Old Guard Audio ❗

Heritage Foundation Sues Biden Administration to Stop Vaccine Mandate Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / November 29, 2021 The Heritage Foundation will "fight tooth-and-nail and send the message that our freedoms are not up for debate," Heritage President Kay C. James says. Pictured: President Joe Biden speaks Nov. 3 at the White House about authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images) The Heritage Foundation is suing the Biden administration to stop its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for private employers, calling the requirement a “gross abuse of power.” “The mandate clearly encroaches on the police power of states expressly reserved by the 10th Amendment [to the Constitution],” argues the complaint filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The lawsuit adds: “It also exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause.” Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James and the think tank’s incoming president, Kevin Roberts, who takes office Wednesday, both issued statements on the lawsuit. “Dr. Roberts and I, along with the Board of Trustees, unanimously agreed The Heritage Foundation has a vital role to play in the courts to protect and secure the freedom of all Americans to make medical decisions for themselves,” James said, adding: To all of our members, to the conservative movement, and to Americans concerned by this unacceptable overreach by President [Joe] Biden and his administration, I say this—Heritage’s leadership is united behind this lawsuit, and we are going to fight tooth-and-nail and send the message that our freedoms are not up for debate. Heritage’s court action became one of the latest challenges to the vaccine mandate, which imposes a Jan. 4. deadline for businesses and other organizations that employ 100 or more to require their employees either to be fully vaccinated or produce the results of weekly tests for the coronavirus. Heritage has about 270 employees. The American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal group, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Heritage, which is the parent organization of The Daily Signal. “The Heritage Foundation has not historically filed lawsuits,” Roberts said in his own written statement. “That we are doing so now should make clear to any observer that we view this mandate as a deadly serious threat to our individual liberty and the values that make America great. Under my predecessors, The Heritage Foundation has stood rock-solid in defense of liberty, freedom, and opportunity for all, and it will continue to do so under my leadership.” Roberts continued: I wish this lawsuit were unnecessary. I wish we had an administration in the White House that respected the Constitution and the rule of law. From the unprecedented border crisis, to the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, to now this unlawful COVID vaccine mandate, it is irrevocably clear that this administration will stop at nothing—even harming Americans and our national interests—in pursuit of the most radical policy agenda in American history. Rest assured, we at Heritage are only just beginning to fight back. … I am so thrilled to be leading this incredible organization at this pivotal time in our nation’s history, and to be engaged in the trenches on the most important fights we’ve seen in a generation. On Sept.9, Biden authorized the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to require employers with 100 or more workers to make sure those workers either are fully vaccinated or provide weekly test results showing that they don’t have COVID-19. “We’re going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers,” Biden said in announcing the mandate. The Biden administration contends that the mandate is necessary because too many Americans refuse to get vaccinated and that OSHA has the statutory authority to impose the mandate. During remarks Monday at the White House about the omicron variant...

Horrific Waukesha Deaths Preventable Result of Ill-Considered Bail Policies Amy Swearer / @AmySwearer / Zack Smith / @tzsmith / Cully Stimson / @cullystimson / November 23, 2021 John Chisholm, pictured, the rogue Soros-backed prosecutor in Milwaukee County, released Darrell Brooks from custody when he should have sought no bail. On Nov. 21, Brooks drove his car through a Christmas parade, killing five adults and injuring more than 40 people, including children. (Photo: county/Milwaukee.gov) Commentary By Amy Swearer @AmySwearer Amy Swearer is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Zack Smith @tzsmith Zack Smith is a legal fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Cully Stimson @cullystimson Charles “Cully” Stimson is a leading expert in national security, homeland security, crime control, immigration, and drug policy at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research. After a summer of wildly destructive civil unrest followed by the looming shadow of the high-profile trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, residents of Wisconsin suffered another blow in the form of unspeakable tragedy. Five people were killed and more than 40 injured when a driver plowed through participants of an annual holiday parade, appearing to intentionally speed up and swerve into lines of marchers, before speeding off. Hours later, police arrested 39-year-old Darrell Brooks as the suspected driver of the vehicle. He is charged with five counts of homicide. Investigators are still looking into possible motives, including, according to some reports, the possibility that Brooks did not necessarily target the parade but was instead attempting to flee from a knife fight. Whether the act was intentional or merely reckless and without regard to others, one thing is already clear—what happened in Waukesha was entirely preventable. Darrell Brooks should have been in jail several times over. The devastation he wrought happened only because grossly reckless bail policies touted by local officials enabled the release of an unrepentantly violent man whose actions routinely placed members of the community in serious danger. Brooks is a career criminal with a long rap sheet. His history of violence—including violence toward women—is well documented, and wide-ranging. In 1999, Brooks pled guilty to felony battery with intent to cause bodily harm, and was sentenced to six months in jail and three years’ probation. Over the next seven years, Brooks had a series of short stints in jail for various drug and obstruction charges. In 2006, he was convicted of felony statutory sexual seduction for impregnating a 15-year-old girl. Brooks was 24 years old at the time. He was sentenced to probation and required to register as a sex offender. In 2010, Brooks pled no contest to felony strangulation and suffocation charges, as well as to violating the terms of his probation. He was sentenced to 11 months in jail and three more years of probation. Brooks spent much of 2011 and 2012 in jail, serving two separate 180-day sentences for charges of drug possession and bail jumping, and a 37-day sentence for misdemeanor resisting arrest. In 2016, Brooks was arrested and charged with failing to obey Nevada’s sex offender registration laws. He posted bail, then fled the state and never returned to court. He still has an active warrant out for his arrest in Nevada. In July 2020, Brooks was again arrested after allegedly getting into a fist fight with his nephew over a cellphone and then firing a gun at the nephew’s car as the nephew drove away. Arresting officers found Brooks still in possession of the firearm as well as a small amount of meth. He was charged with a slew of serious felonies, including possession a firearm as firearm and two counts of second-degree recklessly endangering public safety with the...

