Why There Are No ‘Fair’ Solutions Out of the Federal Government’s Spending Quagmire

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

The federal government is facing very serious budget issues, dramatically worsened by the past few years’ expansion in profligate spending. But while that gets most of the fiscal headlines at the moment because of the national debt limit discussion, the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds have far more unfunded liabilities than the official federal deficit. And those huge problems are well past the “something should be done” stage and getting very close to the “something must be done” stage. That has led some to reconsider reforming Social Security, the famous “third rail” of politics.

The mere possibility of that has energized those who fear that a change from the status quo might give them less, even though the huge financial holes involved cannot be sustained for long, meaning that “doing nothing” for now guarantees a worse deal for many soon. So such opponents are gearing up to prevent any move toward improved fiscal responsibility and sustainability that might involve reducing anyone’s benefits now or in the future by asserting that it would be unfair.

Unfortunately, however, if we rule out all options that might “unfairly” reduce benefits for current or future beneficiaries, we must be unfair to others. The reason is that the federal government has promised trillions of dollars more in benefits than taxes to fund them through Social Security (and even more so for Medicare), and those overpromises leave no fair way out.

Consider the option of reducing Social Security retirement benefits in one way or another. That is not fair, because government promises of ongoing retirement support have led people to believe in continued funding at the promised levels, and to adapt their behavior to those promises. Having done so (e.g., saving less privately for their retirement), it is unfair to cut that funding, because many who relied on benefit promises have become dependent on the government living up to them.

But there is a good reason for considering this possibility—if we continue to do nothing to change things, the trust funds will soon run out and benefits will have to fall substantially from then on, which would also be unfair, and potentially even more so.

Despite that, if history is any guide, any serious proposal of potential benefit reductions will not lead to rational discussion, but fights to make sure someone named “not us” will bear as much of the burdens as possible. We will witness a “guilt parade” of the most obviously pitiful and destitute beneficiaries, none of whom should be forced to “do without,” to remind us of its unfairness (just as we see struggling family farmers when agricultural or water subsidies are under fire; the most seriously ill when medical benefit cuts are proposed; poor, inner-city children when cuts to education funding are considered; etc).

Now, this fairness argument is partly correct. But only partly, because it does not consider the fairness of the alternatives. While benefit cutbacks can be considered unfair to those now and soon-to-be dependent on them, every alternative is unfair as well. Rather than choosing between fair and unfair options, we must choose between unfair ones.

Say we look to maintain benefit promises through substantially higher Social Security taxes. The problem is that people have also adapted their behavior to the promised extent of those taxes (already greater than income taxes for the majority of Americans), and some now depend on not losing any more take-home pay just as many recipients depend on not losing anticipated benefits.

Proposing that we just tax “the rich” more, as by increasing or even eliminating the income limits on Social Security “contributions,” would especially increase its unfairness to higher income earners, who are already paying far more in Social Security taxes than they will ever get back in benefits, and who also pay a sharply disproportionate share of income and other taxes as well (not to mention being in the crosshairs for further increases in those taxes).

Benefits could be maintained without increasing Social Security taxes by federal borrowing. But borrowing is just deferred taxation, so that would unfairly burden whichever taxpayers will be left holding the bag for those taxes. It would also increase the tax uncertainty faced by all Americans, who face a harder task of guessing how, where, when, and on who those future taxes will be assessed.

What about some sort of privatization? That could potentially increase the rate of return earned on retirement savings relative to what Social Security offers, improving the system from this point in time forward. However, such a move cannot magically eliminate its current multi-trillion dollar unfunded liabilities. And if future benefits are to be more closely based on private contributions than the current system, as privatization would require, treating those savers more fairly would unfairly take funds now used to subsidize the retirement of current workers, even though many of them paid far less in taxes than they will receive in benefits under the current structure.

Even doing nothing about Social Security to avoid treating people unfairly is unfair, since the status quo is unsustainable, requiring future commitments to be broken in a major way. Even Social Security statements now communicate that there will soon be too little money to meet their benefit promises.

It is time we realized that there is no fair way out from government Social Security commitments that exceed the funds available. Current overpromises mean that everyone has a plausible fairness claim on their side, yet something must give. The closest we can come to being fair is to avoid making any new over-commitments, to search for ways to make the program more sustainable (to reduce future unfairness problems), and to look seriously at the contentious issue of which of the options will minimize the adverse impacts of unfairness that cannot be avoided altogether. Demonizing any real consideration of the various options, as some have already started doing, only increases the likelihood that there will ultimately be more unfairness than necessary.

It’s also important to recognize that the inherent unfairness we must soon address is not limited to Social Security. That problem comes in the wake of any ongoing government program that offers benefits in excess of costs to beneficiaries at the start, because in a world without free lunches, that requires future Americans to be saddled with the burden of paying for those excess benefits.

So “not fair” also applies not only to the introduction and past expansions of Social Security, but also to current attempts to sweeten the Social Security pot, as with the Social Security 2100 Act. It also applies to Medicare, Social Security’s 1965 offspring, which faces an even larger financing hole, since early recipients got far more benefits than they paid for (both because benefits have increased and because early recipients paid for at most a few years at lower tax rates than now, but got benefits for the rest of their lives).

The same unfairness applies to any government trust fund with unfunded liabilities, such as for the Highway Trust Fund, due to be fully depleted within the next dozen years. (Since benefits from the road work began long before much of the associated costs came due, the program leaves more costs than benefits for succeeding Americans.)

The national debt reflects similar benefits that have not been paid for, unfairly leaving the tab for a huge pile of not-even-remotely-justified government spending projects and policies to later generations (not to mention providing the leverage for further expanding not-yet-paid-for benefits every time the debt limit expansion provides a must-pass piece of legislation).

It is worth remembering that in many areas that have been put under government control, the word “unfair” is correct. But that is because unfairness is baked in from the beginning of such government programs.

We can now only choose among unfair options which will be unavoidably difficult and unpleasant, with a government that has shown very little interest in facing those sorts of problems. And the way to prevent further inherent unfairness problems is not by embracing policies that attempt to buy votes today by creating policies where people are disproportionately treated (debt forgiveness, anyone?). Unfortunately, there is an ever-present pile of policy proposals whose political attraction is just such disproportionate treatment, which justifies little optimism for solutions arising out of the beltway anytime soon.

AUTHOR

Gary M. Galles

Gary M. Galles is a Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University and a member of the Foundation for Economic Education faculty network. In addition to his new book, Pathways to Policy Failures (2020), his books include Lines of Liberty (2016), Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014), and Apostle of Peace (2013).

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

The Film the Left Doesn’t Want You to See: ‘Damaged — The Transing of America’s Kids’

/in , , , , , , , /by

American kids are being told that with one “simple” medical procedure, all their problems will go away. The catch? They can’t go back.

Schools, politicians and health care counselors are pushing transgenderism on American kids. It’s a fact. We know because we sat down with the victims. Their stories are amazing and tragic. You will not believe what these poor people have to say.

Damaged: The Transing of America’s Kids comes out soon. Stay tuned to the Daily Caller for more updates.

Liberal Activists Rebrand Sex Changes As ‘Gender-Affirming Medical Care’ To Bully State Officials Into Allowing The Mutilation Of Children

  • Liberal activists are rebranding sex change surgeries as “gender affirming medical care,” even when discussing these procedures for children. Former transgender people and conservative activists told the Daily Caller News Foundation that this is a deliberate effort to normalize the surgeries and make them more accessible to children.
  • “This liberal obsession is destroying an entire generation,” a former transgender woman said. “And they don’t care.”
  • The terminology many media outlets use in reporting on LGBTQ issues conforms to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)’s style guide for reporters, which warns that “journalists should avoid overemphasizing the role of surgeries in the transition process.”

Liberal activists are rebranding sex change surgeries as “gender affirming medical care,” even when discussing these procedures for children. Former transgender people and conservative activists told the Daily Caller News Foundation that this is a deliberate effort to normalize the surgeries and make them more accessible to children.

Lawmakers have proposed at least 114 bills related to transgender issues as of June 2, according to the LGBTQ activism organization GLAAD. Both Arkansas and Tennessee have passed laws restricting sex change surgeries or procedures for minors: Arkansas banned the surgeries and procedures for minors, despite the governor’s veto, and Tennessee banned ethically fraught hormone treatment for children who had not yet reached puberty.

Most media framing of these bills takes an activist approach rather than reporting the bills straightforwardly. Outlets use vague phrases like “gender affirming medical care” or “trans affirming medical care” instead of saying sex change surgery or gender transition surgery.

“They keep rebranding the gender change process,” said former transgender woman Walt Heyer, who now runs the website Sex Change Regret. “First it was ‘sex change,’ then it was ‘gender reassignment.’ They want to make this not look like the child abuse it really is and now want to sell you and everyone else that it’s ‘gender affirming medical care.’”

“This liberal obsession is destroying an entire generation,” Heyer added. “And they don’t care.”

