Last week, more than 110 members of the United States Congress issued a letter calling on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to research and report on all federal funding given over the past three years to specific abortion providers.

According to the letter, the group of U.S. senators and representatives is seeking a report for fiscal years 2022-2024 for “Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), Planned Parenthood Federation of America, International Planned Parenthood Federation, [and] MSI Reproductive Choices” and their affiliates, as well as “FPA Women’s Health, American Women’s Services, All Women’s Health Center, [and]and Whole Wom[a]n’s Health” and their affiliates.

A press release from Senator Katie Britt’s (R-Ala.) office notes,”The GAO has prepared several congressionally requested reports on federal funding for these organizations over the years. According to its most recent report, the abortion industry siphoned off nearly $2 billion in federal taxpayer dollars between fiscal years 2019-2021.”

The letter’s signers include Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), John Thune (R-S.D.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), as well as Representatives Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.), Robert Aderhold (R-Ala.), House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Steve Scalise (R-La.), Michelle Fischbach (R-Minn.), and approximately 100 other Members of Congress.

They are requesting that the GAO report include information from FQHCs including “Federal obligations, disbursements, and expenditures of federal funds by or to” FQHCs for each of the three years, including “anomalies such as Paycheck Protection Program loans and loan forgiveness,” as well as “data on the number of individuals served and the types of visits provided, including preventative services provided.”

The letter also requests that the report include information from Planned Parenthood Federation of America and affiliates; International Planned Parenthood Federation and affiliates’ MSI Reproductive Choices and affiliates’ and four other abortion providers and their affiliates regarding “Federal obligations, disbursements, and expenditures of federal funds by each of these organizations in each fiscal year, 2022-2024, The funding sources for federal agencies… and any programs associated with these federal funds…. ” and “How these funds were made available (such as by direct funding or pass-through funding).”

In addition to the above, the letter seeks information from Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates regarding “Reported obligations, disbursements, and expenditures by program for the top 15 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs,” and “Reported obligations, disbursements, and expenditures by program from federal agencies other than HHS.”

For “International Planned Parenthood Federation (including affiliates) and MSI Reproductive Choices, formerly Marie Stopes International (including affiliates),” the letter additionally seeks to know “Reported expenditures of federal funding from USAID by funding type.”

The Members of Congress have asked the GAO to project when a report on these requests is likely to be completed, stating that the “[p]roper oversight of public funds and programs is crucial…” and “instrumental for policymakers and the public alike” when determining funding and providing transparency to American taxpayers.

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by Live Action News.]

In August, the nation’s second-largest school district announced a major policy shift that caused the soon-to-be-unemployed minds at the Los Angeles Times editorial board to collectively explode last month. Why?

Because in the wake of a federal civil rights complaint filed by Parents Defending Education in 2023, the U.S. Department of Education forced the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to open up its $120 million Black Student Achievement Plan tutoring program to all students with academic need – no longer conditioning participation on skin color alone.

Read that again: a public school system – underwritten by public tax dollars – is no longer allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. In 2024.

The horror!

Just what was this program, though? Depending on a learner’s skin color, totally different courses were offered; for example, during the 2020-2021 school year, students of color were given exclusive resources including a “Black Cultural Arts Passport,” “STEM Makerspace Labs,” and “Parent Workshops and Community Fairs.” Students of other racial backgrounds, however, were left out of these learning opportunities altogether. Change black to white and this system is something the KKK would applaud.

How, exactly, was such an obviously illegal program able to take root?

Look no further than AFT/NEA affiliate the United Teachers Los Angeles, which bragged that “as part of our last contract fight, we successfully pushed the district to codify BSAP into our 2022-25 contract, winning agreements for more resources, staffing, and professional development for BSAP schools.”

To be clear, the program hasn’t been shuttered; as Superintendent Alberto Carvalho told the Times, “Our solution is one that preserves the funding, the concentration of attention and resources on the same students and same schools … We were able to reformat the program without sacrificing impact.”

Yet far too many see the end of the race-based program – which should be considered a civil rights victory –as a defeat, exposing their own support for racial discrimination in K-12 schools. Students protested at an October school board meeting, while an online campaign demanded not only the expansion of the program but also a formal apology.

Sure, excluding students from educational programming based on race is – and has been! – illegal since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and immoral since… forever. Yes, proficiency scores for all children of all races in LAUSD are below the national average. And yes, the Supreme Court ruled in 2023’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision that “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

Man, that pesky Constitution and its insistence on “equality before the law!”

LAUSD’s revision of the race-based grant program frees up the $120 million in funding for use among needy students or those suffering from genuine socioeconomic disadvantages – of whom there are many. In 2023, more than half of California students were unable to meet grade-level reading standards, setting them up for a lifetime of failure. It would be far more beneficial to students if LAUSD’s grant was directed towards actually improving subject matter proficiency for all students – and now, it can be. This is a momentous achievement coming from LAUSD, which has an otherwise shameful track record of centering racial differences in nearly every student interaction.

Much to the chagrin of DEI activists, the program was revised in a way that brings it into compliance with federal antidiscrimination law – and not simply given a cosmetic lift, as so many similar programs receive when they are challenged outside of court.

As the saying goes, “the price of eternal liberty is vigilance” – and in Los Angeles and other cities, ensuring that the program doesn’t backslide will be an ongoing effort. In an interview with The 74, University of Southern California education professor Julie Slayton noted that “They’ll take away the language of ‘Black,’ … But it doesn’t have to change, profoundly, the way that they’re thinking about the distribution of these resources and the schools that will receive them.” Meanwhile, the much-aggrieved LA Times editorial board asserted, “There are grounds to defend the program, even in California, which bans affirmative action in the public sector. … government agencies are constitutionally allowed to use ‘race-conscious remedies’ to make up for past race-based discrimination. District leaders certainly should be able to do this.”

But remember: this complaint was resolved by a Biden Administration Office for Civil Rights – which has loudly and clearly telegraphed its support for identity politics over the past four years but still found LAUSD’s program to be a bridge too far. An incoming Trump Administration is likely to have far less tolerance for taxpayer-funded discrimination in America’s public schools. Let the administrators beware.

A sheriff whose department several years ago implemented a program to predict crime, a move that resulted in the harassment of individuals in the county, has conceded its failure, its violation of the Constitution, and promised it will never return.

The decisions are the result of a lawsuit brought by the Institute for Justice over the schemes by the sheriff in Pasco County, Florida.

According to a report from the IJ, “For more than three years, the Pasco County, Fla., sheriff vigorously resisted a federal lawsuit brought by the Institute for Justice (IJ) challenging a controversial policing program that resulted in repeated harassment of children and their families. Today, on the eve of trial, the sheriff capitulated—admitting that the program resulted in repeated constitutional violations and pledging that it will never resume. ”

The legal team explained the challenged program “has been compared to a real-life version of ‘Minority Report.’ Using a crude computer algorithm, designed to predict who would commit future crimes, the Pasco sheriff’s office identified a list of ‘prolific offenders.'”