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in 2 Texas Heartbeat Act Cases. Here Are the Top Takeaways. Thomas Jipping / @TomJipping / Sarah Parshall Perry / @SarahPPerry / November 01, 2021 Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., Nov. 1. (Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images) COMMENTARY BY Thomas Jipping@TomJipping Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Sarah Parshall Perry@SarahPPerry Sarah Parshall Perry is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. We are only a month into the Supreme Court’s 2021-22 term and abortion already appears to be this season’s defining topic. The court heard arguments in two cases on Monday related to the Texas Heartbeat Act, which bans most abortions after the fetal heartbeat is detected (which is usually about six weeks after conception). And in just one month, the court will hear arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which challenges the constitutionality of Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks. While Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization focuses on the constitutional merits of the Mississippi ban, the Texas cases focus on how the legislature sought to shield the Texas abortion ban from legal challenge in its Heartbeat Act. Ordinarily, parties that opposed the law would file a lawsuit before it was scheduled to go into effect, asking for an injunction to stop any enforcement while its constitutionality is litigated. That’s what happened in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Texas law, however, says that it can be enforced only by “private civil actions” and removes public officials (those normally tasked with the enforcement of state and federal law) from the enforcement process on the Texas Heartbeat Act altogether. As a result, the law went into effect as scheduled on Sept. 1. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, abortion providers sued to prevent state courts from handling any private civil actions to enforce the Texas abortion ban. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit put the Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson case on hold, and on emergency appeal, the Supreme Court left the hold in place, but said that the case raised “serious questions” about the law’s constitutionality. Even though the 5th Circuit scheduled arguments on the issue of whether federal courts could enjoin state courts from handling these lawsuits for early December, the plaintiffs appealed again to the Supreme Court by way of a rarely used procedural move known as “certiorari before judgment.” In United States v. Texas, the federal government sued Texas, also asking that the abortion ban be put on hold while its constitutionality is litigated. Like the abortion providers did in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, the Biden administration did not wait for the 5th Circuit to rule, but appealed directly to the Supreme Court. So, on Nov. 1, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases—one brought by abortion providers and one by the federal government—involving procedural issues that must be cleared up before the constitutional merits of the Texas abortion ban can even be addressed. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, the question is whether Texas can insulate its state law from federal court review by delegating enforcement to the public instead of state officials. In United States v. Texas, the question is whether the federal government has an interest in the case sufficient enough to sue state courts and officials to prevent them from enforcing the law. Texas argues that its new law does not prevent the courts from deciding this underlying constitutional issue. The enforcement mechanism simply prevents blocking the law before it is enforced. But abortion providers can still claim the law is unconstitutional should it be...

