Trump Plans to Skip Fox News Debate, Sit for Tucker Carlson Interview: Report

Bravo.

I wouldn’t give Fox News the sh*t off my shoe. Snakes.

Why would President Trump participate in such a debate, when he is 45 plus points ahead of every other candidate? It will be much more productive for President Trump to discuss how he plans to win in 2024 with Tucker Carlson. Expect horrible viewership for the Fox debate.

The people want President Trump. The other Republican Party presidential candidates need to suspend their campaigns immediately.

Trump plans to skip Fox News debate, sit for Tucker Carlson interview: report

By The Hill, August 18th, 2023

Former President Trump plans to skip next week’s first Republican presidential primary debate and instead sit for an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, according to a new report.

Trump has made the decision to skip the debate and is currently planning to sit for an interview with Carlson, The New York Times reported, noting the former president has spent the last several days soliciting feedback from aides and allies on whether to participate in the debate.

Read more.

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

U.S. Court of Appeals Strikes Down Use of Jail and Probation for Jan. 6 ‘Parading’ Misdemeanor, A Basic American Right

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled defendants convicted of “petty misdemeanors” cannot be sentenced to both jail *and* supervision — a ruling with implications for many Jan. 6 defendants who pleaded guilty and were sentences to both.

Finally. Righting this horrible wrong took too long. Way too long.

US Court of Appeals Strikes Down Use of Jail and Probation for Jan. 6 ‘Parading’ Misdemeanor

Three-judge panel rules out ‘split sentence’ for petty Capitol offense

By: Epoch Times, August 19, 2023:

A federal appeals court on Aug. 18 struck down the use of so-called “split sentences” in Jan. 6 cases—imposing both prison and probation for petty-offense misdemeanors such as the often-used charge of “parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.”

The 2–1 ruling (pdf) by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could affect a large number of Jan. 6 cases where the U.S. Department of Justice recommended—and district judges imposed—sentences with jail and probation for “parading” convictions.

The appeal involved the conviction of James Leslie Little, 52, of Claremont, North Carolina, on a single count of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

In March 2022, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced Mr. Little to 60 days in jail, followed by three years of probation.

Mr. Little told the FBI he didn’t have any intention to go into the Capitol “but that he got caught up in the moment.”

The statement of facts in the case said Mr. Little walked around the Capitol, “smiling and fist-bumping other people,” and eventually went into the Senate Chamber and took photos of himself.

He sent a text to the person who later reported him to the FBI that read, “We just took over the Capital (sic).”

The recipient wrote back and accused him of treason. “If you don’t condemn this, never bother speaking to me again!”

The Court of Appeals said the split sentence is not allowed.

“The only question on appeal is whether that sentence is authorized by statute. It is not,” wrote Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker for the appeals court majority. “Probation and imprisonment are alternative sentences that cannot generally be combined. So the district court could not impose both for Little’s petty offense.”

Keep reading…

AUTHOR

REALATED ARTICLES:

Corrupt Biden Government Says These January 6th Protesters Should Get 33 Years Each

Jim Jordan subpoenas Citibank over discussions with FBI on ‘information sharing’ after Jan. 6

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Too Many Women in the U.S. Military? Here are the numbers.

Women now comprise nearly 19% of our total military force and 17% of active duty force. Breakdown by service follows from highest to lowest %.

  1. Air Force — 21.3%
  2. Navy — 20.5%
  3. Space Force — 19.7%
  4. Army — 15.5%
  5. USMC — 9.1%

This US Military Branch Has the Most Women

By Josie Green

Total DOD military force

  • Women in the total DOD military force: 401,651
  • Men in the total DOD military force: 1,728,001
  • Share of women in the total DOD military force: 18.9%
  • Total DOD military force personnel: 2,129,656

Active duty members

  • Women active duty members: 231,741 (including 45,371 officers)
  • Men active duty members: 1,104,106 (including 191,017 officers)
  • Share of women active duty members: 17.3%
  • Total active duty personnel: 1,335,848

Army

  • Women in the Army: 74,873 (including 17,275 officers)
  • Men in the Army: 407,543 (including 76,495 officers)
  • Share of women service members in the Army: 15.5%
  • Total Army personnel: 482,416

Navy

  • Women in the Navy: 70,252 (including 11,444 officers)
  • Men in the Navy: 272,971 (including 44,600 officers)
  • Share of women service members in the Navy: 20.5%
  • Total Navy personnel: 343,223

Marine Corps

  • Women in the Marine Corps: 16,301 (including 1,981 officers)
  • Men in the Marine Corps: 163,377 (including 19,720 officers)
  • Share of women service members in the Marine Corps: 9.1%
  • Total Marine Corps personnel: 179,678

Women have increasingly joined the U.S. Armed Forces over the last 50 years. Before the country ended military conscription in 1973, women made up about 1% of active-duty personnel. As of 2021, the share of women on active duty in the military had increased to 17.3%. The percentage of women serving as commissioned officers also rose accordingly, from 4% in 1973 to 20% in 2021. (A few nations have a much higher share of women service members. These are the countries with the most women serving in the military. )

As women began establishing themselves in diverse roles and leadership positions in the ‘80s and ‘90s, debates about women in combat took the floor. In 1994, President Clinton took a small step and rescinded a 1988 “Risk Rule,” essentially allowing women to serve in all roles except for direct ground combat. And in 2015, the historic ban on women serving in combat positions was lifted, opening the doors for them to serve in almost any military role.

Read more.

©2023. Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

Biden Regime Tells Families of Victims that 9/11 Jihad Plotters Could be Spared Death Penalty

No surprise here. Biden’s handlers likely want this whole thing to go away, as does everyone else, which is why it has gone on so long without these jihadis being tried or sentenced. No one wants to deal with jihadis; they’d rather pretend they don’t exist.

Biden administration tells 9/11 families that attack mastermind, 4 others could be spared death penalty

by Victor Nava, New York Post, August 16, 2023:

The Pentagon and FBI have notified some of the families of victims of the 9/11 attacks that suspected terrorist mastermind Kalid [sic] Sheikh Mohammed and four other defendants could be spared the death penalty under plea agreements being considered by the Biden administration.

The notice came in the form of a letter, obtained by the Associated Press, that was sent to 9/11 families as the government explores how to resolve the more than decade-long prosecution of the alleged terrorists.

“The Office of the Chief Prosecutor has been negotiating and is considering entering into pre-trial agreements,” the letter informs families, adding that while no plea agreement “has been finalized, and may never be finalized, it is possible that a [pre-trial agreement] in this case would remove the possibility of the death penalty.”

The Associated Press reports that in the letter, dated Aug. 1, military prosecutors pledge to consider the views of the 9/11 families before accepting any plea deals, and the note asks recipients to respond to the FBI’s victim services division by Monday with any comments or questions about the potential agreements.

The case involving Mohammed and the four others currently being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been mired in legal disputes and delays, particularly concerning the “enhanced interrogation techniques” used by CIA operatives after the men were apprehended….

No trial date has been set for the five suspected 9/11 conspirators.

The Trump administration had previously ruled out any plea bargains with the suspected terrorists, who have been held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp since 2006….