Without evidence, people, many under 18, were placed on the list and their families “were subjected to ‘prolific offender checks,’ during which deputies looked to cite them for issues like having grass that was too long, missing house numbers, unvaccinated pets, and excessive window tint on parked cars.”

It’s now gone, the IJ confirmed.

“For years, the Pasco sheriff ran an unconstitutional program, harassing kids and their parents because a glorified Excel spreadsheet predicted they would commit future crimes,” charged IJ lawyer Rob Johnson, “Today the sheriff acknowledged that dystopian program violated the Constitution and agreed never to bring it back.”

In the agreement settling the dispute, the sheriff confirmed his program violated the Fourth Amendment because while law enforcement has an “implied license” to knock on any resident’s door, the scheme involved officers who “exceeded” that by repeatedly confronting their targets.

”Second, the sheriff admitted that the program violated the First Amendment, which protects people from being punished for their ‘intimate associations,’ like with their family members,” the IJ said.

Finally, the program violated the due process requirements of the 14th Amendment because the program interfered with the targets’ “liberty interests.”

The agreement also includes a “six-figure settlement for the plaintiffs,” the IJ reported.

“For years, the Pasco sheriff’s office treated me like it could do anything it wanted,” Darlene Deegan said. “But today proves that when ordinary people stand up for themselves, the Constitution still means what it says.”

Evidence uncovered during the development of the case found that one deputy stated as his agenda against one target, “The goal is to get them to move away or go to prison.”

Another deputy bragged about getting his targets evicted from their homes.

The institute also confirmed it found “hundreds of hours of body camera footage, vividly depicting the harassment of plaintiffs and their families. In one video, deputies walk around the back of a plaintiff’s house late at night and knock on his window, telling him to come out of the house so they can write him a code citation. In another video, a deputy expressly tells a plaintiff that they are writing her citations because her son was on their offender list. In another, one deputy tells another they are going to ‘keep on harassing them, every single day.'”

President-elect Trump’s confirmation last month of his plan to deploy military assets for immigration enforcement sparked a constitutional debate. Legal scholars and commentators quickly declared such action forbidden by long-standing prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. But this conventional wisdom misreads both the letter and spirit of American law. A careful examination of a pair of longstanding statutes reveals military support for immigration enforcement is permissible.

The issue hinges on two 19th century laws: the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807. When properly understood, both allow the President to use active-duty military forces to support the deportation of illegal immigrants.

Posse Comitatus: A Firewall Between the Military and Law Enforcement
Since our nation’s founding, Americans have been wary of standing armies and their role in civilian affairs. Concerns about military involvement in domestic law enforcement dates back to colonial experiences under British rule, particularly the quartering of British troops in civilian homes and their use to enforce British law. This experience was so troubling that it influenced several key elements of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Third Amendment, ratified in 1791, explicitly prohibits American soldiers from occupying private homes inside the county during peacetime. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, informed by a distrust of a large military force employed against its citizenry, codified the separation of military and civilian law enforcement. This act established a firewall between military force and civilian law enforcement.

The term “posse comitatus,” Latin for “power of the country,” dates back to the medieval England tradition of local sheriffs organizing citizens to assist in maintaining public order. A form of this practice made its way to the American Old West: sheriffs called for volunteers – “a posse” of the county – to chase down bandits. This power allowed sheriffs to deputize civilians to temporarily suppress lawlessness and maintain order.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 derives its name from this practice with a crucial distinction: it specifically prohibits the military from acting as this civilian force. The law’s architects recognized that using soldiers instead of citizens for domestic law enforcement would fundamentally alter the relationship between military power and civil society. They sought to ensure that federal troops were kept out of local law enforcement.

Yet this legislative barrier against using military force for domestic law enforcement is not absolute. Congress regularly makes exceptions, allowing military support to civilian law enforcement for actions such as protecting federal property, conducting domestic counterterror operations, engaging in counterdrug efforts. In cases related to immigration enforcement, courts have ruled the Posse Comitatus Act only prohibits direct military involvement in law enforcement actions such as detaining citizens. Support activities, from transportation to surveillance, remain legal. This distinction between direct enforcement and support operations provides the legal basis for President-elect Trump’s proposed use of military assets in his planned deportation program.

Military Assets Against Illegal Immigration Today: U.S. Troops at the Southwest Border
The military currently provides support for immigration enforcement. Today, roughly 4,000 service members assist Customs and Border Protection along the southwest border. They operate surveillance aircraft, transport Border Patrol personnel, and maintain vehicles. These activities fall within the established legal framework for military support of immigration operations.

The incoming administration has the potential to significantly expand this support role. Military aircraft could transport detainees, military installations could provide temporary housing facilities, and military personnel could assist with administrative and logistical tasks. None of these activities would violate Posse Comitatus because they do not involve direct law enforcement actions.

The Insurrection Act: A Broad Authority for Military Force
But what about using military forces to support law enforcement and enforce the law? This is where the Insurrection Act becomes crucial.

The Insurrection Act, a composite of laws enacted between 1792 and 1807, represents a significant exception to the traditional separation of military and civilian law enforcement in the United States. The act grants presidents extraordinary power to deploy federal troops on American soil—a power that is typically forbidden but also vitally important to the success of federalism.

The act’s broad language, largely unchanged since the Civil War, allows presidents to deploy troops whenever they believe domestic unrest, rebellion, or resistance to federal law makes normal enforcement impossible. This extensive authority is rooted in Congress’s constitutional power to call forth the militia to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,” as described in the Constitution. The act effectively creates a presidential override of the prohibitions against using military forces for domestic law enforcement. What was initially conceived as an emergency power for a young nation now stands as a powerful tool for President-elect Trump, who might see state resistance to federal immigration enforcement as justification for military deployment.

Illegal Immigrant Safe Havens: Local Government Resistance to Federal Law
Some jurisdictions have already declared their intention to resist federal immigration enforcement. Six states have already publicly announced plans to resist President-elect Trump’s plan to deport thousands of undocumented immigrants. Under the Insurrection Act, such resistance justifies the use of military force.

The deployment of military forces by a president inside the United States to enforce the law when local governments refuse to do so is not unprecedented. This happened several times during the Civil Rights era, most famously when President Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to send the 101st Airborne to Little Rock in 1957 when state officials obstructed federal desegregation orders. Nearly seven decades later, the principle remains unchanged: local authorities cannot nullify federal law. If they attempt to do so, the President has authority to direct military power to enforce it. Invocation of the Insurrection Act in such an instance would permit American troops to detain undocumented immigrants inside the United States.