Transgender Bathroom Policies Open Doors for Sexual Predators Nicole Russell / @russell_nm / October 14, 2021 A male student sexually assaulted a female student in the women’s bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Loudoun County, Virginia in May. The girl’s father was arrested on June 22 at a Loudoun County School Board meeting for protesting a proposal that would expand protections for transgender students. Pictured: The Loudoun County School Board discusses transgender issues at a meeting on Aug. 10. (Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post/Getty Images) COMMENTARY BY Nicole Russell@russell_nm Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine. An explosive piece published this week by The Daily Wire shows what happens when crime, liberal school policies, and leftist law enforcement induce a parent’s worst nightmare. In “Loudoun County Schools Tried To Conceal Sexual Assault Against Daughter In Bathroom, Father Says,” investigative reporter Luke Rosiak reveals a story about a young man who sexually assaulted a female student in the women’s bathroom at Stone Bridge High School. This incident is a harbinger of what will happen as school systems, law enforcement, and other powerful groups embrace politically correct social justice agendas over the safety and security of all. While official juvenile records are sealed, attorneys reveal that a young man wearing a skirt was “charged with two counts of forcible sodomy, one count of anal sodomy, and one count of forcible fellatio,” after he assaulted a young woman in the school restroom. On June 22, weeks after the incident, the young woman’s father, Scott Smith, was arrested at a Loudoun County, Virginia school board meeting for protesting a proposal that would expand protections for transgender students. He was dragged out, arrested, and later charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. He was merely upset about his daughter’s sexual assault and the connection to changing school policy so that biological boys can use the women’s bathroom if they identify as transgender. The school banned Smith from its property. Smith’s arrest has sparked media attention, further humiliating him. The only person who has been convicted of a crime is the heartbroken, angry father, not the young man who assaulted not one, but two women—the story later reveals—in the women’s restrooms. “My wife and I are gay- and lesbian-friendly,” Smith told The Daily Wire. “We’re not into this children transgender stuff. The person that attacked our daughter is apparently bisexual and occasionally wears dresses because he likes them. So this kid is technically not what the school board was fighting about. The point is kids are using it as an advantage to get into the bathrooms.” Many angles of this story are disturbing. Elected Democrats in Loudoun County are implementing liberal policies in school districts despite the obvious ramifications as described. The school brushed off the sexual assault of a young woman in order to continue pressing for broad bathroom policies that are inclusive to the small transgender population in high school. The school administrators also treated a concerned father disrespectfully. The story also reveals an obvious truth about criminal behavior: Predatory people will take advantage of any policy that favors them. Even though a small percentage of society’s citizens are sexual predators, it only takes a few to upend the lives of victims and clog the criminal court divisions. Similarly, it’s also true that among the transgender population, which is already quite small, very few—if any—are sexual predators. However, that does not mean sexual predators would not readily take advantage of loosened or broad bathroom policies that allow bisexual or transgender people into women’s bathrooms. The...

0

Attorney General Garland Abuses Power He Doesn’t Have to Threaten Parents GianCarlo Canaparo / @GCanaparo / Mike Howell / @mhowelltweets / October 05, 2021 Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo on Monday that essentially directs the Department of Justice and the FBI to intimidate parents who oppose the teaching of critical race theory in schools. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images) COMMENTARY BY GianCarlo Canaparo@GCanaparo GianCarlo Canaparo is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Mike Howell@mhowelltweets Mike Howell is senior adviser for executive branch relations at The Heritage Foundation. A lawyer, he previously worked in the general counsel's office at the Department of Homeland Security and, before that, for the chief oversight committees of the House and Senate. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo on Monday directing the Department of Justice and the FBI to “launch a series of additional efforts in the coming days designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.” The Garland memo looks like an effort to use the FBI to threaten and silence parents who are outspoken opponents of critical race theory in schools. That alone would be a stunning partisan abuse of power. What Garland has done, however, is even more disgraceful. Maybe Garland doesn’t actually intend to use the FBI to go after parents—maybe he knows that he doesn’t have that power. In that case, he’s trying to trick parents into thinking that he does. This tactic, he hopes, will suppress parents’ free speech, and throw a bone to a powerful ally of his political party. Even a few FBI agents questioning parents may be enough to convince others that standing up for their values is not worth the risk. To understand what Garland is doing with this memo, you’ll need a short primer on the background facts and government legalese. Starting with the facts: What is this “rise in criminal conduct” against school officials? You won’t find any evidence cited in Garland’s memo. You won’t find any evidence in the FBI’s crime data either. This claim is parroted from a letter sent to President Joe Biden by the National School Boards Association—a powerful leftist group representing many of the school boards around the country pushing critical race theory curricula. That letter made vague claims about “threats and acts of violence” against school board members from parents who oppose critical race theory. The letter complained about “disruptions” by angry parents but managed to find only one example of violence against a school official (likely a security guard), which was handled by local law enforcement. Most of the letter is the National School Boards Association clutching its pearls, aghast that justifiably angry parents are zealously advocating for their children’s interest. The tactics thus far employed certainly are nothing compared to the riots of the summer of 2020 that destroyed over a billion dollars in property and resulted in multiple deaths. Those tactics were not decried by the National School Boards Association and its liberal friends. In fact, the current vice president organized financial support to the criminals engaged. The National School Boards Association is not really concerned about an isolated instance of violence adequately handled by local law enforcement. It is much more upset that it is powerless to stop parents from exercising their First Amendment rights to push back against critical race theory in the classroom. And so, in a move that is nearly a reflex among many leftist organizations, it asked the government to lend it some of its law enforcement power to shut up its meddling critics. Garland was only too happy to oblige. In doing so, he has made a hypocrite out of himself and Biden. When Biden announced Garland’s nomination, he promised to uphold the independence of the DOJ from the...

