On Tuesday they filed an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief on the complaint filed by two gun owners against the State of New York.

When New York citizens Robert Nash and Brandon Koch each applied for permission to carry a firearm outside the home, permission was denied. The official used his discretion, claiming that neither Nash nor Koch had provided “proper cause” sufficient to justify his granting them such permission.

It didn’t matter that both of them cited their needs for self-protection, nor that each had completed extensive firearms training. It didn’t matter that they were upstanding law-abiding citizens concerned for their personal safety. New York has structured the law in such a way that almost no one can obtain such permission.

Each joined with the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) in filing suit in federal court in February 2018, claiming that the official violated their Second Amendment-protected rights. In December, a district court dismissed their complaint. They appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal in August 2020.

They appealed to the Supreme Court, and on April 26, 2021, the high court agreed to hear the appeal, but with a catch: The NYSRPA wanted the high court to rule on “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.” This would cure and close the loophole left behind in the Heller decision.

The high court instead limited the question to: “Whether [New York’s] denial of petitioners’ application for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

In other words, by limiting the question just to the application required to obtain a permit to carry concealed in New York, the high court is already, by inference, allowing other infringements to remain in place. The core right guaranteed by the Second Amendment will remain open to question even if the high court finds New York’s restrictions on its application unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, the amici curiae makes the case for the fullest and broadest understanding of the Second Amendment even if the high court refuses to consider it in the present case.  The brief notes that “New York officials only grant a permit if an applicant can show ‘proper cause’ … [but] the term ‘proper cause’ is not defined within the statute.” This then “makes it impossible for the typical law-abiding New Yorker to obtain such a permit.”

Just the requiring of a permit to exercise a right is, in and of itself, an infringement:

Requiring law-abiding citizens to obtain a special permit to keep and bear arms, whether for concealed or open carry, violates the Second Amendment….


This is clear from the text of the Second Amendment itself, which enumerated the right and declared that it “shall not be infringed.”

The brief expands the argument that the Second Amendment doesn’t stand alone but is part of the remarkable “experiment in liberty” represented by the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights:

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right necessary to our system of ordered liberty.… It is an individual right that existed prior to the Founding….

It is unique:

The right to keep and bear arms is an advantage to that system of ordered liberty “which [quoting Federalist No. 46] the Americans posses over the people of almost every other nation.”

The brief extended its quote from Federalist, No. 46:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.

New York’s restrictions contradict the intention of the Founders:

That original understanding binds government from creating policy and regulations which encroach on the original understanding of the pre-existing right that the Second Amendment protects.

The brief also dispatches any notion that somehow only “a well-regulated militia” may carry firearms, by quoting from the high court’s ruling in Heller:

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry”…. The phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” [and] it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

The brief makes the case that the Second Amendment’s position as an enumerated right removes it from discretionary restrictions by governments. It quoted Justice Clarence Thomas:

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government [the Judicial] — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.


A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.

The brief invites the high court to broaden its consideration of the matter:

This Court should focus on the fact that the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, concealed or not, was never understood, in the history and traditions of that right, at the Founding, to be limited to the home … a right so limited to one’s home would be no “right” at all.

The brief reminds the high court of the sovereignty of the individual citizen:

[In] our particular form of government … it is the individual citizen who stands as the ultimate source of governmental power and authority.


It is the individual citizen who ultimately possesses inalienable and pre-existing rights such as the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense against tyranny and violence.

The brief decries attempts by the courts to keep the Second Amendment as a “second-class” right:

Consider the value of the rights to speech, assembly, and religion [in the First Amendment] were they to be relegated only to being exercised within the home. Such limitation would neuter the right to the point of it being meaningless.

The brief concludes that “there is no historical or legal basis for the lower courts restricting the right to keep and bear arms, concealed or not, to being exercised solely within the home.” Consequently,

Governments and courts that fear or dislike arms should not be able to cavalierly treat the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, concealed or not, as a lesser right than the right to speech, assemble, or practice one’s religion.

Whether the high court listens and agrees to expand its consideration of the complaint to encompass the full and robust guarantee of the Second Amendment remains to be seen. There are six so-called originalists now on the high court, but recent rulings have brought into question just how “originalist” they really are.

The high court will hear arguments in the fall and make its ruling next spring. In the meantime, the war against private ownership of firearms continues.