The Constitution provides remedies when state and local authorities obstruct federal law enforcement. The incoming administration has legal authority to use military assets to support immigration enforcement. Those who claim otherwise misunderstand both the law and its historical context.

Patrick O’Malley is an attorney in New York and Maryland, a former Assistant District Attorney in Queens County, NY, and a retired U.S. Army Reserve Judge Adjutant General officer who taught National Security Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

Joe Buccino is a retired U.S. Army Colonel and the CEO of Vantage + Vox.

One of the most intimidating talking points in recent years used by transgender activists against parents who object to chemical and body mutilation procedures on their children is that they have a choice:

A transgender daughter or a dead son, through suicide.

But now even one of the main promoters of the transgender agenda is admitting that’s just wrong.

It is the Post Millennial that reported on the comments that came during this week’s Supreme Court arguments on the issue.

The ACLU and Biden administration are in a lawsuit against the state of Tennessee over its common-sense new law that forbids those procedures on children, as a way of protecting them.

During the hearing Justice Samuel Alito spoke to ACLU trans attorney Chase Strangio and the concerns about suicide.

That issue was addressed in a United Kingdom document called the Cass Report, an investigation into that nation’s treatment of gender dysphoric minors.

That showed “there was evidence that sex changes to treat gender dysphoria does not reduce incidents of suicide.”

The report noted, “That so-called trans youth are more likely to commit suicide should they not be given medical sex change treatment has been a persistent argument by trans activists who insist that drugs and surgeries must be available to children and teens who claim to be the opposite sex.”

Alito asked, “A lot of categorical statements have been made this morning in argument and in the briefs about medical questions that seem to me to be hotly disputed, and that’s a bit distressing. One of them has to do with the risk of suicide. Do you maintain that the procedures and medications in question reduce the risk of suicide?” Alito asked.

Strangio said yes, explaining, “I do Justice Alito, maintain that the medications in question reduce the risk of depression, anxiety and suicidality, which are all indicators of potential suicide.”

Is that clearly established? Alito asked. Can there be disagreement?

Again, Strangio said yes. “I think, as with all underlying questions of looking at evidence, there can be disagreement. I don’t dispute that, but here and sort of going back to questions about the Cass Review, for example, the Cass Review only looked at studies up until 2022.”

Alito pointed out, “I don’t regard the case review as necessarily as a Bible or as something that’s true in every respect. But on page 195 of the Cass Report, it says there is no evidence that gender affirmative treatments reduce suicide.”

Strangio explained that as being “no evidence in the studies.”

He said that’s because there are few “completed suicides” but claimed studies show there is a “reduction in suicidality.”

The report itself states, “Tragically deaths by suicide in trans people of all ages continue to be above the national average, but there is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce this. Such evidence as is available suggests that these deaths are related to a range of other complex psychosocial factors and to mental illness.”

A powerful coalition of African American churches is calling for the suspension and investigation of MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton, alleging that donations from Kamala Harris’s campaign to Sharpton’s National Action Network have compromised the integrity of the black Church and journalism.

Last week, MSNBC admitted it was “unaware” that Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign had paid $500,000 to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network nonprofit ahead of a favorable interview with the Democratic nominee on October 20, just weeks before the election, according to Fox News.

After Harris’s defeat to President-elect Donald Trump, Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings revealed that the Harris campaign made two $250,000 donations to Sharpton’s National Action Network in early September and October.

Despite the apparent conflict of interest, the MSNBC weekend host did not disclose the donations to viewers or to the network executives about the payments before or after the interview.

According to a report by the Washington Free Beacon, who first broke the story, Harris’s donation was part of a larger $5.4 million spending spree aimed at boosting her favorability among Black and Latino groups — a strategy that, as we know, fell flat.

Now, the National Black Church Initiative (NBCI), representing 27.7 million churchgoers and 150,000 churches across the country, issued a scathing press release demanding transparency about a reported $500,000 payment from Harris’s campaign to Sharpton’s organization.

The NBCI says the payment raises questions about the ethics of both Sharpton and MSNBC, where Sharpton is a prominent host.

Rev. Anthony Evans, President of the NBCI, described the situation as a “moral stain” on the black Church and called on Sharpton to provide full transparency regarding the funds.

Read the full press release:

The National Black Church Initiative (NBCI), a coalition comprising 150,000 African American churches representing over 27.7 million churchgoers, expresses deep concern regarding allegations that a leader may be compromising our voting integrity by engaging with Kamala Harris’s campaign. There arises a critical question: what exactly did VP Kamala Harris receive in exchange for 500,000?

This situation is perceived by many ministers as casting a moral shadow over the integrity of the black Church. It is imperative for The Rev. Al Sharpton to transparently disclose the details of this 500,000 transaction—its rationale, receipt, and intended purpose.

Moreover, it is crucial to ascertain whether Rev. Sharpton personally benefited from any funds, and if so, the specifics of such transactions demand clarification.

Rev. Anthony Evans, President of NBCI, remarks, “Although Rev. Sharpton is held in high regard within our coalition, this does not obscure the significant ethical concerns he now faces—both morally and journalistically—regarding this financial interaction with the National Action Network. We continue to hold him in our prayers.”

Media outlets report that MSNBC was uninformed about this financial dealing. This revelation brings to light concerns regarding Rev. Sharpton’s ethical standing as a host on MSNBC.

Questions are raised about the potential necessity of financial contributions to his organization as a prerequisite for media coverage or favorable portrayal.

The hiring of Rev. Sharpton, who lacks formal journalism qualifications, has been a longstanding issue within the African American community, as it seemingly undermines the professional standing of other black men and women in journalism who may possess greater experience and integrity in the field.

NBCI strongly urges MSNBC to initiate a thorough investigation into the transaction or donation made by the Harris campaign and supports a suspension of Rev. Sharpton pending the outcome of this inquiry.

In discussions concerning threats to our democracy, the crucial role of a free, open, objective, and transparent press as a foundational element in safeguarding democratic integrity often goes unspoken.

The Society of Professional Journalism outlines ethical journalism as follows: Journalists should be accurate, fair, honest, and courageous in their efforts to gather, report, and interpret information. They should uphold the following principles:

• Ensure accuracy and verify information before dissemination, primarily using original sources.
• Provide context and avoid misrepresentation or oversimplification in news promotion.
• Continuously gather, update, and rectify information throughout the lifespan of a news story.
• Exercise caution in making promises and consistently fulfill them.
• Clearly identify sources, providing the public with ample information to assess the reliability and motives of these sources.
• Assess the motives of sources before granting anonymity, reserving it for those who may face harm and possess irreplaceable information, and justify the use of anonymity.
• Proactively seek responses from news subjects to address criticism or allegations.
• Avoid covert methods of information gathering unless absolutely necessary.
• Hold power to account, amplify marginalized voices, and foster open and respectful discourse.
• Maintain transparency in public affairs and access to public records.
• Provide access to source material when relevant.
• Represent diverse perspectives and seek out underrepresented voices.
• Avoid stereotypes and reflect on how personal values may influence reporting.
• Distinguish between advocacy, commentary, and factual reporting.
• Avoid distorting facts or context, including visual representations, and clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
• Prohibit plagiarism and diligently attribute sources.