The DCNF reached out to multiple progressive activism organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and GLAAD, for insight into why activists and media discuss sex change surgeries in this way. GLAAD and the ACLU did not offer perspective, but the HRC directed the DCNF to their media guide and highlighted that the American Academy of Pediatrics has endorsed gender-affirming care.

Sex Changes For Minors Or ‘Gender Affirming Medical Care’

When Arkansas passed the “Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act” (SAFE) banning sex change procedures and surgeries for minors, most media outlets described the legislation using phrases like “gender affirming care” and “life saving care.” (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: DeSantis Says He Would Ban Trans Surgeries For Minors)

“Arkansas passes bill to ban gender-affirming care for trans youth,” NBC News headlined its story, while Yahoo News similarly described the bill as one that banned “access to gender-affirming care for transgender residents who are minors,” and CNN referred to the surgeries as “gender-affirming ‘procedures’ for trans people under age 18.”

The Washington Post reported the SAFE Act restricts “access to medical treatments for transgender children,” calling the legislation “part of a growing effort by politicians to restrict the rights of transgender young people across America.” 

This media trend has continued throughout discussion of sex change procedures and surgeries for children, such as in a May CBS News segment that refers to “gender-affirming medical care for trans youth” regarding Texas legislation. Correspondent Lesley Stahl even used the phrase in a 60 Minutes segment criticized for its frank discussion of how easy it is to obtain the irreversible sex change surgeries.

The New York Times referred to “gender-affirming or transition-related medical care” in a Sunday piece on a Brooklyn, New York, transgender rally.

The language is also used by smaller outlets like The Dallas Morning News, The Texas Tribune, and The Salt Lake Tribune.

Activist Charlotte Clymer used the phrase when praising Iran as a supporter of trans rights last week, tweeting, “Iran literally pays for trans-affirming medical care with state funds,” though Iran has a documented record of forcing LGBTQ persons into sex change surgery against their will and often punishes homosexuality with death.  Like Clymer, former President Barack Obama’s state department also referred to Iran’s sex change surgeries as “gender-confirmation surgery.”

As recently as Monday, Popular Information reporter Judd Legum described transgender bills as “legislation that would criminalize providing gender-affirming medical care to adults and children.”

Legum first incorrectly told the DCNF Monday that the bills he referenced, such as Texas’ Senate Bill 1646, had nothing to do with sex change surgeries. He then defended his characterization of the bills as “100% accurate,” saying, “I don’t have to follow the Daily Caller style guide.”

The issue has gained national prominence over the past couple years since events like the case of James Younger, a 7-year-old whose mother planned to transition him to a girl despite his father’s objections. Author and researcher Abigail Shrier ignited global discussion through her 2020 book on concerning spikes in transgenderism among teenage girls who formerly displayed feminine traits and tendencies.

Transgender journalist and physics teacher Debbie Hayton, who believes it is “impossible to change sex,” explained to the DCNF that use of the phrase “gender affirming medical care” over “sex change surgery: hinges on the idea that the surgery isn’t actively changing a person but is instead helping their mind align with their body.

“Sex change surgery implies active treatment to change something,” Hayton said. “Gender affirming surgery implies treatment to restore the existing situation.”

American Principles Project President Terry Schilling told the DCNF that this use of language is “an organized and deliberate effort.”

“Woke activists need to use euphemisms to describe the horrible policies they support because they are so incredibly unpopular with the American people,” Schilling said. “They say things like ‘reproductive care’ as a substitute for late-term abortion, ‘equity’ instead of state-sanctioned racism, or ‘gender-affirming medical care’ instead of sex changes for kids, hoping no one will call them on it.”

The media, Schilling warned, is “all too willing to go along with the ruse because the newsrooms are full of woke activists.” 

What Is Gender Affirming Medical Care?

Medical professionals who undertake a child’s a sex change usually begin with puberty blockers such as the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which temporarily suppresses puberty for the child, according to the Mayo Clinic.

For biological males, the puberty blockers will decrease face and body hair growth, prevent the voice from deepening, and limit genitalia growth, according to Mayo Clinic, and for biological females, the puberty blockers will limit or stop menstruation and the development of the breasts.

The Endocrine Society recommends that clinicians begin puberty blockers “after girls and boys first exhibit physical changes of puberty,” usually around 11-years-old.

A UK judge ruled in December 2020 that it is “highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers,” adding that “it is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.”

Transgender advocates “maintain that “the suppression of puberty using GnRHa is a reversible phase of treatment” and that puberty blockers can be considered “‘buying time’ to allow for an open exploration of the SR [sex reassignment] wish.” But other experts have called puberty blockers a “momentous step in the dark,” wrote Dr. Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Center for Science and Culture.

Dr. Wells cited studies showing that almost all children who go on puberty blockers proceed to take cross-sex hormones, which is the next step in the sex-change process. Cross-sex hormones will cause the individual to develop more masculine or feminine secondary sex characteristics, according to Mayo Clinic.

The Endocrine Society recommends that children “who fulfill eligibility for gender reassignment” begin cross-sex hormone therapy at age 16, but notes that there may be “compelling reasons” to begin cross sex hormone treatment earlier, even though there are limited studies on cross-sex hormone treatment administered to children younger than 13 or 14.

Wells wrote that “since almost all children who start on them go on to take cross-sex hormones, it seems that the ‘completely reversible’ claim is exaggerated.”

It would more truthful, Wells said, to tell parents and children: “We can give you medicine that will block changes in puberty that you might find disturbing. According to the evidence, if you don’t take the medicine there is at least a three out of four chance that you will grow up happy with the body you have. On the other hand, once you start taking the medicine there is a 98 percent chance that you will go on to take cross-sex hormones. Those hormones will probably make you sterile, and you may have to take them for the rest of your life.”

The Endocrine Society suggests that young people wait until 18 to obtain sex-change surgery, though in some countries the age minimum is 16.

A Transgender Style Guide?

The terminology many media outlets use in reporting on LGBTQ issues conforms to progressive activist style guides, such as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)’s style guide for reporters.

GLAAD boasts of promoting “accurate, inclusive stories and messages in media outlets that increase and enhance representation of LGBTQ people,” highlighting that the Associated Press, Reuters, and The New York Times have specific LGBTQ style requirements.

“GLAAD has learned a lot since its founding in 1985 about the media’s role in changing hearts and minds,” the organization’s website said. “GLAAD demonstrated not only media’s powerful influence—impacting how people treat others, how they vote, and their daily decisions—but our own authoritative potential to lead the conversation, reshape the narrative, and ultimately, change the culture.”

GLAAD’s guide encourages reporters to avoid the phrase “sex change operation” and adds in bold that “journalists should avoid overemphasizing the role of surgeries in the transition process.” GLAAD did not respond to a request for comment explaining this statement.

The HRC’s style guide also offers suggestions to reporters on how to discuss this topic.

“Transition is a process that some transgender people undergo when they decide to live as the gender with which they identify, rather than the one they were assigned at birth,” the HRC style guide said. “A transgender person transitioning is not ‘becoming’ a man or a woman; they are starting to live openly as their true gender.

“Transitioning can include medical components such as hormone therapy and surgery. However, not every transition involves medical interventions,” the style guide said.

APP’s President Terry Schilling suggested that conservatives should respond to this use of language and media by rejecting “the Left’s framing.”

“Tell the truth about what’s happening,” he said. “And do what’s necessary to protect these kids — pass legislation that would ban these horrific procedures, and create private rights of action for all these kids who have been harmed by these doctors, industries, and institutions that pushed them into genital mutilation, sterilization, and even worse.”

“The vast majority of Americans agree that pushing sex changes on children is crazy, so politicians need to be willing to stand up for these kids and do the right thing,” he added. 

Former Trans People Weigh In

Partners for Ethical Care co-founder Erin Brewer said that she finds these descriptions “very concerning,” adding that even the World Professional Association of Transgender Health guidelines warn “that the vast majority of children will have their gender dysphoria resolved if they progress naturally through puberty.”

Brewer, who has written a book describing her experiences as a child who identified as transgender but did not go through any type of hormone therapy or procedures, told the DCNF that children often develop gender dysphoria as a result of underlying issues, such as sexual assault.

“These kids need mental health services to help resolve the underlying issues, not medical interventions that damage their healthy body,” she said. “These interventions are the antithesis of medical care, they damage a child’s healthy body and give a child the message that they are inherently flawed and the self-hatred they have for their body is justified. ”

“There is no research that supports medically transing a child,” she added, “However, there is ample evidence that shows these interventions increase self-harm and suicidality. It is unconscionable that activists are trying to rebrand these harmful practices in order to validate harming vulnerable children.”

De-transitioner Billy Burleigh told the DCNF that gender identity-related distress “has been controversial for decades, and with each step through history, the effort has been to make it more normalized and acceptable.”