Democrat Support for Biden’s ATF Pick Is Crumbling

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, July 20, 2021:

Joe Biden’s pick to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF, David Chipman, has such a sorry and odious anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, and anti-American stance on the private ownership of firearms that even the No. 2 Senate Democrat is having second thoughts.

On Monday, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said “there are a lot of issues” with Chipman, admitting that the nomination “is not where we want it yet, but there’s always a chance.”

That’s Democrat double-speak for “any chance Chipman had to be confirmed by the Senate is now zero.”

Those “issues” to which Durbin referred were reviewed by The New American in May. Chipman’s responses to particularly probing questions by Republican senators were diffident, indirect, and in some cases incoherent. When pressed, he couldn’t define an “assault” weapon, even though he had worked for the ATF for 25 years and no doubt carried one on his person much of that time.

When quizzed about looking into Hunter Biden’s lying on the ATF’s Form 4430 in order to purchase a firearm, Chipman responded, “I will ensure that all violations of law are investigated and referred to.” Regarding Hunter Biden specifically, Chipman was incoherent: “I’m not sure that it has not been investigated.”

Unimpressed with his lies, prevarications, and distortions, not a single Republican Senator leaving the hearing said he would support the Biden nominee. That means that every single one of the 50 Democrat Senators must line up behind Chipman, or his nomination is dead.

The committee deadlocked, 11-11, on whether or not to move his nomination to the floor. That leaves the issue in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has yet to schedule a floor vote on the nomination.

At least eight Democrats, not including Durbin, are having their doubts. As of Monday, Maine Independent Senator Angus King (who caucuses with the Democrats) said that he still hadn’t made up his mind about Chipman. Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he was still “working on it.”

Senate Democrat Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said he’s “still analyzing” the issue but added that he’s not “feeling the urgency” to move ahead with the Chipman nomination. Others not “feeling the urgency” include Senators Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), and Gary Peters (D-Mich.).

Chipman hasn’t helped himself with his anti-gun sentiments. But most enraging are his deprecating comments about American gun owners. His denigration made headlines in March when he told 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.”

With that, he ended his nomination. Those law-abiding gun owners didn’t need to know that he remains on the payroll of the anti-gun Giffords Law Center, or that he previously worked for Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun Everytown for Gun Safety. They didn’t need to know that Chipman, if confirmed, would advance the plan to disarm the American people as part of the Left’s attempt to transform America.

For all intents and purposes, Chipman’s nomination is dead.

WSJ Headline Misleading: Democrats Will Greatly Increase IRS Funding

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, July 19, 2021:  

The Wall Street Journal trumpeted the good news on Monday: “Senate Infrastructure Bill Drops IRS Funding.” It failed to mention, until deep into the article, that Democrats dropped the provision in favor of another much more robust measure to increase IRS funding.

Meeting resistance from some Republican senators over the increased funding, Senate Democrats instead are planning on increasing the revenue gathering agency’s budget by much more than the $40 billion that was taken off the table on Sunday. They will include new funding for the agency in the $3.5 trillion spending plan that they plans to pass using the reconciliation process, which they can accomplish without any Republican support.

Senate leaders, including RINO Ohio Senator Rob Portman, admitted that, in light of the Republican resistance, “there are other ways” to increase the IRS’ funding.

Said Portman:

One reason [the agreement to increase IRS funding] is [no longer] part of the proposal is that we did have pushback [from Republicans].


Another reason is that we found out that the Democrats were going to put a [much more robust] proposal into the reconciliation package … with a lot more IRS enforcement.

The original plan was touted as a “bipartisan” effort to spend money on “infrastructure,” thus lending credibility to the plan. A lack of sufficient Republican support, however, forced Democrats to change tactics and add the new funding in a way that doesn’t require any Republican support.

Increased funding for the IRS was being sold as a way to pay for the new spending. Biden administration official Charles Rettig, head of the tax collection and enforcement agency, laid the groundwork for the canard back in April. He said that the gap between taxes owed and taxes collected was about $1 trillion every year, and that all that he needed was more money to go after the tax deadbeats whom he said were cheating.