Additionally, as a minister of the Gospel, Rev. Sharpton’s involvement in this payment scenario does not reflect well on his commitment to uphold integrity, aligning with Scriptural teachings that advocate steering clear of even the appearance of impropriety.

[Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit.com]

Trump returns to the White House. The GOP has majorities in the Senate and House. Now what?

It’s time to make America great again. To fix what “they” broke. To flip the narrative, so that government works for us – not the other way around. Yet, where to begin?

Inflation. Cleaning-up the Justice Department – including directives targeting parents attending school board meetings, “pro-lifers,” and Catholics who like Latin Mass. The hostages held by Hamas, and Israel’s fight with Hamas and other terror groups. Men playing women’s sports. The Ukrainian-Russian war. Securing the border and doing something about our many million illegal immigrants. Closing down the failed Department of Education. Unleashing American energy – oil, natural gas, and nuclear. Holding higher education accountable. Protecting American farmland from the Chinese. Dealing with the insanity of the United Nations. Rebuilding our military and refocusing it on national security. Stopping “climate crisis” madness. Making America healthy. Fighting anti-Semitism. Combating violent crime in our cities.

The Biden/Harris administration and its counterparts in many cities and states leave behind a mess. They have misused and abused the powers of government.

For those more focused on governing than campaigning, the bigger thrill is not Election Night celebrations but undoing harmful policies and enacting good ones. Now the heavy lifting starts.

A smart, effective roadmap has to be a marriage of MAGA and conservative political priorities with “kitchen-table” issues. In short, prioritize the legislative agenda around the coalition that helped Republicans win Pennsylvania and other swing states.

With a narrow House majority and the inevitable Chuck Schumer-led filibusters in the Senate, this kind of focus will be critical to pushing issues over the finish line. Plus, these policies – and the legislators supporting them – must withstand the inevitable resistance from special interests and the legacy media, many already beginning their assault against the Trump agenda. All the more reason to maintain the diverse but fragile coalition that prevailed on November 5.

Trying to do everything at once, however, will drain resources and confuse the public, leaving Republicans vulnerable to obstruction from Democrats and their allies. Unifying priorities, effective messages, and well-executed legislative plans are essential to making progress and improving the lives of Americans. Success will offer opportunities to grow public support – and to accomplish even more. And yes, to win future elections, too.

What unites MAGA, conservative Republicans, first-time voters in rural Pennsylvania, and black and Hispanic voters in Philadelphia, Reading, and elsewhere who supported Trump for the first time? The “kitchen-table issues” that the GOP talked about. The practical things that matter to those of us focused on reality, rather than trying to advance an ideology or seek “revenge.”

Priority one must be fighting inflation – making life more affordable. As Ronald Reagan explained: “Inflation is the cruelest tax.” It eats away at every paycheck, every week, every day.

This will take time, but the reversal begins with a few vital steps. Start by clawing back the unspent billions allocated for the so-called Inflation Reduction Act (how Orwellian a name!).

Next, the United States must be energy-independent. This lowers the cost of everything. Permits for drilling must be approved so that American oil and natural gas can be unleashed to lower prices, raise our quality of life, and improve national security. Additionally, the holds on oil and gas leases must be lifted. Lastly, we should allow Pennsylvanians – and our friends in Ohio and West Virginia – to sell liquified natural gas to our European allies. We will make money and create jobs, while helping Germany, France, Poland and others get out from under Vladimir Putin’s thumb.

Be prepared to implement as many of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s DOGE recommendations as possible. We must not only stop the growth and reduce the power of the federal government; we must also eliminate wasteful spending, regulations, and even whole agencies that make it harder for businesses to operate.

Next, secure our borders and address the illegal immigration crisis. Most of these people are being entirely subsidized by taxpayers. Start with the known criminals, then move on to those who have no jobs or host family here. We need to restore our borders and respect for the law – and stop encouraging people to sneak in, live for free, and falsely claim “amnesty.”

Next, peace. Work to get our hostages home and to stabilize the firefights around the world that drain our resources, divert our energies, and pull American service members into wars. Support Israel in its effort to rescue the hostages and eliminate terrorists, their masterminds, and their funders. Work to bring the Ukraine-Russia war to an end.

Make life more affordable and strengthen our economy. Secure our border and protect Americans and those respecting the rule of law. Strengthen our resolve with allies, support our military, and build peace through strength.

These are the goals and promises that unified the Trump coalition and won the election. From here, they can move on to other worthy and important goals – everything from school choice to tax reform, from the mess at the UN to protecting American farmland and rooting out the waste and inefficiencies of our bureaucracies and agencies.

But first, focus on kitchen-table issues that unite voters. Show voters that you’ve listened. Prove that you share their priorities. Gain their trust, grow the cause, and go on from there. It’s an approach that makes sense not just politically but more importantly, for the good of the nation.

Addiction. Abuse. Exploitation. The porn industry isn’t just selling 'adult content'—it’s destroying our kids.https://t.co/IyB7N1lfr1 pic.twitter.com/NpEc4yQoaS

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) December 6, 2024

(FOX NEWS) – Jurors on the Daniel Penny chokehold trial returned to deliberations for a fourth day Friday for just an hour before telling the court they could not come to an agreement on the top charge, manslaughter, as they weigh the fate of a 26-year-old Marine veteran and architecture student accused of killing a mentally ill homeless man who threatened to kill people on a Manhattan subway car.

Around 11 a.m., the jurors sent a note to the court stating, “We the jury request instructions from Judge [Maxwell] Wiley. At this time, we are unable to come to a unanimous vote on count 1 – manslaughter in the second degree.”

The judge sent them back to deliberate more, but they told the court shortly after 3 p.m. that they still could not reach a unanimous decision.

Adam Schiff, one of the most devoted adherents to the false narrative created by Democrats two elections ago that then-candidate Donald Trump was colluding with Russia, and then a devotee of ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s failed agendas to impeach and remove him, is quitting his House seat.

He’ll be taking up a role in the U.S. Senate after November’s election,.

BREAKING: Rep. Adam Schiff has resigned as a member of the House of Representatives, effective December 8, 2024 https://t.co/019wkC8oPf

— WorldNetDaily (@worldnetdaily) December 6, 2024

The Washington Examiner said Schiff is to be sworn into the Senate next week.