Read more.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State (ISIS) Supporter Encourages Supporters Following Killing Of Fourth Leader, Predicts Revival Of ISIS, Collapse Of U.S. Through Cyberattacks

Utah: Muslim shoots teen girlfriend after she attends party without him, ‘treats her like she is his property’

The New York Times and Israel’s ‘Collapsing Economy’

UK: Muslim boasts about churches becoming mosques, ‘Islam is here to stay’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Investigators Discover Trafficked Children Held at Shuttered Walmarts!

This shocking revelation by N. Morgan shows the inhumanity of those who profit from the sale of God’s children.

WATCH: Michael Yon and Ann Vandersteel of Right Now News join The Alex Jones Show to break down what they found when they discovered trafficked children being held at shuttered Walmarts. NOTE: Run at 50:00 minute mark.

Stories Contributed by N. Morgan

©2023. N. Morgan, Michael Yon and Right Now News. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Three New Jersey School Districts Sued Over Transgenders Policies

Democrats Are Prosecuting Donald Trump for Election Interference While They’re Interfering in the 2024 Election

In Way That Has Never Happened in American History.


“The irony of the whole mess, they are prosecuting Donald Trump for election interference and they are interfering in way that has never happened in American history with 2024 election. They are going after the leading candidate and trying to emasculate or neuter hi and affect the way people have a choice.” — Victor Davis Hanson

There is no  historical precedent in American history.

“Do you know any figure in American criminal history who was the subject of four simultaneous indictments in four different jurisdictions, in four different states? I don’t. No mafia figure, no mass murderer. Its coordinated effort to destroy Trump.”

Watch this Victor Davis Hanson interview:

Victor Davis Hanson: The Irony of Charging Trump With Election Interference

Epoch Times • American Thought Leaders

“That’s the irony of the whole mess: They are prosecuting Donald Trump for election interference and they’re interfering in a way that’s never happened in American history. With the 2024 election, they’re going after the leading candidate and trying to emasculate him or neuter him and affect the way that people have a choice. They have a choice whether to vote for him or not vote for him, but not if he’s in jail. And that seems to be the aim.”
In this episode, I sit down with classist and military historian Victor Davis Hanson to get his take on the latest indictment against former President Donald Trump.

“Do you know any figure in American criminal history that was the subject of four simultaneous indictments, in four different jurisdictions, in four different states? I don’t. No mafia figure. No mass murderer. So, it’s a coordinated effort to destroy him,” says Mr. Hanson.

He argues that charging President Trump on the basis of election interference is an attack on the First Amendment, and sets a dangerous precedent.

“Al Gore challenged the 2000 election after it had been basically certified … 2004, Barbara Boxer: 32 Democrats tried to stop the certification of Ohio electors … And then, of course, in 2016, we had Hollywood celebrities coordinated to go on television and beg the electors to renounce their constitutional duties and vote against the popular vote count in their particular state,” says Mr. Hanson. “All of that, according to Jack Smith or Fani Willis, would be racketeering or conspiracy to deny the American people their actual vote or to try to disrupt the election process. And so, we’re weaponizing every aspect of the First Amendment.”

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Major Donor-Advised Fund Manager Allegedly Blocked Anonymous Gifts To Conservative Orgs, Complaint Says

These Are The Biggest Lies Joe Biden Told About Hunter’s Foreign Influence Peddling

‘I’ve Got To Give The Right Credit’: Scarborough Admits The ‘Trump Right’ Played The Hunter Scandals ‘Masterfully’

Biden Official Ducks Daily Caller Reporter’s Question About Hunter Biden’s Foreign Business Dealings

WATCH: Evidence of Mass Voter Fraud in 2020 Election

Biden Celebrates the First Year of the Inflationary “Inflation Reduction Act”, “I Wish I Hadn’t Called It That” As Inflation Continues to Rise

NATIONAL DISGRACE: Photos Leaked of Horrific January 6 Prisoner Abuse – Tortured 5 Months in Isolation in a Closet Room with Light on and a Bucket for a Toilet, HELD WITHOUT TRIAL

Biden Regime in Plea Negotiations With 9/11 Mass-Murdering Mastermind, 4 Other Jihadis

RELATED VIDEO: Victor Davis Hanson: The Case For Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Did Many Texas Republicans Betray Their Constituents

In the ever-shifting landscape of American politics, the call for unity among conservatives remains a timeless truth. Recent events in Texas, however, have cast a shadow of doubt and disheartenment among staunch Republicans. The impeachment of Ken Paxton, a long-standing pillar of conservative values, by some members of his party, has sparked division within the Texas Republican ranks. This article delves into why this impeachment not only seems ill-conceived but, more significantly, how it stands as a betrayal of the principles that should firmly unite all Republicans.

Ken Paxton: A Resounding Conservative Voice

Ken Paxton has etched his name as a steadfast conservative voice in Texas politics, defending the values and principles cherished by Republicans. From his unwavering advocacy of Second Amendment rights to his robust defense of religious liberty, Paxton has consistently demonstrated his commitment to the conservative cause.

The Unfounded Impeachment

The decision by a faction of Texas Republicans to back the impeachment of Ken Paxton has left conservatives bewildered. The charges against him appear flimsy at best, and the timing of this impeachment raises concerns of political opportunism. The Republican Party must safeguard its integrity by ensuring that impeachment proceedings are rooted in genuine concerns rather than partisan maneuvering.

Intra-Party Division

Perhaps the most disheartening consequence of this impeachment is its deep division within the Texas Republican Party. At a juncture when conservatives should be rallying together to safeguard their principles, internal strife weakens the party’s ability to confront the left’s policies effectively. Unity is the cornerstone of achieving conservative goals, and this impeachment threatens to erode that unity.

The Peril of Playing into the Left’s Hands

Amid these challenges, it is critical to acknowledge the gravity of these truths:

The Fragile State of Conservatism: Texas, as a bulwark of traditional conservative values, stands at the forefront of preserving these ideals in an era under national scrutiny.

Unity Amidst Opposition: Conserving unity is paramount, particularly with the left poised to exploit divisions within the conservative movement.

Aiding the Opposition: The impeachment of Ken Paxton provides the left with a potent narrative to depict the Republican Party as fractured, bolstering their efforts to discredit conservatism.

Long-term Ramifications: Beyond immediate political consequences, the left seeks to weaken conservatism’s foundation. If this impeachment is portrayed as an internal crisis, it could undermine the credibility of conservative values.

The Power of Perception: Recognizing the potency of optics in shaping public opinion is crucial. The left will wield this impeachment as a narrative to portray conservatism as waning, attracting wavering voters and galvanizing their base.

Strength in Conservative Unity: Texas Republicans must understand that unity is their greatest strength. They can effectively counter the left’s advances by presenting a united front and resolutely upholding conservative values.

Broad Implications: The wider consequences of their actions must be grasped by Texas Republicans. Mishandling this impeachment could inadvertently bolster the left’s efforts to weaken conservatism’s foundation in the state.

The Consequences of Abandoning Ken Paxton

Ken Paxton’s unwavering commitment to defending conservative principles is undeniable. Whether in legal battles over immigration policy or preserving religious liberty, his record speaks volumes. Abandoning him amid what many perceive as unfounded charges sends a disheartening message to conservative leaders across Texas. It tells them that even their most ardent efforts to advance the conservative cause may not be enough to shield them from internal political turmoil, potentially jeopardizing their positions in office.