“And this step, where activists are trying to rebrand sex changes as ‘gender affirming medical care’ rather than ‘sex changes’ appears to be another effort, another step to make gender identity distress not only as more normal and acceptable, but as an ailment that requires medical intervention, medical treatment,” he added.

Burleigh stressed that instead of treating outward symptoms of gender identity distress, families and mental health professionals should help “uncover and work through the underlying issues and problems.” The solutions presented by LGBTQ activists, he said, cause him to stop and ask himself “Is the LGBTQ community, and our government, trying to help individuals overcome problems and improve their health, or are they pushing an agenda?”

“When I was a small boy, I would have run down the road of gender change,” he said. “In my nightly prayers I asked God to change me into a girl before I would wake up.  I made this happen (changed my gender presentation – we can not change our gender) as an adult and presented as a woman for 7 years.

“I had so many underlying issues that I had to deal with later in life – these issues manifested in me to identify as a girl, and I convinced my therapists that I was in the wrong body (because I fully believed this),” he said. “I have met transgender people and, in my conversations, we all have, or have had, underlying issues, such as sexual abuse, that had not been addressed.”

He concluded: “Gender affirming therapy, I believe, does more long term harm than good.”

AUTHOR

MARY MARGARET OLOHAN

Social issues reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘I Still Felt Incomplete’: Detransitioned Men, Women Describe How Frighteningly Easy It Was To Get Trans Surgeries, Hormones

Tennessee Becomes Second State To Ban Trans Hormone Treatments Before Puberty

Here Are The States That Want To Ban Trans Surgeries For Minors

‘Woke’ Pressure ‘Strengthened’ DeSantis Decision To Ban Biological Males From Women’s Sports, Spox Says

Here’s Why Noem Fought South Dakota’s Bill Banning Biological Males From Women’s Sports

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Antifa link casts Jane’s Revenge attacks on pro-life centers in radical new light

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Editor’s Note – This piece by Valerie Richardson features quotes from CSP Director for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Kyle Shideler.

Dozens of pro-life pregnancy centers have been terrorized for months by a radical pro-choice outfit calling itself Jane’s Revenge, but now it looks as if the previously unknown group is entwined with a more significant threat: Antifa.

Antifa trackers and conservative media outlets linked two Miami residents charged with conspiracy in attacks on crisis pregnancy centers in Florida to the shadowy anarchist movement after the Justice Department unsealed the federal indictment last week.

One of the suspects, 23-year-old Amber Smith-Stewart, has made no secret of her Antifa sympathies. She has identified herself as “Antifa, anti-capitalist” on her Facebook page, which includes images of pro-Antifa posters and flags from a screenshot posted on the AntifaWatch website.

The second suspect, 27-year-old Caleb Freestone, is listed on AntifaWatch and has been active with Whatever It Takes, a left-wing pro-choice group with no love for “fascists” that advocates for “sustained civil resistance” and “direct action.”

He was arrested in July at a heated Miami-Dade County school board meeting and charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest without violence and trespassing after a warning. A woman at the meeting publicly accused him of being with Antifa, which he appeared to deny.

“People who are accused of being the boogeyman Antifa are met with a significant police response,” Mr. Freestone told WLRN public radio.

The two are accused in June attacks on a trio of pregnancy resource centers in Hialeah, Hollywood and Winter Haven. Vandals left behind spray-painted messages such as “Jane,” “Jane was here” and “Jane’s Revenge,” as well as the anarchist “A” symbol favored by Antifa.

That doesn’t mean Antifa and Jane’s Revenge are the same, but they likely share much of the same personnel, said Kyle Shideler, senior analyst for homeland security and counterterrorism for the Center for Security Policy.

He described both as examples of anarchist and autonomist Marxist groups organized by affinity groups, small cells of people who share the same politics and engage in direct action together. They often join other affinity groups to form clusters. Those that stay together are called collectives or blocs.

“There are probably people who identify as Jane’s Revenge who do not engage in activities that Antifa is best known for, but the overlap is really high,” Mr. Shideler said.

A week after the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked on May 2, a group calling itself Jane’s Revenge firebombed the Wisconsin Family Action headquarters in Madison and issued a communique warning that more attacks were coming.

That assault acted as a call to arms for affinity groups nationwide, Mr. Shideler said.

“You had the initial incident that was carried out by Jane’s Revenge, and then they issued a manifesto essentially saying if you believe in this, then you are a member of us. Go out and do what we have done,” Mr. Shideler said. “It’s a very common insurrectionary, anarchist way of thinking. So various affinity groups across the country took up that call and conducted actions in the name of Jane’s Revenge.”

Since the Supreme Court leak, at least 79 pro-life facilities and 126 Catholic churches have been attacked, according to the CatholicVote tracker.

The Jane’s Revenge statement issued in May through Bellingcat journalist Robert Evans ended with: “We are not one group, but many. We are in your city. We are in every city.”

Read more.

AUTHORS

Valerie Richardson

Originally published by The Washington Times

Kyle Shideler

Director and Senior Analyst for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Ideologues Infiltrated the Arts

National Heartbeat Bill Would Protect Babies After 6 Weeks

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

House, Senate GOP To Start ‘DC Home Rule’ Vote To Block District’s New Crime Law

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Republican Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde and Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagerty will introduce a joint resolution of disapproval to block the Washington, D.C., Council’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022, which would lower penalties for a number of violent criminal offenses, according to legislation first obtained by the Daily Caller.

Clyde will introduce the House version Thursday. Hagerty will introduce the Senate companion next week, sources with knowledge confirmed to the Caller.

Congress can exercise authority over D.C. local affairs, according to the District Clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17), and Congress reviews all D.C. legislation before it can become law. Congress can change or even overturn D.C. legislation and can impose new laws on the district.

In Nov. 2022, the D.C. Council approved the Revised Criminal Code Act (RCCA). The RCCA reduces penalties for certain violent criminal offenses, including carjackings, robberies, and homicides. Democratic Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser vetoed the bill on Jan. 4. The council then overrode Bowser’s veto on Jan. 17 by a vote of 12-1.

The bill must go through a 60-day review process in Congress. During this time, each chamber can pass a resolution of disapproval to block the measure. If the bill does receive congressional approval, D.C. would begin phasing in the new criminal code in 2025. The estimated cost is around $50 million.

Clyde and Hagerty will need bipartisan support to stop the crime bill. After passing the House, the resolution would need to receive the support of a simple majority in the Senate and President Joe Biden’s signature.

Violent crime in D.C. surged throughout 2021. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) data shows that the number of homicides increased 19 percent in 2020 and remained constant into 2021, the Washingtonian reported. Carjackings have tripled since 2019.

“The D.C. Council’s radical rewrite of the criminal code threatens the well-being of both Washingtonians and visitors — making our nation’s capital city a safe haven for violent criminals,” Clyde told the Caller. “In response to this dangerous and severely misguided measure, it’s now up to Congress to save our nation’s capital from itself.”

“Our Constitution grants Congress the responsibility and authority to manage Washington’s affairs, which is why we must swiftly pass a resolution of disapproval to stop this insanity in its tracks,” he continued. “I urge Republicans and Democrats in both chambers to join our fight to make Washington safe for all Americans by blocking the D.C. Council’s soft-on-crime bill.”

In March, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to Bowser calling on her to provide them with a plan for how she will address the rampant violent crime in the nation’s capital.

The Caller first obtained the March letter spearheaded by ranking member Rep. James Comer of Kentucky and signed by all Republicans on the committee. In the letter, the lawmakers criticized Bowser and D.C. Democrats for cutting the budget for the MPD.

“All Americans should feel safe in their capital city, but radical left-wing policies have created a crime crisis in the District of Columbia. The D.C. Council wants to go even easier on criminals, which will turn D.C.’s crime crisis into a catastrophe,” Comer told the Caller in reference to Clyde and Hagerty’s resolution. “The D.C. Council and Mayor Bowser’s actions place D.C. on a path of destruction and will be met with strong oversight from Oversight Committee Republicans. As the committee with jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, we will conduct oversight of the disastrous policies that have allowed crime to run rampant in our nation’s capital city. We will use every remedy available to the House to prevent the D.C. Council’s pro-criminal bill from becoming law.”

READ THE RESOLUTION HERE: 

(DAILY CALLER OBTAINED) — … by Henry Rodgers

“The American public has had enough of the crime wave that’s rolling across our country, including in our nation’s capital,” Hagerty told the Caller. “Congress is tasked with overseeing Washington, D.C. — a federal district where people should be safe to live and work. The District should set a nationwide example by enacting legislation that makes its residents and visitors safer — not less safe. Our resolution makes clear that Congress intends to hold D.C. to this standard.”

Denise Krepp — a former locally elected D.C. official and former Obama Administration political appointee, who served as the Capitol Hill Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner (ANC for 6B10) — told the Caller she was frustrated with the D.C. Council’s response to skyrocketing crime.