McAuliffe vetoed a law that would have allowed parents to block their children's exposure to sexually explicit books in schools. Such as illustrations of oral sex and masturbation and Evision’s allegedly shows graphic descriptions of a man having sex with children. Terry McAuliffe: ‘I Don’t Think Parents Should Be Telling Schools What They Should Teach’ NICOLE SILVERIO CONTRIBUTOR September 28, 202111:59 PM ET Democratic Virginia Gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe said parents should not have authority over what schools teach their children during a debate Tuesday evening. McAuliffe was challenged on his change in stance, as he previously advocated for protection for transgender students and now supports allowing local school districts to make independent decisions about controversial issues. His opponent, Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin, argued during the debate that local school districts should include parents in decisions regarding the educational content taught to their children. “In regard to our kids in schools, we are called for everyone to love everyone,” Youngkin said. “And I agree with your conclusion, Terry [McAuliffe], that we should let local school districts actually make these decisions. But we must ask them to include concepts of safety and privacy and respect in the discussion and we must ask that they include parents in the dialogue.” “I’m not gonna let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions,” McAuliffe replied. “I stopped the bill that I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” He explained that he supports parents having the right to veto books rather than make decisions for the schools on which books are placed in school libraries. McAuliffe vetoed a bill, known as the “Beloved” bill in 2016 that would have allowed parents to block their childrens’ exposure to sexually explicit books in schools, the Washington Post previously reported. The legislation would have required teachers to inform parents of any “sexually explicit material” being presented in the classroom and give them the option to have their child opt out of the lesson. (RELATED: As Virginia Governor Race Draws To A Close, McAuliffe Will Not Name One Abortion Restriction He Supports) Youngkin criticized McAuliffe’s veto of the bill during his time as governor, arguing that “parents should be in charge of their kid’s education.” The Republican candidate mentioned parents’ uproar this past week over Fairfax County High School allegedly presenting “sexually explicit” material in the library without parental consent. The school system removed the books “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe and “Lawn Boy” by Jonathon Evison from the high school library Friday, according to WTOP News. Kobabe’s book reportedly contains illustrations of oral sex and masturbation and Evision’s allegedly shows graphic descriptions of a man having sex with children. The school board held a meeting Thursday evening during which parents challenged school administrators regarding their children’s accessibility to the books, according to the outlet. Tags : education gubernatorial race sexually explicit book terry mcauliffe

The Morning Brew: Myth of January 6 ☠ ⚔ Insurrection ⚔ ☠ Takes Another Blow, Even CNN Calls Out Biden Border Agent Slander FBI Informant Was Inside Proud Boys on Jan 6, Told Feds No 💥 Insurrection or Violence 💥 Was in Their Plans By AL PERROTTA Published on September 27, 2021 iStock.com/Dennis Garrels By AL PERROTTA Published on September 27, 2021 Al Perrotta Happy Monday! We’d need to be an octopus to handle all the pots that are brewing this morning. Wow: So FBI Information Was Inside Proud Boys on Jan 6, Told Feds No “Insurrection” or “Violence” Was in Their Plans Remember how we were told Trump, along with groups like the Proud Boys were planning a violent “insurrection” on January 6? Further proof that was a lie emerged Saturday. And the “conspiracy theory” that the Feds were in the middle of everything? One step closer to proven true. The New York Times revealed Saturday that the FBI had an informant inside the Proud Boys who was with the group on January 6 at the Capitol. That informant had told the FBI the Proud Boys had no plans to commit violence and certainly no plans for an “insurrection.” This is consistent with news from a few weeks ago that the FBI has determined nobody was planning any insurrection, or anything beyond trying to get in the Capitol … which, of course, was made easy by police actually opening up the doors for so many. Last week, several videos were released from inside the Capitol that further disintegrated the myth that masses of Trump supporters were storming the Capitol to overthrow the government. Revolver reported a few months ago that FBI agents and informers were not only active in groups planning to come to the rally, but were helping instigate the trouble that did erupt. A couple questions: Arizona Audit Finds “Critical” Issues With 44,000 Votes … and Clear Signs of Corruption I know what the media says the Arizona audit found. Joe Biden still won. But that’s not what the report itself says. Biden won Arizona the way Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France. Like Rosie Ruiz won the Boston Marathon. I lay out what the report actually says, and tie it in with evidence from other states, in “Forget the Spin on the Arizona Audit. It Proves the Election Was Corrupt.” Interestingly, a draft of the audit report declared: “Based on these factual findings, the election should not be certified, and the reported results are not reliable.” The Rich Guy Who Wants to Tax the Rich Owes Half a Million Bucks to the IRS Joe Biden declared again last week that he is hellbent on raising taxes on the rich. What he failed to mention is he’s not even paying what he owes. According to a bipartisan government report, Biden could owe about $500,000 to the IRS in back Medicare payments. One Hunter Biden painting sale should cover that. No problem. Which gets to Biden’s bigger problem. His history of corruption and using his influence to enrich his family and friends. That’s not me saying it. Or Trump. Or Peter Schweiker. Ask Politico’s Ben Schreckinger. He’s got a new book out on the Bidens’ 50 year rise to power. He told CBS News Sunday morning, “I found a number of incidents which there were scandals, questions of favorable treatment surrounding some of their business dealings going all the way back to the 1970s.” When You Lose CNN: Jake Tapper Calls Out “Patently False” Allegations Against Border Patrol Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris went to “war” against America’s own border agents, expressing horror at mounted agents “whipping” Haitian migrants trying to illegally cross the border. Biden promised the agents would be punished. “Make no mistake, those people will pay!” growled Biden. Except it never happened. By the time Biden and Harris were attacking the agents, they knew the allegation was false. On Sunday, CNN’s Jake Tapper ripped Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for the administration’s slander of those protecting our border. “Some of the initial...