The report said Schiff ends a 24-year tenure in the House “with a reputation as a chief antagonist to President-elect Donald Trump, leading the first House impeachment involving withholding aid to Ukraine in return for investigations of Hunter Biden.”

Because he “misused intelligence for political purposes,” according to then-Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Schiff was stripped of his position on the intelligence committee.

“In June 2023, Republicans voted to censure Schiff, and McCarthy delivered a public reprimand that said Schiff misled the public during congressional investigations into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Trump this year referred to Schiff as ‘an enemy from within,’ fueling speculation that President Joe Biden should issue preemptive pardons for Schiff and others to shield them from Trump’s possible legal retribution,” the report explained.

Schiff beat Reps. Katie Porter, D-Calif., and Barbara Lee, D-Calif., in a primary and then won the election to replace the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Because the position was open, Schiff is being installed before the rest of the newly elected senators, meaning he will have “seniority” over others who will be installed in January.

A few weeks ago, columnist Rachel Alexander in a commentary at WND said, “It is no secret that far-left California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff uses sleazy tactics to go after his political opponents. While most members of Congress usually skate on ethics charges or receive light penalties, once in a great while their behavior is so overtly criminal that they end up prosecuted. Although Democrats are far more likely to use lawfare against Republicans than vice versa, when the behavior is so criminal, even Democrats – such as New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez who is being prosecuted for bribery – can’t escape justice.

She continued, “Schiff is getting dangerously close to this stage. When he became chair of the House Intelligence Committee in 2019, he made it a personal mission to investigate Donald Trump’s supposed connections to Russia, completely separate from and in addition to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

“When Mueller concluded there was no collusion between Trump and Russia, Schiff dismissively blew off the exoneration, hinting that he would continue his own investigation. ‘[T]here may be, for example, evidence of collusion or conspiracy that is clear and convincing, but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt,’ he said during an interview in February 2019.”

Schiff’s agenda has triggered complaints to the Office of Congressional Ethics, and the full House noted he “misled the public by reading a false retelling of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.”

The column also noted Schiff “paid the daughter of the judge handling New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Trump $4 million to push the Russia collusion hoax. Loren Merchan’s hatred of Trump is so extreme that she used a photo of Trump behind bars as her profile picture on X. She runs a digital marketing agency that works with Democrats and progressive groups.

And he hasn’t changed, the commentary said.

“While running for the U.S. Senate, Schiff has brazenly engaged in sleazy tactics. He spent $10 million promoting his Republican opponent during the primary. Since California uses ‘top 2’ voting, which means the top two vote getters in the primary move on to the general, he wanted to ensure that Republican Steve Garvey ended up with the second-most votes instead of his two Democratic challengers. On the campaign trail, Schiff brags about his political persecution of Trump as a campaign platform.”

Previously, Schiff admitted he feared that a Trump administration might prosecute him.

A constitutional expert is issuing a warning about this being the season for a “smash-mouth Santa” after a coalition of leftists launched a promotion of merchandise that celebrates Antifa.

That’s the far left ideology that is personified in militant rioters who, following the death of George Floyd, inflicted billions of dollars in damages on America cities from coast to coast, for a political cause.

It is law professor, legal commentator and constitutional expert Jonathan Turley who cited the sales gimmick, and said right now, with tensions following the 2024 presidential election, it “is not the time to go full naughty list to celebrate a group that regularly beats reporters and others with opposing viewpoints. While this may appeal to your own special smash-mouth Santa, tis the season for political violence.”

Antifa is characterized as left-wing and anti-fascist and anti-racist, although some of its agenda points would inflict more racism in order to address the racism it sees.

It has no control center, as it involves a multitude of decentralized groups that use incivility and violence to achieve their aims.

Doxing, harassment and property damage often are associated with the “left-wing ideologies” as they are described online, and their “anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views.”

Fox News earlier documented the products, including an “ANTIFA Baby Onesie” being offered by an organization of former staffers for Barack Obama.

Fox reported, “The items can be bought via a digital merchandise store run by Crooked Media, which was co-founded in 2017 by former Obama staffers Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett and Tommy Vietor. Oftentimes referred to as the ‘Obama bros,’ the three communications professionals co-host ‘Pod Save America,’ one of the most listened-to political podcasts in the nation, per Apple Podcasts U.S. rankings.”

The report noted the violence associated with the political agenda: “‘ANTIFA’ is a common term used to refer to far-left ‘anti-fascists’ who were at the forefront of the George Floyd protests during the summer of 2020. Many of those protests devolved into violent riots, even resulting in the deaths of dozens of people and billions of dollars in property damage because of the unrest. Following that summer, ANTIFA continued to deploy violent tactics.”

Turley said, “It appears no liberal Christmas is complete without the ultimate stocking stuffer: an actual stocking to wear over your face while rioting. While not yet selling face coverings for anonymous violence, Crooked Media … is selling a line of Antifa items for liberals wanting to make a statement against any ‘Peace on Earth.'”

He explained, “There is no apparent backlash for their support of one of the most violent groups in the world, which routinely attacks journalists and anyone who holds opposing views. Imagine the media response if a conservative site started selling ‘Proud Boy’ items.”

He explained, “As discussed in my new book, ‘The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,’ I explore the history of Antifa as a movement that began in Germany:”

That is: “Antifa originated with European anarchist and Marxist groups from the 1920s, particularly Antifaschistische Aktion, a Communist group from the Weimar Republic before World War II. Its name resulted from the shortening of the German word antifaschistisch. In the United States, the modern movement emerged through the Anti- Racist Action (ARA) groups, which were dominated by anarchists and Marxists. It has an association with the anarchist organization Love and Rage, which was founded by former Trotsky and Marxist followers as well as offshoots like Mexico’s Amor Y Rabia. The oldest U.S. group is likely the Rose City Antifa (RCA) in Portland, Oregon, which would become the center of violent riots during the Trump years. The anarchist roots of the group give it the same organizational profile as such groups in the early twentieth century with uncertain leadership and undefined structures.”

He noted the movement has threats built in.

“Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would ‘strike fear in the heart’ of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence, and its website was banned in Germany. Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just ‘an idea.'”

Liberals, this season, “can bring a small part of that political violence into their homes for the holiday to pledge that there will be no peace or silent nights so long as opposing views are heard,” he warned.

.

It was a blustery December day in Washington, D.C., as hundreds of pro-LGBTQ+ protesters and conservative activists opposed to medical gender transitions for minors clashed outside the Supreme Court. Both sides showed up Wednesday to try to influence the high court’s decision-making in a landmark case that will determine whether states can ban puberty-blocking drugs, hormone treatments, and gender surgeries for minors.