“Last year, the D.C. Council wrote a law that enables the early release of convicted rapists from prison. I asked Congress to disapprove the bill because rape is an irreversible crime,” she said. “Victims don’t get to rewind the clock and they live with the pain every day. I thank Congress for introducing the disapproval resolution and I respectfully ask that all members support it. Rape isn’t a partisan issue. It’s an act of violence and convicted rapists should be required to serve their full prison sentences.”

In Dec. 2022, Krepp denounced the RCCA in a letter to House leadership, which the Caller obtained:

(DAILY CALLER OBTAINED) — … by Henry Rodgers

Comer and then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told the Caller in Feb. 2022 that, when the GOP took back the House, they planned to use their power to hold Bowser accountable for implementing destructive policies.

McCarthy, who was elected speaker in January, weighed in on Clyde and Hagerty’s joint resolution in a statement to the Caller.

“The D.C. City Council – which recently voted to override the mayor’s veto to impose new soft-on-crime policies that reduce penalties for robberies, carjackings, illegal gun possession, and more – is leaving Congress no choice but to act,” he said. “House Republicans will work through our committees to address the surging violent crime wave in our nation’s capital and across the country. The goal of government at every level must be to ensure that every American is entitled to a safe environment to live, work, and raise a family. The District of Columbia government has clearly failed in that regard.”

A vote on the resolution has not yet been scheduled, but House GOP lawmakers are moving quickly to convince leadership to bring the resolution to a floor vote as soon as possible. The House resolution has 19 original cosponsors: Reps. Rick Allen, Austin Scott and Buddy Carter of Georgia; Brian Babin, Dan Crenshaw, August Pfluger and Keith Self of Texas; Andy Biggs and Debbie Lesko of Arizona, Ben Cline and Bob Good of Virginia, James Comer of Kentucky, Scott Franklin of Florida, Mike Garcia of California, Mike Green of Tennessee, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Gary Palmer of Alabama, Joe Wilson of South Carolina and Ryan Zinke of Montana.

Bowser’s office did not immediately respond to the Caller’s inquiry about the resolution.

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Chief national correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: House Oversight Republicans, Kevin McCarthy Plan November Surprise For DC Mayor Bowser

EXCLUSIVE: House Oversight Republicans Demand Mayor Bowser Provide Plan To Address Rampant Violent Crime In Nation’s Capital

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

Problems with Voting Machines Continue to Pile Up

/in , , , , , , , /by

A county in Arkansas and a borough in Alaska just got rid of their electronic voting machines.  After you hear some of the problems machines are causing around the country, you will understand why there is such distrust.

The move in Arkansas came in part because the machines have proprietary software the public cannot examine and, therefore, the public cannot be assured their votes are being properly counted.  The thinking in the Alaska borough is that hand-counting in the precincts before ballots are transported reduces the chances for fraud.

Machine errors were discovered two months after elections, flipping a local race in New Jersey.  A USB flash drive had been read twice, producing the wrong results.  The manufacturer insisted there are fail-safes in the system to prevent this kind of thing from happening, but it was the county that found the error later, during an audit.  And Democrats resist audits, imagine.

A similar problem flipped a city council race in Georgia.  The results changed after uncounted ballots were found on a memory card.

A hand recount flipped another race in Iowa.  A machine recount showed the Democrat won a race for state House.  After reports of machines jamming during counting, a hand recount was ordered, and the Republican was certified the winner.

An expert testified in Kari Lake’s lawsuit in Arizona he was able to hack Dominion and ES&S machines in minutes.  He also said the testing the machines are put through is a joke.

Another problem with Dominion machines was found in Tennessee and Georgia.  An election worker noticed hundreds of ballots removed from a machine did not get counted.  The machine did not signal it was having a problem.  The same problem was found on six other machines in Tennessee and, later, in 64 counties in Georgia.  The state could not find the cause.  The feds couldn’t, either, and the manufacturer couldn’t figure it out.  Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, does it?

Another expert found a privacy flaw in Dominion machines affecting 21 states.  “Under some circumstances, the flaw could allow members of the public to identify other peoples’ ballots and learn how they voted.”

A county in Pennsylvania sued Dominion after finding a variety of anomalies and vulnerabilities, including foreign databases and unauthorized scripts on the machines.  They also found the machines could be hacked and malicious software installed.  The machines should never have been certified, the suit alleges.

Finally, they keep telling us these machines don’t have modems and can’t connect to the Internet, but a watchdog group in Wisconsin found this is a complete lie.  Machines used in the 2020 elections were connected to a nongovernmental IP address called WiscNet in three separate elections, including November 3, 2020.  A Wisconsin lawmaker is asking some very pointed questions:

  1. Who programmed the tabulators to connect to an unauthorized NGO? And for what purpose?
  2. Why didn’t the firewall detect the devices?
  3. Which public officials knew of the connection?
  4. What took place via the connection?
  5. How many other machines are connected to WiscNet or other NGO?

Good questions.

Why don’t government officials answer them instead of patting us on the head and telling us we have most secure elections ever.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

Conspicuous By Their Presence

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Palestinian flags, on unabashed and unhindered display at recent demonstrations against the proposed reform of Israel’s legal system, tear off the façade of hypocrisy that masks what really motivates them.

We need to understand that the High Court of Justice is one family. Even if there are different opinions, it is to the benefit of the State [of Israel] that there be a coherent Court, in which the relationships are like those of a family. Despite any differences, it is impossible to include someone who is not part of the system—Former President of Israel’s  Supreme Court, Aharon Barak, at the annual conference of the Israeli Association of Public Law, December 1, 2016.

We go to the polls, vote, elect, and time after time, people we didn’t elect choose for us. Many sectors of the public look to the judicial system and do not find their voices heard. That is not democracy…I’ve warned against the damage caused by judicialization. Now, the time has come to act—Justice Minister Yariv Levin, at a press conference at the Knesset, January 4, 2023.

Over recent weeks, tens of thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets, ostensibly to protest the measures proposed by the newly ensconced justice minister, Yariv Levin.

At stake is the fate of the current system which, in essence, subordinates the elected organs of government (the executive and the legislature), voted into office, by a wide swathe of the public, to the discretion of a small group of un-elected officials (the judiciary and like-minded functionaries in the Justice Ministry).

Accordingly, the proposed measures are aimed at curbing what is a virtual stranglehold, which un-elected jurists have today on national policymaking and on the control of political decision-making. Clearly, this impinges on the formulation and implementation of national strategy at widely diverse levels—from economics to national security.

The reform measures

In broad brush strokes, the proposed reform addresses four aspects of the prevailing system:

  • The composition of the Judicial Selection Committee, the body that determines the choice of judges;
  • The ability of the Knesset to override judicial decisions to strike down legislation;
  • The judicial determination of “reasonableness”;
  • The status of legal advisors to government ministries.

Judicial appointments: According to Levin’s proposals, Supreme Court justices will no longer have veto power over who is appointed to the bench by the Judicial Selection Committee. Under the reform proposal, the duly elected incumbent government will have a majority. Moreover, candidates for the Supreme Court will have a public hearing before the Knesset Constitution Committee, in which they present their judicial philosophy. In this regard, Levin declared: “There will no longer be a situation whereby judges choose themselves in back rooms with no protocol.” Accordingly, this measure will militate toward infusing greater transparency into the fuzzy opaqueness of the cozy cronyism of what is, in effect, a closed fraternity (see the opening excerpt from Barak).

Knesset override of judicial decisions to strike down legislation: According to the reform proposal, the Supreme Court will be explicitly prevented from deliberating and ruling on Israel’s Basic Laws, and will only be able to strike down Knesset legislation by a panel of all the court’s judges and with a “special majority.” A Supreme Court override clause will also be legislated to allow the Knesset to reinstate a law struck down by the court with a majority of 61. However, the Knesset will not be empowered to reinstate a law struck down by the court in a unanimous decision of all 15 judges during the course of that Knesset term. The reform measures (cont.)

The judicial determination of “reasonableness”: The proposed reform also abolishes the court’s ability to use the test of “reasonableness” to determine whether administrative decisions are “valid” and have taken into proper consideration all “relevant” factors. For years, the Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of what is (and is not) “reasonable”/proportionate” has invoked the principle of “reasonableness” to reverse several significant government decisions, both at the national and the local levels.

The status of legal advisors to government ministries: The proposed reform introduces new regulations allowing ministers to appoint their own legal advisers, rather than getting counsel from advisers acting under the aegis of the Justice Ministry. The current practice, by which the advisers’ legal determinations are binding on the ministry will end and their legal opinions will be seen as non-obligatory counsel. On this issue, Levin stated: “There will be no more subordination of the government to an unelected rank. The legal advisers are what they are called [advisers].”

It is the intended implementation of these measures and the alleged “threat” they pose to Israeli democracy that has purportedly ignited the vociferous protests across the nation. It is of course utterly unclear why leaving fateful questions, that have crucial impact on the public, to unelected officials, not in any way answerable to the public, is somehow more democratic than allowing duly elected representatives of that public, who are answerable to the public, a greater role in resolving such issues.