As the dust settles from these internal struggles, conservatives risk division and priming themselves for potential removal from office. It is crucial, then, that Texas Republicans carefully consider the implications of their choices on the stability and future of conservative leadership in the state. They betrayed their constituents. Period. And it would do well for them to go over these obvious points once again:

Undermining Trust in Leadership: Paxton’s record in defending conservative values is unblemished. Abandoning him in the face of questionable charges raises doubts about the party’s commitment to its own, potentially eroding trust in its leadership.

Implications for Future Leadership: Leaders often serve as inspirations for emerging politicians. Abandoning Paxton may deter aspiring conservative leaders, who fear their dedication to the conservative cause won’t shield them from internal turmoil.

Diminished Advocacy Effectiveness: Unity and determination are the lifeblood of the conservative movement. The abandonment of a prominent figure like Paxton may hinder advocacy efforts, creating a leadership void that impedes traditional policy objectives.

Potential Loss of Conservative Votes: If conservative voters perceive their elected officials as failing to support staunch conservatives like Paxton, disillusionment may lead to decreased voter turnout, affecting electoral prospects.

Sending a Message to Opponents: Abandoning a prominent conservative figure inadvertently communicates to opponents that the conservative movement is susceptible to internal divisions, potentially encouraging them.

Impact on Conservative Agenda: A unified front is essential with the left’s growing challenges. Impeaching Paxton may divert resources from this effort, jeopardizing the achievement of conservative policy goals.

In the face of mounting challenges from the left, Texas Republicans must stand united and unwavering in their commitment to conservative values. The impeachment of Ken Paxton, seemingly founded on shaky grounds, threatens to weaken the conservative movement and hinder their ability to effectively oppose the left’s policies. Now, more than ever, Texas Republicans must put aside internal divisions and focus on the shared principles that should bind them together.

Ken Paxton deserves the steadfast support of his fellow Republicans, for the future of conservatism in Texas depends on it.

©2023. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

The GOP Primary is Over

“Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.” — Isaiah 6:8, King James Version (KJV)


The first GOP presidential primary will begin on January 15th, 2024 with the Iowa Republican caucuses.

However, we believe that the primary is over.

Why?

Because of the persecution and prosecution of the 79+ million voters and their leader President Donald J. Trump who are part and parcel of the Make America Great movement.

Each and every time an attack is made against either Trump or a member of the MAGA movement the movement gets stronger and stronger.

Why?

Here are some reasons that the opponents of the MAGA movement are losing ground:

  1. Every time President Donald J. Trump is indicted his poll numbers go up and the MAGA movement gets stronger.
  2. Every time any patriot is harassed, arrested, tried, convicted and put in prison the MAGA movement gets stronger.
  3. Every time the truth is told and then shadow banned, deplatformed or attacked the MAGA movement gets stronger.
  4. Every time the traitors protect their fellow traitors and their families the MAGA movement gets stronger.
  5. Every time Americans fill up their gas tanks, purchase groceries, pay their bills, see their retirement accounts shrinking, the MAGA movement gets stronger.
  6. Every time Americans see how lawless their communities have become the MAGA movement gets stronger.
  7. Every time Americans see our borders violated and our immigration laws ignored the MAGA movement gets stronger.
  8. Every time Americans go to their doctors and see how big government has intruded into their patient/doctor relationship the MAGA movement gets stronger.
  9. Every time Americans see one racial group being given special privileges over other racial groups the MAGA movement gets stronger.
  10. Every time Americans watch the incompetence of the current administration the MAGA movement gets stronger.
  11. Every time Americans learn the truth about what really happened during the 2020 election, and the massive fraud that took place, the MAGA movement gets stronger.
  12. Every time Americans learn the truth about what really happened on January 6, 2021 Save America rally the MAGA movement gets stronger.

Every day since January 20th, 2021 Americans have learned NOT to trust their government, from the school house to the White House, less and less and therefore the MAGA movement keeps getting stronger and stronger.

A new poll has shown that Americans do not support how Department of Justice handled the Hunter Biden investigation.

Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?

In an email President Donald J. Trump wrote,

We are living through the darkest chapter of American history.

We are watching the ruling regime try to IMPRISON its opposition. Nothing like this has ever before happened in America.

I will continue to speak out against the disturbing downfall of our once great country – but there’s one thing you will NEVER hear me say…

You will never hear me feel sorry for myself. You will never hear me lose hope in our country.

As dark as these days may be, our national history is filled with peaceful patriots who REFUSED to give up even during the toughest times imaginable.

There were many times when the cause of our Founding Fathers looked bleak. The odds were certainly not in their favor.

They were standing up to the largest empire the world had ever seen.

Imagine if in 1775, the Founders decided that their mission was impossible and so they dropped to their knees and surrendered their noble quest for freedom. America never would’ve existed.

But they didn’t give up. Because they embodied that age-old adage: “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.”

The truth is: nothing great in life ever comes easily — and what could be greater than reclaiming our American Independence from a corrupt, self-serving regime that attempts to imprison its opposition?

When I chose to run against the ruling class as a complete political outsider, I knew what I was getting myself into.

I knew that the Deep State would use the full weight of the federal government to try and take me down.

But the Deep State made one massive mistake…

They didn’t realize that they wouldn’t just have to take me down, but the millions and millions of hardworking Americans who refuse to surrender our country as well.

Thanks to YOU, our movement is stronger than ever before.

Together, we have defied every narrative, we have outsmarted the so-called experts, and we have trumped the special interest globalist donors.

So, let me once again say to all our haters and enemies who want to put me BEHIND BARS for the rest of my life as an innocent man — I WILL NEVER SURRENDER OUR MISSION.

We will prevail against these vicious witch hunts.

We will win back the White House.

We will save America from tyranny.

And we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

[Emphasis added]

The Bottom Line

It’s the economy, stupid!

BIDENOMICS IS BEATING DOWN EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN WORKER AND HIS OR HER FAMILY!

Trump Shreds Biden Economy, ‘Inflation, Taxation, Failure’

Never give up. Never surrender. We are winning even though the legacy media wants us to think that we are losing.

How do we know?

The GOP primary race for president is over.

Any questions?

©2023. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here’s The Fake Name Joe Biden Used To Schedule A Discussion With Ukraine’s Former President

Americans Do Not Support How DOJ Handled The Hunter Biden Investigation: POLL

Despite Massive ‘Bidenomics’ Push, Voters Still Don’t Trust Biden To Handle Economy

Utah Rep, Former NFL Star Burgess Owens Blasts Biden, Announces 2024 Endorsement For Donald Trump

‘Huge Victory’: 5th Circuit Rules Against Mailing Abortion Pills and Ignoring Women’s Injuries

The Biden administration suffered a major setback, as a federal appeals court has ruled the abortion industry cannot send the abortion pill through the mail, nor ignore the life-threatening harms suffered by the women who take it. The unanimous decision, which pro-life advocates say could save tens of thousands of lives, likely places the pro-life movement and the abortion lobby on another collision course for the Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, ruled against laxer safety standards placed on the abortion pill by the Obama and Biden administrations. In the case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a collection of doctors and OB-GYNs represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom argued the FDA had negligently abused its expedited approval of the chemical abortion drug mifepristone in 2000 for political purposes.