The case landed in the high court after the American Civil Liberties Union sued the state of Tennessee over its spring 2023 passage of a measure banning medically assisted gender transitions for minors. The Biden administration intervened on the ACLU’s behalf, claiming the law violates the Constitution. The case began as L.W. v. Skrmetti, with parents Samantha and Brian Williams and their trans teen, known as L.W., and two other children squaring off against the state of Tennessee, represented by its attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti.

Inside the court room Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito cited several European countries that have placed restrictions on medically induced gender transitions for minors and calmly dissected the common argument from advocates of the practice that the drugs and surgeries help prevent suicides of children and teens with gender dysphoria.

Alito asked about the Cass Review of England’s gender services for children and young people, which called for more caution in providing medically assisted gender transitions and was used as the basis to restrict the prescribing of puberty blockers to children under 18 years old in the U.K.

“On page 195 of the Cass report, it says there is no evidence that gender affirmative treatments reduce suicide,” Alito stated.

ACLU attorney Chase Strangio conceded that there are no studies showing a reduction in “completed suicides,” which he said are thankfully rare, but argued that other studies do show a reduction in suicidal ideation, which he described as a “positive outcome to this treatment.”

The obvious skepticism by the court’s conservative majority spurred headlines that the high court would likely uphold the Tennessee ban, meaning similar restrictions in 25 other states also would remain protected from legal challenges.

Alliance Defending Freedom CEO, president and general counsel Kristen Waggoner was in the room for the oral arguments and afterward appeared buoyed by the direction the decision appeared to be headed.

“We felt good about it,” Waggoner told CNN. “We’ve had a number of constitutional cases before the court, and you never want to speculate about what it will do. But in listening to the questions, I think what was very clear was that the U.S., the Department of Justice, was quickly walking back any allegation or suggestion that there’s overwhelming scientific support for this, because there’s not.”

The Alliance, or ADF, describes itself as the “world’s largest legal organization” fighting for parental rights and against abortion, censorship, trans individuals participating in women’s sports, and legal challenges to religious liberty. ADF filed an amicus brief in support of the Tennessee law, and the group also is serving as co-counsel in defending similar laws in Alabama and Idaho against the Biden administration’s challenges.

Waggoner, perhaps best known for serving on Mississippi’s legal team in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe. v. Wade, has prevailed in 13 other Supreme Court cases in recent years. Her courtroom success in arguing thorny, high-profile conservative cases has earned her plaudits among Donald Trump’s advisers and a coveted spot on the president-elect’s shortlist for key judicial appointments or even the Supreme Court, if Alito, 74, or Justice Clarence Thomas, 76, decide to retire.

Waggoner sat down with RealClearPolitics shortly after the election to reflect on Trump’s win and what it means for the cultural fights she and ADF have been waging in recent years.

RCP: Did you feel your organization played a role in the election of Donald Trump and the successful Senate races that handed Republicans majority control of that chamber?

Waggoner: I think it depends on what you mean by that. I think that our issues that we’ve been working on for many, many years, in the election and with polling seem to have been determinative for some voters. You know, to see that the issue of gender ideology played such a prominent role for many Americans was satisfying and in many ways reinvigorating. I mean, we’ve been doing this work for so long to see that people are starting to hear it, to see it, to know that there’s an ideological war being waged against our children, and that we have to put an end to it, is incredibly encouraging in this moment.

RCP: Are you and ADF playing any kind of a role in Trump’s presidential transition plans or nominations?

Waggoner: That’s not something that we traditionally talk about. There are a number of groups that are doing all they can to assist in the transition team and also to get the right people in the right places. [We’re] committed to doing all we can, not just in terms of a list of potential jurists, but in the right seats in the federal government to make meaningful change.

I think Americans are getting tired of the whiplash of different administrations and policies just changing 180 degrees, particularly in the areas that we work on with regard to parental rights, with regard to gender identity and censorship. I was pleased to hear in both the run-up to the election and after the election, President Trump continue to commit to those three areas as very significant areas for his administration.

RCP: President Trump reportedly had a falling out with the Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal organization that played a key role in helping him choose judicial appointments during his first term. Do you think ADF will help fill that vacuum and play a bigger role in those decisions during Trump’s second term?

Waggoner: My hope is that President Trump will keep the promises that he made, and those promises focus on stopping censorship and stopping gender ideology in all the ways that it plays out through the federal government and in the way that it is devastating families and children, and in reinforcing parental rights in this country. And I am hopeful that the appointments that he will make will confirm that. What I told our team and what I tell our ministry friends, is what’s most important now is what happens next. And we don’t know what will happen next. I only know what we will do, and that is that we will make every effort to ensure that those promises are kept, and we will continue to litigate, and we will continue to try to pass good laws that protect the rights of Americans, and to do all we can to encourage others to do the same. I think our track record speaks for itself in in how that will play out.

I continue to be encouraged that we are at a tipping point, and that tipping point didn’t come by happenstance. It came through intentionality, the power of Americans telling the stories and saying enough is enough. So, we need to keep that momentum going.

RCP: Can you give me an update on some of the cases you have pending at the Supreme Court right now? I know you have several petitions for certiorari, or cert petitions, asking the high court to weigh in after ADF exhausted legal options at the state level.

Waggoner: We have six cert petitions that are pending right now, which is the most that we’ve ever had at the Supreme Court. Two of those have to do with women’s sports. When we started this, not only were there no laws in place, [some of our clients were] getting brutally canceled in so many different ways. So, we’re hopeful that the court will uphold these laws where states have taken action to protect women and girls …

We also have this Skrmetti case. When we started working with state legislatures to ensure that these dangerous drugs and medical experiments weren’t taking place on minors, legislators were reluctant to stand up because they were uncertain. And of course, we want to treat everyone with dignity and respect. But I think there was a reluctance to really understand that you’re actually harming these kids, and you’re treating the women and girls – you’re disrespecting their rights.

… One caution that we have raised with anyone who would listen to us is that the federal government – it’s supposed to be a government of limited power, and that these battles will continue beyond an administration, because the federal government can’t resolve all of them, which means that it’s more important, more and more important, for Americans who now understand these issues to insist that we are protecting these rights at our state and local level.

RCP: After the election, Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and father of two girls, pressed his party to rethink its approach to transgender issues, especially as it relates to transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ and women’s sports. Do you think the Democratic Party is capable of changing their positions on these issues? So, do you think some Democrats are more amenable to working across the aisle with groups like yours on the issue of protecting girls’ and women’s sports and possibly other areas of agreement?