When Politicians Call For 'Fairness,' They're Usually Lying By Ben Shapiro September 22, 2021 This week, President Joe Biden attempted to inject life into his ailing presidency by dragging out of the closet the hoariest of political cliches: "fairness" in taxation. Touting his new $3.5 trillion tax and spending bill, which would radically increase corporate taxes, personal income taxes and so-called sin taxes, Biden stated, "It's not enough just to build back; we have to build back better than before ... I'm not out to punish anyone. I'm a capitalist. If you can make a million or a billion dollars, that's great. God bless you. All I'm asking is you pay your fair share. Pay your fair share just like middle-class folks do." Of course, those who earn high incomes don't pay like middle-class folks do. They pay far, far more. IRS statistics show that the top 1% of income earners pay more in federal income tax than the bottom 90% combined — while the top 1% earned 21% of all income in 2018, they paid 40 % of all income tax revenue. The top 10 % paid over 70 % of all federal income tax. In fact, according to the American Enterprise Institute, those in the highest quintile of income earners pay, on average, well over $50,000 per year in net taxes — taxes minus government benefits received — while those in the bottom 60% of income earners receive net tax benefits. According to The Washington Post, the top 10 % of American income earners pay nearly half of all income taxes, compared with just 27% for the top 10% of Swedes, 31% for the top 10% of Germans, and 28% for France's top 10%. So what, precisely, does Biden mean by "pay their fair share"? Perhaps he means simple sloganeering. Like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez donning a Cinderella ball gown emblazoned with the words "TAX THE RICH" to the Met Gala — a dress made by Aurora James, a woman who owes tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes and who has received over $40,000 in federal pandemic aid — class warfare sloganeering is more about the sloganeering than the class warfare. No Democrat seems prepared to define what "fairness" constitutes, other than "a word I use to pander to the rubes, while hobnobbing with the rich." And Biden's "fairness" pitch has to do with good economic policy, of course. In 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama was asked during a debate about raising the capital gains tax, even if it lowered net government revenue. He answered, "I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." In other words, Obama explicitly stated that he would damage the economy on behalf of a vague, kindergarten notion of equal outcome. In the end, the "tax the rich to be fair" notion rests on a simple lie: the lie that income distribution is purely a matter of privilege or luck. It isn't. In the main, in a free market system, income distribution is the result of successful decision-making that must be incentivized rather than punished if we wish to see a more prosperous society. Some people game the system; some are indeed beneficiaries of insider deal-making. But most success in capitalism is due to innovation, entrepreneurialism and creativity. Biden's "fairness" cuts directly against these core elements of progress on behalf of political pandering. If we truly care about fairness — a more nuanced and complete definition of fairness that encompasses rewards for productive decisions and disincentives for counterproductive decision-making — we must abandon the politically convenient notion that those who earn more have somehow stolen from the system and must be punished for their crimes. Lack of distributive equality does not equal unfairness, and anyone who argues differently abandons the real world — and the possibility of a better life for everyone — in favor of the flattering lie that all roads ought to end in the same basic material outcome. Ben Shapiro, 37, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of...