The panel believed the doctors waited too long to file a legal challenge, as the statute of limitations had likely expired. But it overturned abortion expansions made in 2021 by the Biden administration and in 2016 by the Obama-Biden administration. Wednesday’s ruling:

  • reduces the number of weeks mifepristone may be dispensed from 10 weeks to seven;
  • stipulates that only a physician may prescribe the pill, also known as RU-486;
  • ends telemed abortions by requiring an abortion-minded woman to have three in-person visits with a doctor: the first to confirm pregnancy and to take mifepristone, the second to take misoprostol, and a follow-up to check for adverse effects caused by the chemical abortion;
  • bars abortion pills from being sent through the mail; and
  • mandates that abortionists report all adverse events caused by mifepristone, not merely when the pill causes a woman’s death.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called the ruling a “significant victory for the health and safety of women.” Former Congressman Jody Hice said the judgment constitutes “a huge, huge victory for the pro-life movement as a whole and for protecting the health of women.”

The Biden administration “unlawfully allowed for mail-order abortions,” ADF senior counsel Erin Hawley told Hice on “Washington Watch” Thursday. “The Fifth Circuit’s decision puts an end to that.” The decision “makes good on the promise of Dobbs” by stopping abortion activists in Democrat-controlled states from shipping mifepristone into pro-life states, eviscerating state pro-life protections for the unborn.

The ruling reversed abortion-expanding executive actions taken by two Democratic administrations. Barack Obama and Joe Biden both moved to change the rules governing the distribution of mifepristone, known as Risk Evaluation and Mitigation System (REMS). In 2016, the Obama-Biden administration said abortionists no longer had to report serious side effects of the abortion pill to the FDA’s Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS), only deaths. In December 2021, Biden’s FDA allowed the abortion pills to be prescribed online, without a medical check-up to verify the woman does not have an ectopic pregnancy, or that she is pregnant at all. The impact weighed heavily on the panel.

“In loosening mifepristone’s safety restrictions, FDA failed to address several important concerns about whether the drug would be safe for the women who use it,” wrote Judge Jennifer Elrod in the majority opinion. “It failed to consider the cumulative effect of removing several important safeguards at the same time.”

One of the plaintiffs in the case, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologist (AAPLOG), told The Washington Stand the ruling is “a first step towards reprioritizing women’s health over the interests of the abortion industry and its allies within our profession.” FRC senior fellow Meg Kilgannon stressed that, although the abortion pill is “never safe for the baby” — “the baby is going to die” in any abortion — these terms constitute a “huge improvement over” existing practices. Giving abortion pills directly to the mother is “medically much safer for women” than shipping them via the mail, because it “ensures that no third party can have access to them and then further exploit women: a trafficker, a human trafficker, someone who would give these drugs to a woman unbeknownst to her.”

Pro-life advocates “should be cautiously optimistic” as the case moves forward, Rev. Jim Harden of CompassCare told TWS. “Pending the Supreme Court’s review, the drug remains available to women without medical oversight. Furthermore, the abortion industry continues to illegally ship the drug to women’s homes in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1461 and 1462,” conventionally known as the Comstock Act. Two days after Christmas 2022, Biden’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion that pharmacies may mail or ship abortion pills to pro-life states.

These measures will not take effect immediately, if at all. The Supreme Court issued a stay requiring the case to be fully adjudicated, possibly all the way to the High Court, before the appeals court ruling can take effect. Justices have not yet indicated if they plan to hear the case without a conflicting ruling from another court.

The panoply of possible harms has multiplied as U.S. chemical abortions in the U.S. doubled between 2011 and 2020. Mifepristone now accounts for 54% of all U.S. abortions, according to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. The current regimen of unsupervised “mail-order abortion pills put thousands of women and girls at risk of serious complications from abortion pills every year,” said Katie Daniel, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America’s state policy director.

Studies have documented that the two-drug abortion cocktail causes four times the level of harmful side effects for women than surgical abortions. The FDA documented 4,207 adverse events from mifepristone use — including 26 deaths, 1,045 hospitalizations, 603 events requiring a blood transfusion, and 413 infections between 2000 and 2021. One study found that as many as 35 of every 100 women who ingest both pills will end up in the emergency room. In a pending lawsuit in New York City, a 16-year-old girl swore that mifepristone left her permanently “sick, sore, lame and disabled” — and caused her child, who survived, to be born with “profound birth defects.”

“I’ve personally treated many women for complications from the abortion pill (mifepristone and misoprostol), including performing emergency surgery on a woman who bled for two months after receiving these drugs,” noted Dr. Ingrid Skop, an OB-GYN who serves as vice president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. “Those promoting unsupervised DIY abortion pills clearly prioritize the deaths of unborn children over the health and safety of women.”

A majority (55%) of women who consider themselves “pro-choice” regret their decision to take mifepristone, according to a national survey from Support After Abortion. One-third of women subjected to a chemical abortion “reported an adverse change” in their lives, such as “depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and thoughts of suicide,” the group found.

Mail-order abortion “lacks any sort of meaningful medical oversight and places women in danger of serious, life-threatening complications, and ends the lives of unborn children,” Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, told TWS. “The FDA has a solemn duty to prioritize health and safety over politics and should be held accountable for failing to do so.”

The Fifth Circuit partially affirmed and partially vacated a stronger decision from U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, who ruled on April 7 that FDA wrongly approved mifepristone in 2000. They allowed the drug to be dispensed according to 2016 standards and allowed a 2019 motion for the name-brand Mifeprex to be dispensed as a generic drug.

Pro-life advocates hope if and when the case comes before the Supreme Court, justices will reconsider mifepristone’s controversial approval in 2000, which they contend took place under political pressure from the Clinton administration. In doing so, they state, the FDA violated the Administration Procedure Act.

“The FDA, just like any other agency, has to follow the rules. They didn’t do that for chemical abortion. They bowed to political pressure,” Hawley told Hice. The courts should view the litigation “not as an abortion case, but as a case in which an agency simply failed to follow the rules.” One of the panel’s judges — Judge James Ho, a Trump appointee — dissented that the FDA’s approval of mifepristone should be reversed, pulling mifepristone off all pharmaceutical shelves.

“The FDA exists to protect Americans from dangerous drugs, yet numerous pro-abortion presidents used the agency as a political tool to promote elective abortion at the expense of pregnant women and their preborn children,” Texas Right to Life president John Seago told The Washington Stand. “We hope the court will take accusations against the FDA seriously and will fairly examine the agency’s negligent and politically-motivated approval of this deadly abortion drug over the last 23 years.”

Multiple levels of the Biden administration immediately registered their outrage at Wednesday’s ruling. A spokesperson for Biden’s Justice Department said the administration “strongly disagrees with the Fifth Circuit’s decision” and “will be seeking Supreme Court review.” Vice President Kamala Harris deemed the decision “a threat to a woman’s freedom.” Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra stated that banning the abortion pill would have “a devastating impact on women’s health” by denying them “the medications they need.”

The Biden administration has lost no chance to push back against the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion to the democratic process for the first time in 49 years. Last July, the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent a guidance to 60,000 pharmacies threatening to take legal “corrective action” against anyone who refuses to dispense the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone to “pregnant people” and explain “how to take” it. Others continually urge the administration to go further. Before the ruling even came down, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) advised the Biden administration to “ignore the ruling” and “keep this life-saving drug on the market,” likening lawlessness to Abraham Lincoln’s actions freeing the slaves.