Waggoner: I hope there are people we can work with in that party. I long for the days when you could reach across the aisle and agree on some of these core issues. It’s deeply troubling about what it signals for the future of our nation that we can’t agree that we should all be able to speak freely, that the First Amendment means that the government can’t silence or punish dissent, that we are going to weaponize the justice system. We have to get back to a place where we recognize that there are core rights that all Americans have, including those who are opponents, and so I hope for that day.

RCP: What is your reaction to California Gov. Newsom and other blue-state governors threatening to engage in a legal war against the Trump administration when it comes to transgender rights, among several other issues? Newsom has been aggressively fighting school boards across California, threatening them with civil rights investigations and lawsuits if they pass policies requiring schools to notify parents if their children are gender transitioning at school. Newsom this year also signed two bills that punish social media platforms for allowing certain political commentary and forces them to monitor and remove the content.

Waggoner: We intend to make states pay for violating the rights of Americans. Our recent settlement in the 303 Creative case, which was at $1.5 million [and which centered on whether states’ anti-discrimination laws can force web designers and other businesses to create works recognizing same-sex marriages in violation of their religion or values], demonstrates that we will be seeking damages whenever we can in lawsuits, because this has to stop. There has to be a price to pay to silence people, to punish them for expressing their view, and California has been at the tip of the spear in terms of censorship.

Our lawsuit related to the [political satire website and X.com account] Babylon Bee, which was just a few weeks ago. We got a preliminary injunction on that. What a draconian law California passed to try to censor speech and only protect politicians as they do so. So again, we are committed to continuing to ensure that good laws are passed, but also to ensure officials and local officials have to pay a price for violating the Constitution. I think that’s the one of the main ways we’ll see this stop.

But another way is Americans have to stop being willing to be silenced because of fear of cancel culture. And that may be one of the best things that happened in this election, is that the lid is blown off, and people [are saying] I’m no longer going to be shamed for believing in biological reality or common sense, and I’m going to speak out, because there’s too much at stake.

RCP: On a more personal note, what do you think about the closer relationship developing between Speaker Mike Johnson, a former longtime ADF attorney, and President-elect Trump?

Waggoner: It’s a wonderful opportunity in this moment to ensure that we are advancing the right to be able to live and speak the truth. And I believe that Speaker Johnson is committed to that, as President Trump is. I’m hopeful [Trump] will again keep the promises that he’s made, and my hope is that Speaker Johnson will help him do that in the areas that we’ve discussed.

Speaker Johnson was an ADF attorney and on our team for a number of years. We’re delighted that he is in the position he’s in so that he can protect the American people. I hope that he stays strong and keeps his focus on the North Star, which is protecting the constitutional rights of Americans.

RCP: Your name has been mentioned in several media reports as being on Trump’s shortlist for several key judicial appointments and even the Supreme Court if a vacancy occurs during Trump’s second term.

Would that be something you would accept if offered?

Waggoner: Yes, absolutely. It’s just a privilege to be among such quality individuals who are also on the list.

David Hogg, a student-turned-antigun-activist following a shooting at his school, has begun promoting himself to a leadership post in the Democrat party, and the online trolling erupted immediately.

“This the guy who stood on the bodies of his dead classmates to be famous, right?”

“I cannot tell you how much I want this to happen.”

“Please, keep filling Democrat leadership with extremists. It helps.”

And, “HAHAHAHA. I hope he does run, this guy is a moron,” were among the responses as soon as Hogg said on television he would like to be DNC vice chairman.

David Hogg says he’s considering running for DNC Chair pic.twitter.com/pGgJQePQUa

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) December 5, 2024

The Washington Examiner cited how Hogg “got trolled” across social media after stating he would consider a run to become part of the Democratic National Committee.

“I’m considering it because I think that, one, obviously, I think we need a new generation in the DNC. If this election has taught us nothing else, I think we need an intergenerational coalition as a party.”

His comments came during an interview with leftist CNN.

“This is what happens when everyone gets a participation trophy!” one commenter said.

Hogg continued, “I think what the party needs to do is open its eyes and take its fingers out of its ears. We can just surround ourselves with people that agree with us a lot of the time, in terms of the party leadership and also within the party itself, and think that’s just who we need to be talking to constantly instead of listening to people who don’t agree with us.”

He said Democrats’ “condescending tone” is causing voters to see them as “out of touch” elitists.

In fact, during the 2024 presidential election, President-elect Donald Trump increased support for the Republican party in just about every demographic category, as the GOP now is considered the party of the “working man.”

Hogg has made his reputation as a gun control extremist following a shooting at his school, Stoneman Douglas High. He’s helped lead a bunch of protests, marches and boycotts.

He helped start, then left, a pillow company, and founded a political action network.

On Feb. 14, 2018, when a former student went to the school and started shooting people, Hogg hid in a closet.

After the shooting, he made himself a point person for demands for gun control.

He has claimed people have no rights to have a gun under the Second Amendment, in stark opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion on that issue.

He charges that the Second Amendment is about states having a national guard.

A union official for the organization representing U.S. Capitol Police has blasted the special treatment given by the government to the officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt during the protest-turned-riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

That was the day hundreds of people mostly walked into the Capitol and looked around in their protest of what they saw as Joe Biden’s illicit presidential race victory, a race that was under significant undue influences such as the FBI’s interference.

Among those protesters, a few rioted, vandalizing the building.

Just the News reports that a statement it obtained from U.S. Capitol Police union chairman Gus Papathanasiou said the special treatment for Michael Byrd was wrong.

“What a slap in the face to the rank and file officers of the USCP, especially all who were on duty on J6,” he said.

The publication earlier had reported that House Democrats had pushed the police department to give special benefits to Byrd, including a $37,000 retention bonus, help with $160,000 in fundraising, housing, and a promotion from lieutenant to captain.

All that surpassed the help given other officers who were at the Capitol that day.

The report said Papathanasiou demanded that Byrd be forced to repay the benefits that were more than what other officers got.

“Not sure what makes Mike Byrd so special that he thinks he needed to be ‘taken care of’ by the Department. USCP should give every officer a $37k bonus or have Mike Byrd pay it all back,” he said.

Byrd’s lawyer and Capitol Police officials didn’t return messages seeking comment.

The publication said it reviewed internal emails and found Byrd was unhappy with all the benefits and was dealing with at least one Democrat in the administration to get even more.

“We play the game as you request and then once we’re in compliance You guys change the rules on us,” he wrote to Thomas DiBiase, general counsel for the Capitol Police, after he was told he couldn’t access cash from a memorial fund right away.

Byrd also has been a controversial figure over his extensive record of rules infractions, including firing a gun at a stolen vehicle in a residential neighborhood while off duty and leaving his gun unattended in a public restroom.

The report explained Rep. Barry Loudermilk of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee confirmed there were at least three other referrals to the Office of Professional Responsibility, but those records now are missing.