Many saw through the facade, reminding other senators of past IRS abuses. (Remember Lois Lerner and her targeting of conservative groups under Obama?) Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz had the audacity to suggest the proper thing to do with the agency. Increasing its funding, he said, would be a “foolish and dangerous idea,” adding, “Rather than giving tens of billions of dollars to the IRS to harass and persecute American taxpayers, I think we should abolish the IRS and instead adopt a simple flat tax.”

The Wall Street Journal failed to inform with its misleading headline. The progressive revolution continues unabated. The “rush to control the pass” continues as the mid-term elections come ever closer, allowing citizens to express at the ballot box their real feelings about that revolution.

Michigan Legislators Expected to Repeal Law Whitmer Used to Justify COVID Lockdowns

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on  Thursday, July 15, 2021:  

Under orders by Michigan’s Supreme Court, the Board of State Canvassers on Tuesday voted to allow a petition to be presented to the state’s legislature for consideration and likely passage into law.

What’s unique is that the Michigan Supreme Court has already ruled that the 1945 law — the Emergency Powers of Governor Act, or EPGA — is unconstitutional. But, as one state legislator stated, “Bad ideas never really die in Lansing, they just take naps. And this one could wake back up.”

A group called Unlock Michigan, made up of citizens increasingly infuriated by Whitmer’s executive orders and the expansion of her draconian lockdowns, gathered more than enough signatures to allow the petition to be presented to both houses of the Michigan Legislature next week. The bill would repeal the noxious and unconstitutional act, and passage is likely.

That act on which Whitmer relied as she shut down the state (applying criminal charges for operating a motorboat, visiting a secondary home, and banning stores from selling gardening supplies, for example) was passed in 1945, giving legislative powers to the executive in the event of an emergency:

The governor may proclaim a state of emergency … and may promulgate reasonable orders, rules, and regulations as he or she considers necessary … to bring the emergency situation … under control….


It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent to invest the governor with sufficiently broad power of action in the exercise of the police power of the state to provide adequate control over persons and conditions during such periods.

Last October, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled not only that the ERPG was unconstitutional, but it also ruled that the 1976 Emergency Management Act on which Whitmer also relied for her mandates “did not give Whitmer the power, after April 30 [2020], to issue or renew any executive orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic after 28 days without Legislative approval.”

Specifically, the state’s high court ruled that the EPGA “is an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Michigan Constitution,” adding:

The Governor did not possess the authority to exercise emergency powers under the EPGA because the act unlawfully delegates legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Michigan Constitution.

Whitmer, not to be denied, used the state health department to continue her orders without legislative approval. So, Unlock Michigan began their petition campaign to rein in the state’s Department of Health and Human Services. If successful in persuading the legislative branch, another law would limit that department’s rulings to be effective for just 28 days. After that, such administrative mandates would end unless the state’s legislative body approved their extension.

The core issue here is that of the separation of powers that limits just such illegal overreach by eager tyrants-in-waiting such as Whitmer. The success of Unlock Michigan serves as an example to follow in reining in federal administrative agencies’ similar overreach and abrogation of constitutional limits. Hats off to the success of Michiganders using Unlock Michigan to help restore those limits.


Pastor Received 1,500 Death Threats Over COVID Resistance

Pastor Brian Gibson, a graduate of Oral Roberts University and founder of HIS Church in Owensboro, Kentucky, has a target on his back. In an interview on Epoch TV’s Crossroads program last Thursday he said he’s being targeted “just for being a vocal proponent of the First Amendment … just for being someone who supported President Trump, and someone who spoke out actively.”

He added:

I’ve received closed to 1,500 death threats. People broke into my home, kicked my gate down, hacked all of our accounts.


It’s amazing what they can do and how coordinated some of these intimidation rings can really be. I think I underestimated what that would really be until it happened to me.

He was forced to move when thugs started intimidating his children, but they found his new location and continued the harassment.

Gibson gained national attention and notoriety back in January for telling the truth about how COVID restrictions, mandates, and lockdowns were greatly infringing upon precious rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. He told NTD’s Focus Talk:

Whenever you watch the church being shut down, you watch the freedom of speech being taken away, you watch the censorship, you watch the ability to assemble together being threatened in the name of COVID.

He then added a phrase that rang all across the internet: “The Constitution has no COVID clause!”

He explained:

The first thing that’s listed there … is the freedom of religion. If it falls, and the First Amendment falls, the rest of the Constitution falls like dominos.