Deep-blue states including CaliforniaIllinoisMarylandMassachusettsNew YorkOregon, and Washington state have begun stockpiling mifepristone (and in some cases, misoprostol). So-called “abortion sanctuaries” have promised not to prosecute abortionists who mail mifepristone across state lines, in violation of state or federal law. “Because of this, women are more at risk for chemical abortion injury now than ever before,” said CompassCare’s Jim Harden.

If justices agree to take up the decision, yet another Supreme Court ruling on abortion could impact the 2024 elections. Perkins noted that the three-judge panel — Judges James Ho, Cory Wilson, and Jennifer Walker Elrod — were all appointed by pro-life presidents, highlighting how Christians’ votes lead to concrete decisions that save lives. “With two of the justices on the Fifth Circuit appointed by President Trump” — and Elrod named to the court by George W. Bush — “this ruling also underscores the importance of presidential elections,” Perkins said.

Constitutional lawyers vow they will not relent until the abortion pill, which kills children and hurts women, is removed from all venues. “We won’t rest until the FDA and the profit-driven abortion industry are held accountable for the suffering they’ve inflicted on women and girls, as well as the deaths of countless unborn children,” said Daniels.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: RFK Jr.’s Abortion Flip-Flop Reveals Democrats’ Abortion Radicalism

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

On Trial: Our Judicial System

While re-reading William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, one cannot help but see the similarities between Germany in the 1920s and the USA following 2021. A strikingly apt meme that is currently making the rounds of conservative Internet blogs goes like this:

“It didn’t start with gas chambers. It started with one party controlling the media. One party controlling the message. One party deciding what is the truth. One party censoring speech and silencing the opposition. One party dividing citizens into us and them and calling on their supporters to harass them. It started when good people turned a blind eye and let it happen.”

According to Shirer, Hitler’s rise to power began when the German judiciary gave free reign to the brown-shirted, anti-democracy thugs who were attacking Jews and Catholics. Meanwhile, the German Courts were prosecuting and sending to prison those who were speaking out in favor of a democratic Weimar Republic.

Fast forward to today and the massive number of indictments levied against former President Trump and his supporters who believe the 2020 election was rigged. Irrespective of how one feels about Donald Trump, political speech is supposed to be protected for Trump and for all of us by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

While you cannot shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, everyone can complain when elections do not turn out as they would like.

The anti-Trump prosecutors must know their prosecutions are unlikely to pass the First Amendment test. But, with regard to the election calendar, “timing is everything.” Ergo: their likely objective is to convince the usually inattentive public that there is something criminal about Donald Trump. And to do so when ballots are being cast in person or grabbed from the air and harvested by unauthorized persons or hacked by computers.

But let’s take former President Trump out of the discussion and assume someone other than Donald Trump will be the GOP presidential nominee. That should clear our heads to see who or what is really on trial here. Again, we turn back in time to when Germany’s democratic Weimar Republic was struggling to maintain order in the aftermath of Germany’s loss of World War I.

The German judiciary, fearing the communists would take control and abolish their jobs and also abolish the former monarchy’s system of “law and order,” sided with the fascist political party that was claiming “law and order” as one of its’ major objectives. Unfortunately, that party was Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party, AKA the Nazis

So favor Donald Trump or despise him, it is our Judicial System that is on trial. If the judges who administer our judicial system adhere to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all Americans will survive the 2024 election cycle with their constitutional rights intact. If Obama-appointed judges trash our fundamental right to free speech, as did the German judicial system in the 1920s, political freedom as we know it will cease to exist. . Recall, “It started when good people turned a blind eye and let it happen.”

Suggested reading: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer, 1960. Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, 1925.

©2023. William Hamilton. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Americans Do Not Support How DOJ Handled The Hunter Biden Investigation: POLL

A guilty plea just exposed the horrible offense Hillary Clinton committed

Here’s The Fake Name Joe Biden Used To Schedule A Discussion With Ukraine’s Former President

President Joe Biden used a fake name while he was vice president to schedule a meeting with then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, according to emails from the Hunter Biden laptop archive.

Joe Biden’s vice presidential assistant sent an email May 26, 2016, to “Robert L. Peters,” one of at least three aliases used by Biden, Hunter Biden’s laptop archive shows. John Flynn informed his “boss” of his upcoming meeting with Poroshenko.

“Boss–8:45am prep for 9am phone call with Pres Poroshenko,” Flynn wrote to Joe Biden, with Hunter Biden cc’ed on the email. The president’s son was making over $80,000 per month as a board member of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma at the time of the meeting.

“Then we’re off to Rhode Island for infrastructure event and then Wilmington for UDel commencement. Nate will have your draft remarks delivered later tonight or with your press clips in the morning,” Flynn added.

Joe Biden’s pseudonyms were first reported in 2021 by the New York Post. He also used the aliases Robin Ware and JRB Ware in addition to the Peters moniker, emails from his son’s laptop archive indicate.

“Prod [sic] of you, Love Dad,” Joe Biden emailed Hunter from the “Robin Ware” email account in November 2012. Joe Biden’s JRB Ware email account received a document entitled “Joe Biden_Photoshoot” in August 2017, his son’s email archive shows.

“Joe – I  am not crazy about any of the 13 photos below, so I asked them to send me the entire file of 250. Look at the note – you need 3 different photos for 3 different purposes- the book jacket, media and one of you and Jill,” Joe’s sister, Valerie Biden Owens, wrote to Joe, Jill, Hunter and Ashley Biden.

The House Oversight Committee on Thursday requested the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) turn over any unredacted records of Joe Biden’s communications about Ukraine and Burisma when he was vice president, including then-VP Biden’s communications under his pseudonyms.

Biden previously called Poroshenko in February 2016, shortly after Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin had Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky’s property raided, Ukrainian outlet Interfax reported. Shokin filed his letter of resignation in the following days, and Ukraine’s parliament voted to remove Shokin the next month, the Kyiv Post reported.

Joe Biden bragged about how he pressured Poroshenko into firing Shokin when he spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations in September 2016.

“You remember last year I was authorized to say we’d do the second tranche of a billion dollars,” then-VP Biden said. “And he didn’t fire his chief prosecutor. And because I have the confidence of the president, I was there, and I said: ‘I’m not signing it. Until you fire him, we’re not signing, man. Get it straight. We’re not doing it.’”

Hunter Biden’s former business associate, Devon Archer, testified to the House Oversight in July about how Joe Biden spoke with his son’s business partners on over 20 occasions. Archer specifically recalled Joe Biden attending a spring 2014 dinner with Russian oligarch Elena Baturina and a spring 2015 dinner with Burisma executive Vadim Pozharskyi, according to his testimony.

Archer told Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson after his testimony that Shokin was considered a “threat” to Burisma’s business and also recalled a raid on Zlochevsky’s property. Archer sat on Burisma’s board with Hunter Biden and testified that Hunter “called D.C.” in December 2015 during Burisma’s board meeting in Dubai because of pressure from Zlochevsky and Pozharskyi. Archer could not confirm whether Joe Biden was on the receiving end of his son’s phone call.