Tearing off the mask of hypocrisy

But be that as it may, there is still one aspect of the demonstrations that is deeply concerning and casts grave doubts as to the sincerity and the motivations of the protests and of their participants.

This is the unabashed and unhindered display of Palestinian flags, flaunted widely during the demonstrations—something from which the left-leaning media could not refrain from reporting. Indeed, one can only wonder what the point of brandishing enemy banners is—and how it has any bearing on the internal Israeli debate over domestic legal reforms. After all, there is no conceivable causal nexus between the Palestinian issue and the proposed reform of the domestic legal system.

So, are these self-professed “pro-democracy” activists showing their empathy for the homophobic, misogynistic Palestinian despotism? Are they seriously implying that Israel should adopt a legal system like the one which prevails under the Palestinian Authority…or perhaps Hamas? Really??

Of course, this is highly unlikely.

Rather, the incorporation of the Palestinian flags in the protest activity tears off the façade of hypocrisy that masks the true nature and purpose of these demonstrations, revealing what really lies behind them.

Conspicuous by their presence…

Indeed, conspicuous by their presence, these flags reveal that the protesters are not really a group of high-minded citizens, genuinely concerned with the nation’s future, but a motley collection of disaffected and defeated Bibi-phoebes grasping at every chance to berate him and anything associated with him.

Having despaired of displacing him by normal democratic process via the ballot box, the last vestige of hope the left-leaning anti-Netanyahu political cliques have of removing him from office is through the legal system—and its (ab)use as a political weapon. They, therefore, have a vital and vested interest in forestalling any measures that may discredit the primary instrument used in the endeavor to unseat him—and preserving the power of the unelected jurist at the expense of the elected parliament.

That is the only conceivable explanation that can account for flying the Palestinian flag, with no discernable compunction—even immediately after horrendous terror attacks by Palestinians in Jerusalem, which left over half a dozen victims dead and others wounded.

Sadly, it seems that Jewish blood spilled in the street of Jerusalem is of little import when it comes to venting Bibi-phobic bile.

©Dr. Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

House Boots Rep. Ilhan Omar Off Key Committee Over Anti-Semitic Remarks

/in , , , , , , /by

The House of Representatives voted Thursday along party lines to remove Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee due to her repeated anti-Semitic remarks.

Omar, a third-term congresswoman from Minneapolis, faced immense criticism in 2019 over suggestions that American support for Israel is purchased and that American Jews “push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Left-wing Democrats later watered down a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, and Omar faced no further punishment. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy has described the vote as payback for the removals of Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona from their committees during the 117th Congress.

218 Republicans voted in favor of the resolution, while all 211 Democrats voted against. Republican Ohio Rep. Dave Joyce voted present.

The resolution notes Omar’s tweeted assertion that American support for Israel is “all about the Benjamins,” which are distributed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). She faced bipartisan rebukes for her comments, although she later doubled down on them in a May bookstore talk.

“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K. for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Omar said.

Omar’s comments “have brought dishonor to the House of Representatives,” according to the resolution, and she “has disqualified herself from serving on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, a panel that is viewed by nations around the world as speaking for Congress on matters of international importance and national security.”

Some Republicans expressed misgivings about removing Omar from the committee, noting their own opposition to removing Greene and Gosar in 2021. Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Ken Buck of Colorado, Victoria Spartz of Indiana, and Matt Gaetz of Florida all suggested that it would be hypocritical for Republicans to remove Omar after voting to maintain Greene and Gosar’s assignments. All four ultimately voted in favor of the resolution.

The resolution also notes Omar’s 2021 comparison of the U.S. and Israel to the Taliban and Hamas, and her downplaying of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Omar accused Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy of “Islamophobia” and “racism” for initiating the removal process. She denied knowing that her comments were anti-Semitic during a Sunday CNN appearance.

“I wasn’t aware of the fact that there are tropes about Jews and money. That has been [a] very enlightening part of this journey,” Omar said. “To insinuate that I knowingly said these things when people have read into my comments to make it sound as if I have something against the Jewish community is so wrong.”

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLE: Dems Attempt To Show Unity After Delay Of Anti-Semitism Resolution

Democrat Lawmaker Proposes Banning Kids From Attending Bible Camp

/in , , , , , , , /by

Democratic Nebraska state Sen. Megan Hunt proposed banning children from attending religious camps in an amendment to a bill banning minors from drag shows Jan. 23.

Banning bible camp as revenge for pushback against sexualizing children and exposing them to sex shows.

Describing America’s simmering civil war as a battle between good and evil is not hyperbolic, it could not be more clear.  Good versus evil.

The left is pure evil.

Dem Lawmaker Proposes Banning Kids From Attending Bible Camp

By: Laurel Duggan, Daily Caller,  January 31, 2023:

Democratic Nebraska state Sen. Megan Hunt proposed banning children from attending religious camps in an amendment to a bill banning minors from drag shows Jan. 23.

Hunt proposed the amendment to “make a point” and will withdraw it if it garners enough votes to pass, she wrote Saturday. All–age drag shows, sometimes featuring child performers, have become increasingly popular in recent years, and Democrats and LGBT activists have fought against efforts to restrict child attendance, portraying these efforts as anti-LGBT.

“There is a well-documented history of indoctrination and sexual abuse perpetrated by religious leaders and clergy people upon children,” her amendment read. “For purposes of this section, religious indoctrination camp means a camp, vacation Bible study, retreat, lock-in, or convention held by a church, youth group, or religious organization for the purpose of indoctrinating children with a specific set of religious beliefs. No individual under nineteen years of age shall be present at a religious indoctrination camp.”

Legislative Bill 371, which the amendment was proposed to, would ban anyone under 19 from attending drag shows and would make bringing a minor to a drag show a criminal misdemeanor. It would also ban anyone under 21 from attending drag shows where alcohol is served.

The legislation defines a performance as a drag show if “The main aspect of the performance is a performer which exhibits a gender identity that is different than the performer’s gender assigned at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical markers; and The performer sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience for entertainment.”

“This is an amendment that I will use to make a point about the underlying bill, LB371, which bans all-ages drag shows. It won’t pass, I would withdraw it if it had the votes to pass. It’s a device to make a point. We need not clench nor worry,” she wrote. “I have introduced similar amendments in the past – e.g. in a session where we had a bill to require DNA collection of everyone accused of a crime, I amended DNA collection requirements on all kinds of other bills as devices to make a point. They aren’t meant to pass.”

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Florida College Bureaucrats ‘Significantly Misreported’ Diversity Initiatives When Pressed By DeSantis, His Office Says

Joe Biden Celebrates Abortion in State of the Union Address

Jill Biden Will Have Abortion Activist Sit With Her at State of the Union

RELATED TWEET:

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

Trump Was Impeached For A Phone Call—To Prevent Him From Finding Out What Biden Was Actually Doing In Ukraine

/in , , , , , , , , /by

UPDATE: NEW Biden-Ukraine Phone Calls Indicate Cover-up

President Trump was impeached for a phone call – a ‘perfect phone call” – trying to get to the bottom of this. And it was bad, worse than Trump imagined. It’s why they had to impeach him, so he couldn’t get to the bottom of it.

Biden was covering up his criminality in Ukraine. And he was EXTREMELY concerned about Trump looking around. He didn’t want Trump to follow where all the funding was going because he would uncover the biological research, among other things.

Biden/Poroshenko 2016 Phone Call Proves DNC Malfeasance in Ukraine

Published: Jul 22, 2022 by Clandestine:

THIS IS WILD!

Rewind, to November 16th, 2016:

Then Vice President Biden made a phone call to former Ukrainian President Poroshenko, during the Trump transition after Trump won 2016. Link to video below:

https://t.me/bioclandestine/479

Biden Transcript below:

“This is getting very, very close to what I don’t want to have happen. I don’t want Trump to get in a position where he thinks he’s about to buy on to a policy where the financial system is going to collapse and he’s going to be looked to pour more money into Ukraine.

That’s how he’ll think about it before he get sophisticated enough to know the detail.

So anything you can do to push that the PrivatBank closure so that the IMP loan comes forward, I would respectfully suggest is critically important to your economic as we as physical security.”

Now we know why Biden was MORTIFIED and threatened Poroshenko’s “physical and economic security” if he allowed Trump to find out the “details” of what the DNC were actually doing in Ukraine. If Trump saw the US funds going into Ukraine, Trump would look into it and find the entire DNC Deep State network in Ukraine, most important of which were the biolabs.

THIS IS WHY SHE WASN’T SUPPOSED TO LOSE! They knew that if Trump got in office, and he found what they were doing, they were all going to swing from nooses. It was always about Ukraine. That’s what it’s been the entire time. Covering up Ukraine.

This is the smoking gun. This adds significant validity to the Russian allegations that the US DNC are doing nefarious things in Ukraine. This confirms Biden is guilty of something, and confirms he was petrified that Trump would find out about it.