As Vaccine Mandates Increase - Religious Exemptions Come Under Fire Mary Margaret Olohan / @MaryMargOlohan / September 22, 2021 Pressure from activists and mandate-minded lawmakers suggests that the religious objections of Americans to COVID-19 vaccine mandates may face more serious inquisition in the coming weeks. (Photo Illustration: photos/Getty Images) Columbia University’s Robert Klitzman shared a tragic story with CNN Saturday of a woman riddled with cancer who reportedly refused to undergo medical procedures, relied on the power of prayer, and ultimately died. “Her religious belief contributed to her death, unfortunately,” he said. Klitzman, who directs Columbia’s bioethics master’s program, stressed that employees should not be able to easily obtain religious exemptions from President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates, pointing to the extreme beliefs of jihadists and noting, “there are limits in our society to how far religious beliefs can go.” He also suggested that the Biden administration should create “guidelines” to decide whether Americans’ religious objections measure up. “The problem is a lot of religious exemptions that people are claiming … are based on myths,” he said. “People saying, for instance, ‘All vaccines are made using fetal cells, and I’m pro-life.’ That’s simply not true.” A Biden administration official told The Daily Caller News Foundation Tuesday afternoon that protecting religious Americans “will be part of the policy process,” but did not further explain the remark. From the briefing room, White House press secretary Jen Psaki confirmed that some individuals may receive religious exemptions from the Biden mandate. But pressure from activists and mandate-minded lawmakers suggests that the religious objections of Americans may face more serious inquisition in the coming weeks. “How much can we ask? How far can we push? Do we have to accommodate this? Those are the questions employers are trying to figure out,” Society for Human Resource Management adviser Barbara Holland told The New York Times. “How do I tease out who’s not telling the truth?” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, told reporters in early September that she was unaware “of a sanctioned religious exemption from any organized religion,” dismissing the idea that health care workers could be religiously exempt from the state’s vaccine mandate. “To the extent that there’s leadership of different religious organizations that have spoken, and they have, I’m not aware of a sanctioned religious exemption from any organized religion,” Hochul said. “In fact, they’re encouraging the opposite. They’re encouraging their members, everybody from the pope on down, is encouraging people to get vaccinated. So people will say what they choose.” But neither the governor of New York nor any employer has the authority to tell an individual what he or she believes, Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow Roger Severino told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Should an employer rebut the religious objection of a Catholic employee by noting that the pope had encouraged Catholics to get vaccinated, Severino told The Daily Caller News Foundation, that would amount to religious discrimination. “For employers to say, ‘you are wrong’ about your own beliefs is a) arrogant and b) discriminatory because people are entitled to their own religious beliefs,” Severino said. “Even if they disagree with their own religious leaders.” Many thousands of Americans are seeking religious exemptions to vaccine mandates, citing reports that some of the vaccines were developed using aborted fetal cell lines. Objectors also cite concerns over the haste with which the vaccines were made, anxieties over the vaccines’ effects on fertility, and distaste for the authoritarian government mandates. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, U.S. employers are required to accommodate their employees’ “sincerely held”...

Critical Race Theory Will Destroy the Fabric of Our Military Sep 14th, 2021 COMMENTARY BY John Venable@JVVenable Senior Research Fellow for Defense Policy John “JV” Venable, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force is a senior research fellow for defense policy at Heritage. KEY TAKEAWAYS The U.S. military has mastered the process that develops unity by compelling recruits to let go of their individualism for the sake of the team. Critical race theory divides organizations against themselves, and history shows that divided organizations cannot stand. If allowed to propagate, it will foster internal contempt, destroy morale and undercut the demand for excellence on which the success of our military relies. Copied In just 10 words, Napoleon captured perhaps the most important element for leading a team to success: "The moral is to the physical as three to one." Morale involves cohesion, confidence, a sense of common purpose, and loyalty all wrapped up into a hard-to-measure but readily discernible package. Teams with high morale radiate energy and meet heady challenges head-on. The indifference of those without it is equally palpable. Back in July, President Joe Biden publicly conveyed his belief that the Afghan army, with 300,000 soldiers and its own air force, would hold against some 75,000 Taliban. And yet, even with 4 to 1 odds, that well-equipped organization melted away in the face of a poorly armed militia. Though hard to quantify, morale is an essential element of effective teams. More often than not, it is the difference between winning and losing in any arena. Those precious few who have served during conflicts don’t just embrace that fact; they view Napoleon’s dictum as one of the most treasured and carefully guarded elements within their fighting force. They hold the morale of their units close to their chests because it is incredibly hard to develop and so easily lost. >>> Critical Race Theory Over the course of its history, the U.S. military has mastered the process that develops unity by compelling recruits to let go of their individualism for the sake of the team. The traits of race, creed, color, faith, and family heritage are hard enough to put in check, but in recent years, technology has delivered an accelerant to individualism. The military works to rid the iPhone generation of its focus on self through a relentless series of physical and emotional challenges that can be resolved only by believing in and being part of something bigger than themselves. Marine Corps basic training is perhaps the most effective in that role. Its graduates leave with a service culture, work ethic, and an indelible bond that is shared with all others that have earned the right to wear that uniform. Units receiving those graduates know that any semblance of cliques or individual isolation can be cancerous, so they further that bond by onboarding them technically and socially to ensure every new Marine is fully assimilated into the team. That process enables units to grow closer through the most arduous of circumstances and, when required, to fight and win. Leaders of organizations with exceptional morale will fight off every stimulus that could pit one part of their team against another or could divide the whole into favored and unfavored elements or factions. And yet, that is the very essence of critical race theory now working its way into the Defense Department. By design, critical race theory destroys unifying organizational cultures by dividing people by race and sex. And then, incredulously, it demands each subgroup to identify themselves and the others as either oppressors or the oppressed. The fix, the remedy critical race theory offers society, is to subjugate the "oppressors" to the whims of those it has predetermined to be "oppressed," sanctifying the blight of racism the service has worked so hard to stamp out. Put simply, critical race theory divides organizations against...