Archer also testified that the Biden family “brand” kept Burisma in business by shielding the company from legal scrutiny. Likewise, Archer told Carlson it was “categorically false” to insist Joe Biden had no knowledge of his son’s business dealings.

House Oversight has found bank records showing the Biden family and its business associates made more than $20 million from foreign business dealings with Ukrainian, Russian, Chinese, Romanian and Kazakh business partners.

The president said Archer’s testimony was “not true” during a confrontation with Fox News reporter Peter Doocy on Aug. 9. The White House previously said Joe Biden was “not in business” with his son.

The White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

JAMES LYNCH

Investigative reporter. James Lynch can be reached on Twitter @jameslynch32

RELATED ARTICLES:

House Oversight Archived Records Of Joe Biden’s Communications About Ukraine And Burisma

Hunter Biden Used Secretive PR Firms To Put Spin On Wikipedia Pages, Emails Show

Joe Biden’s Office Devised Talking Points About Burisma Executive Right After Hunter ‘Called D.C.,’ Emails Show

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Americans Do Not Support How DOJ Handled The Hunter Biden Investigation: POLL

A plurality of Americans do not support how the Department of Justice (DOJ) handled its investigation into Hunter Biden, according to an ABC News/Ipsos poll released Wednesday.

ABC and Ipsos polled Americans on whether the DOJ handled the Hunter Biden case in a “fair and nonpartisan manner” after two IRS whistleblowers accused prosecutors of giving President Joe Biden’s son special treatment, and Hunter’s plea and diversion agreements with the DOJ collapsed upon scrutiny from a federal judge.

“On another subject, how confident are you that the U.S. Justice Department is handling its investigation of Hunter Biden in a fair and nonpartisan manner?” ABC/Ipsos surveyors asked a nationally representative sample of 508 adults.

Nearly half of respondents, 48%, said they are “not so confident” or “not confident at all” that the DOJ was fair in the Hunter Biden case, with 32% “very” or “somewhat confident” the department conducted its investigation appropriately. The questions were posed from Aug. 15-16, and the poll has a margin of error of +/- 4.7%. The figures are nearly identical to when ABC News/Ipsos polled Americans on the Hunter Biden investigation Aug. 2-3. The partisan divisions in the poll are 26-25-41%, Democrats-Republicans-independents, ABC noted.

IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler testified to the House Ways and Means Committee in late May and early June, alleging DOJ prosecutors slow-walked and actively obstructed the investigation into Hunter Biden’s taxes and foreign business dealings.

Shapley and Ziegler publicly testified before the House Oversight, Judiciary and Ways and Means Committee in July, right before Hunter Biden was expected to plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and sign a diversion agreement for his felony gun charge.

In late July, the first son’s guilty plea and diversion agreement fell apart when Delaware U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika scrutinized an immunity provision tucked into Hunter Biden’s diversion agreement. Noreika’s questioning resulted in DOJ prosecutor Leo Wise conceding Biden could still be charged for his foreign business dealings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and Biden’s defense counsel disagreed with Wise’s assessment.

The dispute caused Hunter Biden to plead not guilty, and subsequent negotiations with the DOJ did not lead to a revised plea agreement, prosecutors said in a Tuesday court filing. Prosecutors also clarified Biden’s diversion agreement was not put into place, despite claims from Biden’s attorney that it was legally binding. The House Oversight Committee has discovered bank records showing the Biden family and its business associates made more than $20 million from their Ukrainian, Russian, Chinese, Romanian and Kazakh business partners.

Attorney General Merrick Garland named Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss special counsel Friday in the ongoing Hunter Biden investigation. Weiss served as lead prosecutor in the Hunter Biden case, and Joe Biden-appointed U.S. Attorneys in D.C. and the Central District of California blocked Weiss from charging the younger Biden in those districts, Shapley testified.

Special counsel Weiss filed a motion Friday to rescind Hunter Biden’s Delaware tax charges to potentially charge him in either D.C. or the Central District of California.

AUTHOR

JAMES LYNCH

Investigative reporter. James Lynch can be reached on Twitter @jameslynch32

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hunter Biden Used Secretive PR Firms To Put Spin On Wikipedia Pages, Emails Show

IRS Whistleblower Gary Shapley’s Attorneys Debunk False Claims From Hunter Biden’s Lawyer

Top Hunter Biden Lawyer Christopher J. Clark Moves To Withdraw From Case After Plea Deal Collapses

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

New College Makeover in Florida: A Case Study in Higher Ed Reform

New College in Florida has been making news lately, for all the right reasons. The Board of Trustees, with six new members appointed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R), charts a new course for New College.

For context, a little history: New College was founded in 1960 as a private university. It was later absorbed into the University of Florida system, making it publicly funded. It’s a small college with fewer than 650 students in Sarasota. To be fair, New College is a highly rated public university in Florida and in the U.S. overall. It is an “honors college” with a contract model for course work. New College lets students design their own course of study. Course work is not “graded” per se, but professors provide narrative feedback to students through a timeline they determine together. New College had the highest number of Fulbright Scholars in 2020.

But that was then. New College is getting an overhaul. As described by Chris Rufo, among the changes underway at New College: “[President Richard] Corcoran has recruited a new team that is busy rebuilding the institutional capacity of the college, which had atrophied significantly under previous administrations, and is designing a new core curriculum, which will begin with an immersive first-year study of Homer’s ‘Odyssey’ and continue to provide a foundation based in logos (the cultivation of human reason) and techne (the cultivation of the applied arts).”

Student and faculty reaction to these changes is shockingly conservative for such a progressive bunch. It seems the new Board of Trustees’ pursuit of the good, the true, and the beautiful is a regressive and oppressive insult to many current students and faculty members. They are not on board with Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz’s goal: “It is our hope that New College of Florida will become Florida’s classical college, more along the lines of a Hillsdale of the South.”

Breathless news coverage of this development ranges from the unhinged to the comical. How dare any governor (no less a Republican governor) deign to make an impact on the taxpayer-funded colleges and universities? Who is the governor to attempt to oversee publicly funded universities, regardless of the overwhelming mandate to lead he is given by the voters?

The new trustees have begun the process of remaking New College into a classical college. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion dean and a “queer librarian” were among the first to go. Tenure for five professors approved by an interim president has been denied. The College is recruiting more students and placing more emphasis on athletics as an integral part of the new New College experience.

Bringing in a larger freshman class, one that is eagerly anticipating the new emphasis on classics over social justice warfare, is one of the best ways to ensure the success of the transition. These bright new students will be great ambassadors for the cause and will quickly outnumber the disgruntled — another smart move by a very capable group and New College President Richard Corcoran. Surely this effort to diversify both the curriculum of the college itself and the student body will prove more efficient than the DEI commissariat the Board of Trustees recently removed, as displayed by the 2022 tally of the student body composition.

The cancelation of Gender Studies seems to be the final straw for the old guard. NCF Freedom filed a lawsuit challenging the defunding of ideologically biased course offerings, among other perceived indignities. We look forward to updating you on this as events unfold. Pray for New College, for the leadership team, the faculty, staff, and students. Pray that God will be known there and everywhere.

AUTHOR

Meg Kilgannon

Meg Kilgannon is Senior Fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council.