Just to be clear, if you are doing something you don’t want the incoming administration to be aware of, its only because you are doing something malevolent. This is not how an honest or good leader behaves. This is criminal.

This is also why the Dems in the House impeached Trump over a phone call to Zelensky, because Trump was getting too close to finding out.

Everything that the DNC/Globalist machine have done since Trump came down that escalator, was ultimately about covering up Ukraine.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hunter Biden’s Metabiota Labs Received Tens of Millions of Dollars in DOD Contracts, Experimented with Bat Viruses

Zelensky Ordered Destruction of All State Docs Associated with Hunter Biden’s METABIOTA Labs

Hunter Biden Withheld Money from Employee Until She Performed Sexual Acts, Filmed Their Sex Sessions, Saved On His Infamous Laptop

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

VIDEO: NYC Hotel Mobbed by Illegals Refusing to Leave Hotel For Relocation

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

New Yorkers voted for this. They always vote Democrat. You reap what you vote.

The Democrats that opened the floodgates to these ingrates is the same party what refused entry to Jew fleeing

Migrants refuse to leave Hell’s Kitchen hotel for relocation to Brooklyn

By David Propper, Joe Marino, Larry Celona and Bernadette Hogan, January 30, 2023 12:15am Updated

Dozens of migrants stood their ground outside the Watson Hotel in Hell’s Kitchen on Sunday night and refused to leave for a new shelter at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal.

Cops had mobilized around the hotel around 10 p.m. as more than 50 migrants were standing outside with activists assisting with food, water and translations.

Single men were supposed to be brought to the new shelter over the weekend that would provide the same services they’ve been receiving, city officials said.

At one point, a city bus arrived and a small number of migrants jumped on, though the vast majority stayed put in front of the hotel on West 57th Street. Activists argued the migrants were being forced out of the hotel.

One Manhattan activist told The Post the men outside were staying at the hotel and were prepared to stay outside overnight. Some were moved to the new shelter earlier this weekend, but opted to return to the Manhattan site, she said.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Migrants are ‘Drinking All Day,’ ‘Having Sex in the Stairs’ in Taxpayer-Funded Luxury New York Hotels: Whistleblower

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

The Sumter Gambit: How the Left is Trying to Foment a Civil War

/in , , , , , , , /by

Video: Robert Spencer on the Left’s Plan for Civil War

Here is a terrific FrontPage review by Bruce Bawer of my new book The Sumter Gambit: How the Left Is Trying to Foment A Civil War:

From birth, the United States was a house divided. Slavery had existed always, everywhere; but America was different – founded on a set of noble ideas with which the institution of slavery was utterly at odds. Still, in order to establish – and then to preserve – a union that was half slave and half free, America’s leaders repeatedly put off the day of reckoning. Jefferson condemned slavery in a draft passage of the Declaration of Independence, only to take it out to ensure passage. The Constitution’s framers dealt with the issue by concocting the three-fifths compromise. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise balanced the admission of slave Missouri with that of free Maine; the Compromise of 1850 admitted free California but also introduced the Fugitive Slave Act, compelling the return of escaped slaves to their owners.

Along the way, some events upset the constant, desperate attempts at balance. Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) sparked anti-slavery passions. In 1854, abolitionists formed the GOP and the Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed slavery anywhere. In the 1850s, Kansans spent years warring over slavery, and in 1859 John Brown raided a Virginia arsenal in an effort to incite a slave revolt.

Viewing Lincoln’s 1860 election as a threat to their “peculiar institution,” Southern states began seceding even before he took office; in his inaugural address, delivered two weeks to the day after the formation, on February 18, 1861, of the Confederate States of America, Lincoln eloquently articulated the hope that even now, when a standoff between Union and rebel forces was brewing at Fort Sumter, an Army installation in the harbor of Charleston, S.C., further compromise was yet feasible: “Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

But no reunion was forthcoming. No angels materialized. On April 12, Southern forces began firing on Fort Sumter. As Robert Spencer puts it in his engaging, important, and wide-ranging new book, The Sumter Gambit, the war “started when the Confederate side forced it to begin.” Ordered to abandon the fort, the Yankees refused. “Then the South warned that even resupplying the fort with food would be considered an act of war. The choice was clear: surrender the fort and accept the secession of the Southern states or go to war.”

And so it was war. The longstanding divisions had finally split the house in two. Today, argues Spencer, America is in a not dissimilar fix – although, in his estimation, the divisions now are even wider. In 1861, North and South shared “a common culture, a common religion, a common heritage, and a common outlook”; today, left and right barely share “a common language.”

Can that be? Is the gulf greater now than then? My own sense is that in the mid-19th century there were significant disparities in culture and outlook – and, yes, even in religion – between North and South, and that today, conversely, red and blue voters can seem more divided than they really are, with millions voting Democrat because they’re clueless about what the party stands for today and because they get their “news” from corporate media that pour out progressive PR. Nonetheless, it’s true that today’s leftist ideologues, like the more rabid secessionists in the South of 1861, are indeed, as Spencer says, “edging the nation ever closer to a new civil war.” Spencer dubs this “the Sumter Gambit.”

Like the standoff in Charleston harbor, the present crisis follows decades of increasing tension between two Americas. This time it’s not about freedom vs. slavery, however, but about freedom vs. statist tyranny. And there are other divergences. One is that slavery was there from the beginning and was essentially (in the words of the old hymn) from age to age the same; by contrast, the left’s governing ideology has, over the decades, grown steadily more radical and hard to square with individual freedom, common sense, or (for that matter) the hard lessons of 20th-century totalitarianism. As late as 1960, JFK and Nixon were remarkably close to each other on the issues; a few years later, LBJ’s Great Society marked a great leap forward from federalist republic to welfare state; in 1972, George McGovern’s presidential run represented, in Spencer’s words, the “mainstreaming of…anti-Americanism in the Democratic Party.” In the ensuing years, the mainstream media, the D.C. swamp, and – most decisively – the schools and universities fell increasingly under the control of radicals who taught young Americans to hate liberty, capitalism, and their own country and to embrace globalism, multiculturalism, climatism, and, more recently, “anti-racism” and gender madness. And Congress welcomed members like Ilhan Omar, who makes McGovern look almost like Eisenhower.

Then there’s the longtime problem of the Deep State. As early as 1961, in his farewell address, Ike warned about the military-industrial complex. The CIA is now being seriously accused of having a hand in the JFK assassination. A generation grew up believing that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein saved democracy by bringing down Nixon; now they look like unwitting tools of Deep State operatives eager to oust a strong-minded president who’d just won an overwhelming election victory. Almost half a century later, the same Deep State tried its darndest to bring down Donald Trump – and then, almost certainly, foiled his re-election.

In the Watergate era, to be sure, Democrats viewed Republicans as opponents. Now they’re seen as nothing less than enemies – a chilling attitude that found its ultimate expression in Joe Biden’s speech of September 1, 2022 (delivered, ironically enough, at Independence Hall in Philadelphia), in which he described Trump and his supporters as “extremists that threaten the very foundations of our republic.” Quite rightly, Spencer views that dark moment in Philadelphia as pivotal. “For the first time in American history,” he writes, “a president declared that his primary political opposition was outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse….Biden came closer to calling for war upon American citizens than any president since Jefferson Davis.”

But Spencer doesn’t leave it at that. He also compares Biden’s speech to one given by Hitler on March 23, 1933, in support of a piece of legislation called the Enabling Act. Of course, we’re never supposed to compare anyone to Hitler. Leo Strauss called it reductio ad hitlerum. But why is this so verboten? There have been tyrants as terrible as Hitler in the past – in the twentieth century alone we had Stalin and Mao – and there will be terrible ones in the future. If an American president stands in front of a blood-red background, with Marines at attention behind him, and demonizes his political opponents in fiery language that’s eerily reminiscent of a specific Hitler speech, is it unreasonable to note the similarity? When Biden and his flunkies routinely smear MAGA Republicans as fascists – even while his own regime, by covertly collaborating with Silicon Valley and other corporate cronies, is acting out the very definition of fascism – wouldn’t one be a fool not to point out the truth?

One thing’s for sure: Spencer, as he’s proven in over a dozen exceptional books, is no fool. In The Sumter Gambit, he perceptively examines the various fronts on which the left is pushing freedom-loving Americans to the brink, frequently focusing in on various obscure episodes that illuminate just what we’re up against. Did you know, for example, about January 6 “insurrectionist” Matthew Perna, a decent patriot who, on February 25, 2022, his heart and soul finally broken after more than a year of emotional torture at the hands of the Justice Department, committed suicide? Spencer contrasts the system’s cruel tormenting of Perna with the case of Quintez Brown, a BLM thug who, after shooting at a Kentucky politician who’s now the mayor of Louisville, was treated sympathetically in the media, welcomed on Joy Reid’s MSNBC show, “anointed as a rising star by the Obama Foundation,” and given a column in Louisville’s major daily.