Thank you for listening. Keep the pressure up. Stand for your RIGHTS as an American!

Thank you for listening. Keep the pressure up. Attend School Board Meetings

Ashli Babbitt's Family Lawyer Says Cop 'Ambushed' Her on Jan. 6 with No Warning Elizabeth Stauffer August 6, 2021 at 12:28pm Despite the chaos unfolding at the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, just a single shot was fired — the shot that killed unarmed Air Force veteran and Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, 35. Unbelievably, not a word was uttered about either the shooter or his victim during the opening hearing of the House select committee’s sham investigation into the Capitol incursion. As the Babbitt family attorney, Terry Roberts, prepares to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. Capitol Police and the officer involved, believed to be Lt. Michael Byrd, a conflict is heating up over whether or not Babbitt was warned before the officer pulled the trigger. It should be noted that Byrd has reportedly been placed on a paid administrative leave from his position with the Capitol Police. RealClear Investigations’ Paul Sperry has followed this story closely and addressed this situation in a new report. Trending: 29-Year Police Vet Debunks Massive Lie About Capitol Cop Suicides, Exposes Truth Behind Horrible Deaths Byrd’s attorney, Mark Schamel, insists his client issued a warning and that he “did so loudly and clearly,” according to Sperry. “He was screaming, ‘Stay back! Stay back! Don’t come in here!” Schamel said. Although I have no background in the law, shouting, “Stay back! Stay back! Don’t come in here!” to a mob doesn’t constitute a warning that an officer is about to shoot. It’s a command. A true warning would mention that shots were about to be fired into the crowd. “He was acting within his training. Lethal force is appropriate if the situation puts you or others in fear of imminent bodily harm,” Schamel argued. Do you believe Ashli Babbitt received sufficient warning of lethal force? Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. He said his client had been guarding a critical chokepoint and prevented a “potential massacre of lawmakers and staff.” Schamel went so far as to say, “There should be a training video on how he handled that situation. What he did was unbelievable heroism.” “Schamel said witness statements back him up,” Sperry wrote. “He explained the lieutenant’s commands were not picked up on video recordings because the footage was shot on the other side of the doors where dozens of rioters were shouting and banging and drowning out his words. And he said his client could not be seen yelling out the instructions because his mouth was covered by a mask he wore as part of COVID-19 protections.” Sperry interviewed Roberts who said, “It’s not debatable. There was no warning.” “I would call what he did an ambush. I don’t think he’s a good officer. I think he’s reckless,” Roberts said. Related: 29-Year Police Vet Debunks Massive Lie About Capitol Cop Suicides, Exposes Truth Behind Horrible Deaths Shooting randomly into a crowd is reckless. Roberts told Sperry he has several witnesses who were with Babbitt and did not hear the officer issue “any kind of warning.” Roberts made the very compelling point that if Byrd had indeed issued a warning, why did no one react to it? His investigators, he told Sperry, had examined video which showed that none of the officers who were in the hallway with the shooter reacted before he pulled the trigger. He said none of them took cover or crouched or pulled their own guns as would have been expected had they heard a warning. Instead, he said that, just prior to the shooting, they’d been casually milling about in the lobby. “Those other officers were within earshot. If he’s yelling, they certainly aren’t showing any reaction to it,” he said. “If he was giving any kind of warning, why didn’t they react?” A veteran Capitol Police officer, who reportedly spoke to Sperry on the condition of anonymity, said, “I’m not sure...

The federal government continues to offer garbled COVID-19 messages that undermine its credibility and sow confusion about the pandemic