RELATED ARTICLE: Half of Gen Z Says Their Life Was ‘Transformed’ by the Bible’s Message

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Brazen Crime Wave Hits Blue Cities amid Decriminalization Efforts

In an astonishingly brazen heist that occurred in Woodland Hills, Calif. on August 12 in broad daylight, approximately 50 individuals mobbed a Nordstrom store, stealing about $300,000 worth of merchandise and destroying display cases in the process. Experts say “smash and grab” or “flash rob” crimes like these as well as grocery shoplifting have been steadily rising in Democrat-controlled states and cities across the country due to policies that reduced the penalties for committing crimes.

The Nordstrom robbery is merely the latest in a string of incidents in California in recent weeks. An almost identical heist occurred on August 8 in broad daylight at a Yves Saint Laurent store in Glendale, in which about 30 thieves also stole $300,000 worth of luxury goods. The previous week, nine men raided a Gucci store in Century City.

It’s not just high-end merchandise that is being routinely pilfered from stores with little consequences. In Washington, D.C., a popular Giant Food store may be close to shuttering due to $500,000 worth of products being stolen as of late. Despite upgraded security measures and a record amount of stopped suspects, thieves continue to steal “everything,” according to Giant president Ira Kress, who noted that shoplifting at the grocery chain’s stores have “probably increased five to 10 times in the last three years.”

The growing thievery is part of an alarming trend in the nation’s capital, in which homicides have risen 25% since August of last year. Councilmember Trayon White (D) has called on Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) to enlist the National Guard in order to reduce crime.

Lawlessness has become so entrenched in places like San Francisco that officials recently advised staff at the downtown federal building to start working from home. The skyscraper has offices for Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Departments of Labor and Transportation, as well as staffers of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Yet due to open-air drug use and transactions, homeless individuals using the streets to relieve themselves, rising gun and knife assaults, and unruly youth fighting and committing crimes in nearby shopping malls, HHS officials advised workers to “maximize the use of telework for the foreseeable future.” Popular chains like Walgreens have resorted to locking freezers with chains as shoplifting has risen 20% over the last three years.

Experts are pointing to policies implemented in Democratic strongholds as a primary culprit in rising lawlessness. As noted by National Review’s Charles Cooke, California’s steadily climbing crime rate is arguably rooted in measures like Proposition 47, which turned nonviolent property crimes that did not exceed $950 from felonies to misdemeanors:

“And, would you believe it, the result has been a massive increase in nonviolent property crimes whose damages do not exceed $950! Couple Proposition 47 with the rise of prosecutors who do not prosecute — a national problem that is particularly acute in California — and you get that most inexplicable of outcomes: a diminishment in public order that was consciously approved by the state’s voters.”

Meanwhile in Oregon, voters enacted Measure 110 in November 2020, which decriminalized the possession of highly addictive drugs like heroin and methamphetamine. The purported goal of the measure was to establish a “humane” approach to drug addiction by providing “access to recovery services, peer support and stable housing.” However, Oregon ranks near the bottom in states with access to drug treatment facilities, and Measure 110 contained no language to establish more treatment facilities before allowing drug decriminalization.

The result has been a record number of drug overdoses in Portland in 2022, which was topped in the first eight months of 2023. In addition, shootings in the city have tripled, vehicle thefts have doubled, property crimes and burglaries have risen, and homelessness has jumped 50%, all since the measure was enacted. The once flourishing downtown has been transformed “with scenes of drugged-out people passed out in doorways or roaming downtown like zombies, babbling to themselves, and pushing around carts filled with junk.” As restaurant owners struggle to stay in business due to continual break-ins and vandalism, the flagship stores of REI and Nike, along with the last two Walmarts in Portland, have all closed.

Ken Blackwell, former mayor of Cincinnati and undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, was unsurprised by skyrocketing crime rates in Democrat-controlled cities.

“If you reward bad behavior, don’t be surprised if you get more bad behavior,” he told The Washington Stand. “So the lax attitude that these big city mayors, particularly in these blue cities, have towards punishing bad behavior, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they’re going to get more of it. … The criminals will push the envelope until they meet resistance.”

Blackwell, who currently serves as senior fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance at Family Research Council, went on to note that “as a mayor [who worked] with Rudy Giuliani when he was mayor of New York City, we worked on the theory of the broken window. If people see one broken window unattended to, then two, then three, then four, the disrespect for law and order will grow like wildfire. … It’s pretty straightforward in terms of human behavior.”

“It starts with this assault on innocent life, when people of all ages have disrespect for innocent life, that’s going to have consequences, whether it is a rash of violent crimes where life is disrespected, or whether it’s an assault on the notion of private property,” he concluded. “You have that in combination with victimhood when people are told over and over and over that they are victims, they feel that they can do anything without retribution.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The 5 Worst Lies of the Biden Administration

For the Biden administration, pushing abortion and transgender ideology is a top priority at all levels of government. Sometimes, this priority even overshadows their commitment to the truth. And the Biden administration has told some real whoppers. But don’t take my word for it; consider the facts for yourself. Here are the top five lies of the Biden administration regarding abortion and transgender ideology.

1) Weakened safety standards for the abortion pill regimen does not pose a threat to women.

On January 3, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permanently removed a “requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).” At the same time, it created a new program under which pharmacies such as Walgreens and CVS can become licensed to distribute mifepristone.

Mifepristone is the first of two drugs taken to induce a chemical abortion. FDA in 2011 placed mifepristone under the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation System (REMS) due to reports of adverse events up to and including death. REMS is reserved “for certain medications with serious safety concerns.” By removing the in-person dispensing requirement from the REMS governing the use of mifepristone, FDA enabled abortion pill dispensaries to ship the pills to women without any oversight from a health care practitioner.

On December 16, 2021, the FDA had “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”

On January 22, 2023, President Biden issued a memorandum endorsing FDA’s action, saying that it was “evidence-based” and taken “after an independent and comprehensive review of the risks and benefits.” He directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to work together to further advance distribution of the abortion pill regimen. In compliance with this directive, Attorney General Merrick Garland and HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra both denounced an April court decision blocking the distribution of mifepristone (the decision is currently on hold).

In reality, the best available evidence shows that “chemical abortion has led to a surge in emergency room visits and higher rates of complications,” according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI). According to a peer-reviewed, 17-year longitudinal study of Medicaid claims data, in the 30 days following a chemical abortion, women have a 22% greater risk of visiting the emergency room for any reason, and a 53% greater risk of visiting the emergency room for an abortion-related reason, when compared with a surgical abortion.

Peer-reviewed studies of comprehensive datasets in Finland, Sweden, and California also show higher complication rates from chemical abortion. In Finland, a study of 42,619 abortions found that one fifth of all chemical abortions resulted in complications, a rate four times greater than for surgical abortions. In California, a study found the major complication rate for chemical abortions was four times greater than for surgical abortions. In Sweden, a study found complications of chemical abortions “increased significantly during 2008-2015 without any evident cause.”

Although President Biden called the FDA review “comprehensive” and “evidence-based,” the data they reviewed was far less robust than these peer-reviewed studies. “Starting in 2016, the FDA chose to only require reports of death associated with the abortion pill, making their dataset woefully incomplete,” said Dr. James Studnicki, CLI’s vice president of Data Analytics. The FDA review ignored this substantial evidence of high complication rates when it freed the distribution of chemical abortion pills from professional oversight.