A key difference between the first Fort Sumter moment and the current one is that slavery, in those immediate antebellum days, was out in the open – an unambiguous evil – while today’s Democratic tyranny is largely a matter of back-room machinations involving party hirelings, media hacks, and secret agents, all of whom seek to bamboozle the rest of us by turning virtually everything upside-down. In Orwell’s 1984,“war is peace” and “freedom is slavery”; in 2023, truth-tellers are “conspiracy theorists” and “saving our democracy” means suppressing free speech.  MAGA words are violence – but don’t dare call Antifa arson or BLM bloodshed by its real name.

And on and on it goes. The same establishment figures who pushed the lie of Trump’s Russia collusion dismissed Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian dupery.  Joe Biden – who has weaponized the FBI and CIA, collaborated covertly with big tech, and been bought and paid for by the CCP – is depicted as a defender of “our democracy,” while Trump, a real champion of freedom, is painted as a dangerous authoritarian. Although multiple investigations (who in this country’s history has been probed more thoroughly?) have shown Trump’s finances to be remarkably above-board, while the colossal dimensions (and treasonous implications) of Biden’s corruption are becoming clearer and clearer, clueless clowns on the left can still say, as Joy Behar did on a recent episode of The View, that “we all know that Trump is a liar and a thief” but we “don’t think Biden is a liar and a thief.”

It’s hard to deny Spencer’s assertion that the left is actively seeking to provoke the rest of us into starting a civil war. Why, after all, did Nancy Pelosi’s office deny security officials the resources they requested so that they could safeguard the Capitol on January 6? Why did Capitol Hill police essentially stand down during the so-called “insurrection”? Why did some of them let “insurrectionists” into the building? Why have the Democrats kept most of the video recordings of the events of that day under lock and key?

But what about Spencer’s concern that conservatives might resort, in significant numbers, to actual violence (as opposed to the imaginary violence of January 6)? Is he right to worry about that? Isn’t it the left that breeds rioters and rebels? Aren’t conservatives by nature law-abiding? Doesn’t the left’s desperate need to cast the Proud Boys as terrorists simply reflect the lack of real organized violence on the right to complain about? Yes, it would be thoroughly understandable if a large cohort of right-wingers were, at long last, after decades of left-wing violence – the Black Panthers, SDS, Weather Underground, M19, BLM, Antifa, etc., etc. – to go amok in reaction to the outrages cataloged in Spencer’s book. But how likely is that? I don’t know. Spencer’s far from alone in being concerned about a possible divorce – amicable or not – between the blue and red states. But even after everything that’s happened – and been revealed – in the last few years about the scale of the D.C. swamp’s perfidy, such a turn of events is hard for me to imagine. Perhaps I still haven’t shaken off my romantic boyhood ideas about America. Or perhaps I’ve lived abroad too long to be able to read the room.

In any event, I’m certainly on board with Spencer’s concluding exhortation to responsible-minded American patriots: if you’re moved to end affirmative action, bar biological males from women’s sports, secure the border, celebrate the Founding Fathers, pursue an “America First foreign policy,” and reverse the left’s innumerable other assaults on American liberty, peace, and prosperity, the time to do it is now. And the way to do it, however much you may be tempted to become the John Brown of the Biden era, is to act within the law – even though the administration of what used to be known as American justice is currently in the hands of a vile swamp creature of an attorney general whose loyalty isn’t to due process but to the Democratic Party. As Spencer observes at the close of this highly estimable addition to a truly magnificent oeuvre: “Our resistance and stand for freedom must be unshakable and indefatigable, without resorting to the violence the Left is relentlessly trying to goad us into committing.”

To Order Robert Spencer’s new book, The Sumter Gambit: CLICK HERE.

AUTHOR

Bruce Bawer

Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

REALTED ARTICLES:

What Drives the Left to Incite Civil War?

Here’s Something You Don’t See Every Day: The Government of Pakistan Has Charged Me With Blasphemy

Newark, N.J. Resolution Proclaims ‘World Hijab Day,’ and This Year, That’s Particularly Grotesque

New Jersey: Muslim migrant steals school bus, his journal says ‘Blood, blood, destruction, destruction. Allah.’

BBC filmmaker backtracks, now sees Islamic State bride Shamima Begum as a ‘narcissist’

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

No God, No Rights

/in , , , , , , , , /by

When Vice President Kamala Harris gave a speech on the 50th anniversary of “Roe v. Wade” about a week ago, she infamously left out the Creator—when talking about our rights. One wag told me, “Hey, at least Kamala didn’t say, we ‘are created by … you know, the thing,’” as did her boss on the campaign trail.

She also left out the “right to life.” But does this oversight matter? I addressed her “right to life” omission in a previous piece, but what about leaving out the Creator? Who cares?

We all should. The essence of America is self-rule under God. Leave out either part, and we end up with tyranny. Without God as the secure source of our rights, from whence come those rights?

Thomas Jefferson said, and you can see this quote in the Jefferson Memorial: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?”

Why does God matter? The late Clay Christensen was a Harvard Business professor who hosted a 90-second video segment that brilliantly shows why He matters.

Christensen says that ultimately we must choose between internal versus external restraint. In explaining to a visiting student from China how religion benefits American society by bolstering morality, Christensen makes the point that we can’t hire enough police to make people good. But democracy has greatly benefited through the internal restraints that religion provides.

William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, would concur. He once noted, “If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.”

Within a few years of America’s revolt against British rule, the French had their revolution. Some like to compare the American with the French Revolution. They were totally different because of the God factor. The American Revolution was pro-God. The French Revolution was anti-God. That is the difference in a nutshell.

For the documentaries in my Foundation of American Liberty series for Providence Forum, I had the privilege to interview Dennis Prager, the founder of PragerU. At one point in the interview, he contrasted these two turbulent events.

He told me, “The American Revolution and French Revolution is the battle in the United States.  Which revolution will prevail? … They loathe the idea of God in the French Revolution; the secular republic was the ideal. In America, they believed in secular government, but in a God-based society, because rights come from God in America. And you can only have liberty if you have God.”

Prager pointed out that this was not a “faith statement” so much as a “logical” one: “People will either feel accountable for their behavior to God or the state. Those are your two choices. It is an absurdity to believe they’ll be good if they’re accountable only to themselves. If you’re only accountable to yourself, you will always justify what you do.”

And so he concludes, “God is the ultimate issue.”

Take the issue of the value of human life. When you remove God from the equation, life becomes cheap. Because we’re made in the image of God, human life has value.

Human beings are different than the animals, says the Bible. Recently I read portions of a great book, The Death of Humanity: And The Case For Life” by history professor Dr. Richard Weikart, who wrote the classic book, From Darwin to Hitler.

Dr. Weikart writes, “Western society is in deep trouble today. Once we identify some segments of humanity as ‘life unworthy of life’ or ‘sub-human,’ to use phrases commonly used before and during the Nazi period, we have jettisoned any basis for valuing humans as humans. We have effectively undermined all human rights, because now we can decide which humans have rights and which do not.”

In contrast, the founders of America said in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are the right to life.” The first right they listed is the right to life.

In the Declaration, the signers mention God four times, including their appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions,” referring to Jesus, whom God, the Bible says, has appointed to judge us all one day.

But if there’s no Creator, as some politicians seem to think, why should there be any human right? As retired Congressman Ron Paul once noted, “There is only one kind of freedom and that’s individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it.”

©Jerry Newcombe, D.Min. All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: Med School Went Woke After Pressure From Accreditor, Documents Show

/in , , , , , , , , /by

  • The University of Utah School of Medicine implemented a series of programs to recruit and retain diverse students and faculty after its accrediting organization said its diversity efforts were unsatisfactory, according to emails obtained by a medical watchdog group and shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • The school, in response, filed a status report outlining its progress in increasing its diversity on campus.
  • “This further promotes ideology ahead of quality medical education and race/ethnicity or sex over hiring the most qualified faculty and staff,” Laura Morgan, Do No Harm’s program manager, told the DCNF.

The University of Utah School of Medicine (SOM) adopted a series of programs to recruit more diverse students and faculty after its accrediting organization said its diversity efforts were unsatisfactory, according to emails obtained by a medical watchdog group and shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) told the school that it found certain elements of its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts unsatisfactory, and requested a detailed report from the medical school about how it improved recruitment and retainment for students and faculty from underrepresented communities, according to a 2021 accreditation report shared with the DCNF. In response, the school complied with the request, instituting several DEI programs and sending a status update about how it sought to connect with people from “each of the school’s identified diversity groups,” earning the LCME’s approval.

“The LCME and AAMC hold the power over medical schools regarding their accreditation, and the University of Utah School of Medicine’s responses to the LCME’s findings reflect the desire to live up to those organizations’ woke agendas,” Laura Morgan, Do No Harm’s program manager, told the DCNF. “This further promotes ideology ahead of quality medical education and race/ethnicity or sex over hiring the most qualified faculty and staff.”