He noted the root cause of the collectivist cancer eating away at America’s foundations: “I think America needs to wake up on who has the mind of your children. Because, if you can shape the mind of a child, you can shape the mind of the future of our nation.” To restore the country’s culture, said Gibson, “We have to first start with the children.”

Gibson founded a group called Peaceably Gather where like-minded pastors could learn how to resist the COVID cancel culture, rapidly reaching more than 5,000 pastors with the message of resistance.

He sees the battle as “a fight for the heart and soul of America,” explaining on the Peaceably Gather website:

There is a constitutional crisis occurring right before our very eyes in America. Many of the governors of various states see the freedom of religion as something they can step over anytime they choose.


In this instance they’ve used public health and safety to silence the church. Opposing scientific opinions have been silenced, big tech is censoring conservative thought.


The last thing that can defeat this giant is the local church.


If we allow the forces that want to take away our first amendment rights to win in America we will be no different than China, Iran, or Vietnam.


Our children and our grandchildren will be raised in a nation where the government controls every aspect of their lives. They will live in a society where Caesar not Christ is God. America would become like any other communistic nation on the earth — totalitarian, ungodly, and impoverished.

The media made much of a selfie Gibson took of himself and another man who later attended the January 6 Capitol incident. The media, said Gibson, tried to frame him by saying that he was “one of the masterminds of the Capitol siege. I wasn’t in the Capitol, but I think what they do when they create these hit pieces, they’re trying to build a narrative against you: No. 1, with the public, and No. 2, they want a legal case against you. The mainstream media works to try to spin the narrative, and to spin public opinion, before they’ll ever file charges.”

Gibson says the church in America has become soft and decadent and doesn’t want to give up its privileges by taking controversial stands:

In America we’ve become so comfortable. We don’t want to give up any of our comforts for real truth and real conviction anymore. And that’s why the church remained silent during the lockdowns [with notable exceptions]. So that’s why so many pastors didn’t speak up and push back.

Gibson said believers and pastors have to begin to stand against the encroaching tyranny:

Stand up for what you believe in. Don’t be afraid. Continue to love your enemies, but stand your ground. I think that’s what’s really needed in America.


Stop being afraid of what somebody might do to you. The high cost of living is potentially dying. I don’t want to die. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have martyr’s complex. I want to live a long life, be an old man, see all of my kids’ kids.


But if somebody has such a grip of fear around you that you can’t live or be who you are, what good is living?

Biden’s ATF Nominee David Chipman to Ban All “Assault-type” Weapons

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, May 27, 2021:

During a Senate confirmation hearing on Monday, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pressed Biden pick, David Chipman, who is poised to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), to explain his position on banning the popular semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Asked Cruz, “The AR-15 is one of if not the most popular rifles in America. It’s not a machine gun, it’s a rifle. Your public opinion is that you want to ban AR-15s. Is that correct?”

Chipman was crystal clear: “With respect to the AR-15, I support a ban.”

He then expanded on his remark, calling the rifle “particularly lethal”:

The AR-15 is a gun I was issued on ATF’s S.W.A.T. team and it’s a particularly lethal weapon, and regulating it as other particularly lethal weapons, I have advocated for.

This was the first among many lies, distortions, and prevarications that punctuated the nominee’s responses to intense probing and questions by Republican senators. The lie: the firearm Chipman was issued was no doubt a fully automatic weapon, capable of firing many rounds rapidly with a single press of the trigger. This is a far cry from popular AR-15s now owned by an estimated 20 million law-abiding American citizens.

The second statement — that the AR-15 is a “particularly lethal weapon” — is even more chilling:

Keep reading…

Trump’s Reelection Chances Increasing as Biden Economy Slipping

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, May 25, 2021: 

The latest Gallup poll reveals what most Americans already know: Confidence in the Biden economy is slipping. Just a third of Americans are “satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S.,” reported the pollster on Monday. Its Economic Confidence Index (ECI) went negative in May as well.

Under Trump, the pollster’s ECI was a robust +41 in February 2020, the month before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. It fell precipitously in May 2020 to a -33, and has struggled to recover ever since.

Gallup reported further that only 27 percent of Americans rate current economic conditions as “excellent” or “good,” while 30 percent rate them as “poor.” Forty-three percent say the economy is getting better, while 53 percent say it is getting worse.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported earlier this month that

Keep reading…

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