2) Military readiness requires taxpayers to cover abortion-related expenses for servicemembers.

On October 20, 2022, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a memorandum titled, “Ensuring Access to Reproductive Health Care,” which directed the Department of Defense (DOD) “to ensure that our Service members and their families can access reproductive health care.” On February 16, 2023, the DOD finalized the policy, granting up to 21 days of “administrative absence to non-covered reproductive health care,” subsidizing “travel for non-covered reproductive health care services,” and loosening “command notification of pregnancy” to benefit abortion.

DOD has claimed the policy will “increase readiness.” After Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) announced he would block senior-level military promotions until DOD ended the policy, President Biden accused Tuberville of “jeopardizing our national security over domestic social issues. Pentagon Spokesman John Kirby was asked last month, “Why is the new DOD policy on abortion critical to military readiness?” He responded that paying for abortion-related travel was a “foundational, sacred obligation of military leaders.”

In reality, federal law prohibits the DOD from using taxpayer funds to promote abortion. Under 10 U.S. Code § 1093, DOD funds and facilities “may not be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.” On December 15, 2022, 66 members of Congress wrote to Secretary Austin notifying him that “funding travel and transportation to obtain non-covered, elective abortions through the DOD would, in and of itself violate federal law. It also contradicts DOD’s past recognition, interpretation, and implementation of this law.”

3) Self-perceived gender identity always overrides biological distinctions between the sexes.

On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order directing federal agencies to interpret all “laws that prohibit sex discrimination” to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation,” extending the Supreme Court’s Title VII-specific reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County to every federal law. A separate executive order on this date ordered the president’s Domestic Policy Council to “coordinate efforts to embed equity principles [including with ‘respect to … gender identity’], policies, and approaches across the Federal Government.”

In the months that followed, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Education, the DOJHHS, and other agencies have faithfully implemented this directive to expand the presence of biological males in women’s shelters, women’s locker rooms, and women’s sports, reinterpreting the Fair Housing Act, Title IX, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. FRC Action has compiled a full accounting of the dozens of actions taken by Biden administration in pursuit of this goal.

In reality, physical differences between men and women are too important to ignore. Biological males are, on average, taller, heavier, and stronger than females, which gives them an upper hand in many types of sports — not to mention a predatory advantage when they win admission into women’s-only spaces. Males have won over 30 championships in women’s-only sporting events dating back to 2003. These distinctions are so obvious that even pro-LGBT Democrats cannot entirely ignore them. Last month, a Democratic congressman suggested erecting “barriers” in women’s locker rooms to protect women who felt uncomfortable changing next to a biological male with fully intact anatomy. And a Democratic senator tweeted, “We cannot avoid the biological/evolutionary differences between men and women.”

4) Civically engaged American citizens are violent domestic terrorists.

On October 4, 2021, Garland directed the FBI to investigate a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” That directive came five days after the National School Boards Association asked President Biden to investigate parents who spoke out at school board meetings for “domestic terrorism and hate crimes,” in a letter prompted by Education Secretary Miguel Cardona. Earlier this year, the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government determined that the FBI had, in fact, used counterterrorism resources to investigate parents. Needless to say, the “spike” in violence was entirely fabricated.

On September 23, 2022, 25 heavily armed federal agents conducted a pre-dawn raid on the home of pro-life activist Mark Houck to arrest him in front of his wife and seven children. The DOJ indicted Houck under the FACE Act, alleging that two years ago he violently pushed an abortion facility escort to the ground, when he was only defending his 12-year-old son from an aggressive, profanity-laced tirade. Houck had offered to voluntarily surrender months earlier, but apparently the DOJ’s resources were better spent on a SWAT-style raid. This January, a jury acquitted Houck of the charges brought against him.

In February 2023, a leaked memo from the FBI field office in Richmond, Va. revealed the bureau was spying on “radical traditionalist” Catholic communities. After months of FBI stonewalling, the Weaponization Subcommittee finally obtained documents proving that the Richmond field office coordinated with at least two other field offices, and that the investigation had gone as far as seeking to embed undercover sources.

In reality, each of these episodes simply involved ordinary citizens peacefully living their lives, practicing their faith, and properly engaging in the democratic process. In contrast with the previous lies, once caught, the Biden administration could muster no defense against the obvious impropriety of their behavior except pretending it never happened, Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Biden administration has weaponized federal law enforcement resources to investigate private citizens for nothing more than being civically engaged.

5) Protecting minors from harmful, irreversible gender reassignment procedures is illegal discrimination and potentially fatal.

On July 25, 2022, HHS announced a proposed rule under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which would force health insurers to cover gender reassignment procedures for minors and could financially coerce doctors to perform them.

Far from an isolated affair, promoting gender reassignment procedures is official Biden administration policy — although the federal role is less direct than states. The DOJ has intervened in lawsuits to block laws protecting minors from gender reassignment procedures in Alabama and Tennessee. The DOJ also tried to force two Catholic hospital associations to provide and insure gender reassignment procedures, in violation of their religious beliefs.

State actions to protect minors from gender reassignment procedures “callously threaten to harm children and their families just to score political points,” alleged President Biden in a March 2022 statement. He appealed to the political conclusions of “respected medical organizations” to argue that “access to gender-affirming care for transgender children can benefit mental health, lower suicide rates, and improve other health outcomes.”

HHS Secretary Becerra agreed in a June 2022 press release, “This year, we have unfortunately seen an alarming rise in state laws and other actions that discriminate against our LGBTQI+ children and youth. … We as a Department recommit to ensuring every American can access health care — including gender-affirming care.” This remained the official White House position as of April 2023, when Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said gender reassignment procedures for minors is “something for a child and their parents to decide” and certainly “not something we believe should be decided by legislators.”

In reality, confused children are often “given no choice” about pursuing gender reassignment procedures, according to detransitioner Prisha Mosley. “They said it was transition or suicide. … I was told, ‘You will kill yourself if you don’t go through with these treatments.’” A whistleblower account from one transgender center said the providers even disregarded the refusal of the custodial parent and proceeded with gender reassignment procedures anyways.

The physical reality of gender transitioning is even more brutal. One young detransitioner said the reassignment procedures performed on him did not make him a woman, but they did make him a “patient for life.” Young people who begin puberty blockers almost universally proceed to cross-sex hormones and often mutilating surgery. Cross-sex hormones can cause “irreversible infertility, while surgeries cause irreversible loss of healthy, functioning organs. Yet Biden said those opposing these gruesome procedures are the ones harming children.

On each of these five points, the Biden administration is driven more by ideology than by the truth. Abortion-by-mail is not safe for women. Taxpayer-funded abortion travel is not necessary for military readiness. Biological sex does matter more than gender identity in many contexts. Citizens aren’t domestic extremists just because they advocate policies the Biden administration doesn’t like. And gender reassignment procedures are good for nobody, especially not minors. With the constant drumbeat of fiction to the contrary, we must keep telling the truth — and saying it loud.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Admin Opposes Protecting Women From Dangerous Abortion Pills

Nurse Found Guilty of Murdering Seven Premature Babies in Neonatal Unit

Court’s Ruling Holds Biden Admin Accountable for Hiding How Abortion Hurts Women

Poll Shows 73% of Americans Oppose Unlimited Abortions

RELATED TWEETS:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.