Fact-Checking 6 Claims at Senate Democrats’ Voting Law Hearing Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / July 19, 2021 "Spurred on by the big lie, these same actors are now rolling back voting rights in a way that is unprecedented in size and scope since the Jim Crow era,” Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., testifies Monday during a Senate Rules Committee hearing on Georgia's new voting law in Atlanta. (Photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images) Senate Democrats took their push to nullify state election laws on the road Monday, holding a “field hearing” in Atlanta to attack Georgia’s recent election reforms and promote their bill to eliminate voter ID and other requirements. Only Democrat members of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee showed up to question witnesses, also all Democrats. Committee Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said Republicans had the opportunity to call a witness to defend the Georgia law, but didn’t request one. A spokesperson for the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., didn’t respond Monday to The Daily Signal’s emails and phone inquiries on this point. The hearing, held at the National Center for Civil and Human Rights, included numerous assertions, some true, but others debunked in previous fact checks. Here’s a look at six big claims from the hearing in Atlanta, which Democrats titled “Protecting the Vote.” 1. ‘Hurdles’ to Ballot Drop Boxes Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., isn’t a member of the Rules and Administration Committee, but was the first witness in his home state. Warnock, who took office in January, criticized Georgia’s election reform law for “reducing the number of drop boxes where voters can return those ballots.” Klobuchar jumped in later to say, “If you’re looking for evil, you can find it pretty easily” in the Georgia law. “Drop-off boxes cannot stay open beyond the time of the early voting,” Klobuchar said, adding, “Some of these voters were working day and night, several jobs, then they can’t go to a drop-off box.” The fact is that ballot drop boxes weren’t used in Georgia nor in most other states before the 2020 election, which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Georgia election officials provided drop boxes to collect voters’ ballots based on Gov. Brian Kemp’s emergency order to address voting concerns during the pandemic. But for Senate Bill 202, passed by Georgia lawmakers, officials wouldn’t have to provide drop boxes in future elections. That said, fewer drop boxes will be available as those elections presumably take place without a pandemic. Also, the new law restricts voting by drop box to hours when early in-person voting is available. Each county in Georgia must provide at least one drop box under the law. But boxes will have to be located near early-voting sites and be accessible for dropping off absentee ballots when those polling locations are open. 2. ‘Big Lie’ Democrat senators and witnesses argued that the law in Georgia and other election reforms across the United States were prompted by former President Donald Trump’s claim that his election loss in November to President Joe Biden was fraudulent. “We saw record-breaking voter turnout in our last elections—participation that should have been celebrated—get attacked by craven politicians, and, spurred on by the big lie, these same actors are now rolling back voting rights in a way that is unprecedented in size and scope since the Jim Crow era,” Warnock said. Biden beat Trump by about 12,000 votes out of 4.9 million cast, according to official final results, to win Georgia’s 16 electoral votes. Georgia state Rep. Bill Mitchell, a Democrat and president of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, called the November election a major success. “I define its success not by our candidates’ winning their elections, but by the fact that when you have as many people vote as we did in the 2020 election cycle, with as few problems, with all challenges being dismissed—you have to...

NEA plans to destroy those against CRT

Critical Race Theory Will Destroy Our Military

Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers: What Anti-Critical Race Theory Legislation Actually Does Conn Carroll / June 28, 2021 After the House of Representatives voted 415-14 to make Juneteenth a national holiday, New York Times national political reporter Astead Herndon tweeted, “its kinda amazing: juneteenth is gonna be a federal holiday for reasons teachers won’t be allowed to explain to their students out of fear critical race theory backlash.” Herndon’s claim is outrageously false, as many on twitter quickly pointed out, including WFAA Dallas reporter Chris Sadeghi who responded, “This is the type of tweet that gets shared a lot and many will use similar logic to support their stance. But there’s nothing banning the teachings of emancipation. In fact, the Texas law mandates the history of slavery/white supremacy be taught. Please don’t fall for this.” The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies does in fact require the teaching of “the abolitionist movement, which led to the Emancipation Proclamation,” as Sadeghi notes. Herndon’s false claim about what is taught in our nation’s schools is understandable, however, when you consider how his employer, The New York Times, covered recent Texas legislation that sought to ban the use of critical race theory in Texas schools. Under the headline “Texas Pushes to Obscure the State’s History of Slavery and Racism,” the Times claims that “nearly a dozen other Republican-led states” are seeking “to ban or limit how the role of slavery and pervasive effects of racism can be taught.” “Idaho was the first state to sign into law a measure that would withhold funding from schools that teach such lessons,” the Times continues. “And lawmakers in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Tennessee have introduced bills that would ban teaching about the enduring legacies of slavery and segregationist laws, or that any state or the country is inherently racist or sexist.” Everything the Times published in this paragraph is false, except its claim that some of these states banned the teaching “that any state or the country is inherently racist or sexist.” That part is true. Here is what the legislation from each of these states actually does: Texas Senate Bill 2202 forbids any teacher, administrator, or other employee in a state agency from requiring any of the following concepts in their course work: (1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex. (2) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. (3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex. (4) Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex. (5) An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex. (6) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex. (7) Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex. (8) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race. Idaho House Bill 377 forbids any public school or public institution of higher education from directing or otherwise compelling any student to adopt the following tenets: (i) That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior. (ii) That individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin. (iii) That individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race,...

Derek Chauvin murder conviction was a pivotal event in American history