CLICK HERE TO VIEW PAGE  4: Requited Follow-up For The School

The initial LCME report found that the school’s “diversity/pipeline programs and partnerships” element was “unsatisfactory” based on data that showed a low number of women at the institution. The LCME said that this was an “improvement for the 2020 entering class,” but that staff diversity remained low.

“DCI data show that 38.5% of full-time faculty and 22.2% of senior administrative staff are women,” the report reads. “No offers for faculty and senior administrative staff positions were made in several of the school’s diversity categories (American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander) for the 2018-29 academic year.”

In response, the Utah school outlined several initiatives it took to recruit a more diverse student body. The efforts ranged from hosting an “Indigenous STEM Youth Outreach Program” to holding a “Day of the Dead Premedical Conference” and offering workshops to help undergraduate and pre-med students from “underrepresented” backgrounds prepare for the admissions process.

“Two significant areas for improvement are related to student and faculty diversity. SOM Office of Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (OHEDI) recognizes recruitment is important with compositional diversity and the need for intentional retention efforts for the success of all,” the school wrote in its report. “SOM OHEDI and health science center University of Utah Health, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (HSC UHEDI) are continuously working to identify needs for action to achieve desired results in terms of recruitment and retention of diverse faculty, students, and staff.”

CLICK HERE TO VIEW: Diversity Recruitment Days

The school held “diversity recruitment days” and offered scholarships specifically to students from “underrepresented populations” that covered the near total cost of tuition for four years, the report wrote. The school required its admissions staff to undergo “Anti-Bias Training” and to use a “holistic” admission process which required a cultural awareness essay for the 2021-2022 academic year.

Faculty search committees received anti-bias training, and most departments also require applicants to submit a diversity statement, according to the report.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW: School of Medicine Diverse Faculty Recruitment Initiative

The LCME responded in June 2022 that while the school had improved its diversity efforts, additional action is required. The accreditor labeled the school’s progress as “satisfactory with a need for mentoring,” but requested the school send a second status report by August 15, 2023.

“Medical education must not be undermined in favor of medical wokeness, and Utah taxpayers need to ask why this is being done at UUSOM,” Morgan told the DCNF.

The University of Utah School of Medicine and the LCME did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

ALEXA SCHWERHA

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: California Med School Scored Near-Perfect Marks On Its Wokeness Report Card, Docs Show

Satanic Temple Opens New Abortion Clinic to Kill Babies in Ritualistic Abortions

Governor Ron DeSantis Confirms He’ll Sign Heartbeat Bill Banning Abortions

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Matt Gaetz Responds To Jerry Nadler Objecting His Request To Recite Pledge Of Allegiance Before Judiciary Hearings

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler shut down Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz’s request to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before the House Judiciary Committee during a Wednesday hearing.

During the first Judiciary hearing with the new GOP-led Congress, Gaetz put forward an amendment to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each hearing, to which Nadler responded, saying, “I would oppose it simply on the grounds that, as members know, we pledge allegiance every day on the floor and I don’t know why we should pledge allegiance twice in the same day, to show how patriotic we are.” Gaetz mentioned he thought it would be a unifying and patriotic act.

Gaetz responded to Nadler’s opposition exclusively to the Daily Caller, saying, “Standing for the American flag isn’t controversial. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance isn’t a waste of time. Democrats are so outraged at the idea of a daily dose of patriotism that they spent 30 minutes ranting and raving in opposition. Congress cannot expect the American people to believe they are fighting for their values when they don’t even care to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.”

WATCH: 

“It’s absurd that Democrats on the committee don’t even want to say the pledge of allegiance. You would think it would be a simple request – not so for the Judiciary Democrats, who almost seemed allergic to reciting the pledge,” Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop told the Daily Caller.

In 2021, House Judiciary Democrats appeared to make fun of Gaetz’s request to have the committee recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of hearings on a hot mic.

At the time, the Daily Caller obtained a video file from the hearing which included audio of a group of Democrats joking about Republicans’ request to have the Pledge of Allegiance recited before committee hearings. In the video, Tennessee Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen and an unidentified House Democrat can be heard appearing to joke about the request. They were reminded by a staffer that their microphones were hot, according to the audio.

The Caller contacted Nadler’s office about his opposition to Gaetz’s move to say the Pledge of Allegiance before Judiciary Committee meetings, to which they did not immediately respond.

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Chief national correspondent.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: Judiciary Democrats Appear To Make Fun Of Gaetz’s Request To Recite Pledge Of Allegiance Before Hearings On Hot Mic

EXCLUSIVE: Democrats Are Blocking Republican Efforts To Digitally Upload Hunter Biden’s Laptop

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

Meet the Pro-Life Family Merrick Garland Tried to Rip Apart

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

“I’m George Bailey today,” were among the first words spoken by Mark Houck in the moments following his acquittal on Monday. The pro-life husband and father of seven had been subjected to months of torturous waiting under a looming prosecution by the Biden administration that could have resulted in a sentence of 11 years in federal prison. While the Department of Justice claimed that Houck had violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act outside of a Philadelphia Planned Parenthood, the Houck family and its faithful allies knew the Biden administration’s politically-motivated narrative was a far cry from the truth.

Houck was accused of pushing 72-year-old Bruce Love, an abortion facility escort, to the ground. Houck’s attorneys notified the DOJ that, though there was no legal foundation for a FACE Act charge, Houck would appear voluntarily if summoned. Rather than accept this responsible offer, Merrick Garland’s DOJ saw fit to arrest Houck in the most humiliating and traumatizing manner possible — by 25 federal agents, at gunpoint, in the early hours of the morning, in front of his terrified wife and crying small children, who will no doubt bear the psychological repercussions of this incident for years to come.

No objective observer could doubt the intentions behind the theatrical arrest of Mark Houck: Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Biden administration’s DOJ intended to make an example of the pro-life activist, no matter the cost to his life or family.

Unfortunately for the rabid abortion extremist in the Oval Office and his shameless henchman at the DOJ, the case against Houck rested on sinking sand. Houck’s attorneys with the Thomas More Society handily proved that the FACE Act did not apply in Houck’s case. Bruce Love had a proven history of such acts of aggression; the pro-life father was merely defending his son after Love aggressively harassed the 12-year-old boy with profanities while the father and son prayed together, far away from the entrance of the abortion facility.

After days of waiting, the jury pushed past deadlock to deliver a verdict: Mark Houck was not guilty of violating the FACE Act. Despite every effort from the federal government to paint Houck as a violent pro-life radical, the jury had seen the truth — Houck was not aggressing against an “enemy” for his beliefs about abortion. He was protecting his terrified child from an immanent threat, as any good father would do.

The Houck family’s prayerful defense against the oppression of an abortion-obsessed federal government is truly commendable. Houck’s 12-year-old son, whom Mark emotionally called the “star witness,” courageously took the stand during the trial to defend his father, truthfully setting straight the facts that adults had attempted to manipulate. May we all praise the Lord for empowering the Houck family to set an example for all pro-lifers who find themselves as the David facing down the Goliath of the abortion industry.

We must not forget, however, that, while God used for good that which men intended for evil, the suffering of the Houck family since Mark’s arrest in September 2022 was a needless perversion of the law to serve the Biden administration’s radical love of abortion. The DOJ has unquestionably been weaponized against the pro-life movement, even in the face of absurdly disproportionate violence against pro-life organizations, property, and people. Family Research Council has tracked at least 124 instances of such pro-abortion violence, harassment, destruction of property, and vandalism. So far, the DOJ has brought charges against only two pro-abortion activists under the FACE Act, compared to 26 pro-lifers.

Congressman Chip Roy (R-Texas) has previously stated in reference to the Houck case, “Attorney General Merrick Garland oversees an increasingly politicized FBI that seems hell-bent on making examples of average American citizens who don’t align politically with the administration. … Congress owes the American people transparent accountability for any and all wrongdoing by the FBI and Garland’s DOJ.” Garland has faced calls for impeachment on multipleoccasions.

The outcome of Mark Houck’s trial is a monumental victory for pro-lifers across the country, countless of whom regularly pray and sidewalk counsel outside of abortion facilities in hopes of sparing mothers and their children from the violence of abortion. However, Houck’s case should never have made it to trial in the first place. American citizens, regardless of their personal convictions and religious beliefs, should not be harassed or made examples of based on the radical whims of the federal government. The Biden administration’s abortion radicalism has gone too far — it is high time for accountability that brings justice for pro-life Americans.

As for Mark Houck, the pro-life movement’s George Bailey, no schemes of abortion radicals will keep him from sharing with moms and their unborn babies that it truly is a wonderful life.

AUTHOR

Joy Stockbauer

Joy Stockbauer is a policy analyst for the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Administration Contemplates Declaring Abortion Emergency

How Silence Could Save Walmart from Abortion Controversy

Ex-ABC Producer Arrested On Child Porn Charges Months After The FBI Raided His Home

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