In an interview on the “Just the News, No Noise,” TV show, Loudermilk explained the political pressure on Capitol Police to provide Byrd benefits was “highly inappropriate.”

Papathanasiou said an investigation by the incoming Congress would be appropriate.

“I’m curious, what else is the USCP covering up? I truly hope the new Congress comes in to conduct a deep dive investigation into all of this and the top brass of the USCP, to include the IG office and OGC,” he said.

A separate wrongful death case has been filed against the government on behalf of Babbitt’s family by Judicial Watch.

Spokesman Tom Fitton told Just the news Byrd never should have had a firearm in the first place.

Byrd has claimed Babbitt, trying to climb through a broken window, was a “threat” to the House of Representatives.

He also admitted he didn’t know whether she was armed or unarmed. She was unarmed.

A town council in New Jersey has apologized after facing widespread backlash from residents for adopting a rule that was reported to have effectively banned American flags from being brought into public town meetings, according to Fox News.

Joel Bassoff, an Edison, New Jersey resident, was escorted out of a town council meeting by police on Nov. 25 after bringing an American flag with him to protest a new decorum ordinance that prevents that type of item from being used while addressing the council, according to Fox News. The rules do not allow for the use of “props” during the public comment portion of town meetings, which Fox News reported would include items such as the U.S. Constitution.

Some activities that are considered an “impediment” to the conduct of the township council meetings include “the use of props” and “Comments, performances or other behavior clearly intended to cause disruption by failing to address a matter of concern to the residents of the municipality,” according to the ordinance.

WATCH:

Township Council President Nishith Patel refuted claims that the ordinance banned American flags.

“Let me be very clear, the Edison Council has never, nor will we ever, ban the American flag from our public meetings,” Patel said in a statement.

“Our nation’s flag as well as our state’s flag are both prominently and honorably displayed in our council chamber,” Patel added in the statement. “We proudly and humbly begin each council meeting with the pledge of allegiance to our flag, reaffirming our commitment and loyalty to our country and the history and values upon which it stands.”

Some of the town’s residents opposed the new rule and argued against it during an hours-long Nov. 25 meeting, as seen in the video. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said that it is considering taking legal action against Edison’s town council “to protect Joel’s First Amendment rights — and the rights of every citizen of Edison, NJ,” Fox News reported.

“That’s what I call B.S.,” Councilman Richard Brescher told Fox News Digital, criticizing the ordinance as “un-American and unconstitutional.”

“Our nation’s flag has never, EVER, been banned, nor will it ever be banned in our municipal complex or any government building that we solely operate.” Edison Mayor Sam Joshi said in a statement posted on Instagram. “We are all proud Americans who believe in the principles, morals, and values the American Flag represents. I have spoken to the Council President regarding this matter and he has humbly apologized and issued his official statement for the confusion surrounding the recently passed decorum ordinance.”

Edison’s township council president did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

‘Shame on you!’ WATCH man get booted from government meeting for daring to display U.S. flag and Constitution

This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in U.S. v Skrmetti, the case that will determine whether states may ban transgender medical procedures for kids, one mother told The Daily Signal that her child began to transition as a baby.

“She knew since birth,” Michelle Callahan-DuMont said of her 10-year-old, a biological male who says he identifies as a transgender female and goes by the name “Violet.”

The family traveled from Arizona to Washington, D.C., to join the American Civil Liberty Union’s “Free to Be Ourselves” rally Wednesday outside the Supreme Court.

The high court likely will rule by June on the constitutionality of a Tennessee law protecting minors from irreversible transgender medical interventions.

CNN interviewed the same family about having a so-called transgender child. What the left-leaning news outlet didn’t mention is that Callahan-DuMont and her husband began to “transition” Violet when he was toddler age, over 1 year old.

“Violet told us when she was 1 and a half,” Callahan-DuMont told The Daily Signal. “She’s been telling us since she could speak.”

In the interview with CNN correspondent Lucy Kafanov that aired, Violet said he is afraid he will be murdered on the street for identifying as transgender.

Callahan-DuMont, who appeared in the interview with Violet and four other family members, said that “it’s hard to hear her say that” before detailing the 10-year-old’s response to the results of the 2024 presidential election.

“She asked me three questions after she heard who won the election,” Callahan-DuMont said, then quoted her child. “Are we going to have to move? Are they going to take me away from you? And am I not going to be able to get my medicine?”

Former Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed a bill banning transgender medical procedures for minors in 2022. If the Supreme Court rules that the Tennessee law doing the same thing is unconstitutional, Arizona’s law likely would be overturned as well.

Callahan-DuMont appears to have a history of publicly politicizing her child’s story. She runs Instagram and Threads account for Violet, largely focused on advocating for “trans kids.”

One Threads post urges people to vote for the Democrats’ Harris-Walz ticket “for Violet’s healthcare & safety.”

In the CNN interview, Violet said Republican messaging against transgender ideology in the 2024 election made him feel “dead inside.”

“I’ve heard politicians that say, ‘No, you have the wrong gender. You’re confused, Honey,’” Violet said. “No. Myself is a fact, not an opinion, and they don’t get to decide that for me. I get to decide that for myself.”

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by The Daily Signal.]

The United States would be hurt during future pandemics if it submits to a global health governance ideology because that would give more credence to groups like the World Health Organization, which is “dissembling and incompetent,” according to Congress.

“While a new pandemic, prevention, preparedness, and response treaty seems like a good idea in theory, on paper it falls short,” according to the recently released report from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

A report in the Washington Stand explained that while Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been promoting the theory of global governance on health issues, a proposed pandemic agreement not only would not prevent future pandemics but would harm public health.

The report noted the WHO’s World Health Assembly several years ago positioned itself to support “An intergovernmental negotiating body … to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

WHO, of course, wanted the rules to be binding, but it later backed off based on the warning that such a controversial concept never would gain the approval of the U.S. Senate, which is required for treaties.

In fact, the report argues that the failings of the WHO during the COVID-19 pandemic, which apparently came out of a Chinese lab where experiments were being done on making viruses more transmissible and more lethal and killed millions worldwide, suggests the international body actually should be allowed less power.

“WHO did nothing as the People’s Republic of China violated numerous existing WHO rules, known as International Health Regulations (IHR), the report noted. China violated Article 6 of the IHR, which says that ‘[e]ach State Party shall notify WHO … within 24 hours … of all events which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern,’ the report states. The CCP also broke Article 7 of the IHR, which mandates that if a ‘State Party has evidence of an unexpected or unusual public health event … it shall provide to WHO all relevant public health information,'” the congressional report found.

Cited were the catastrophic results when the WHO refused to hold China accountable for its health code violations.

“The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was an abject failure,” the Washington Stand explained the report said. “During the pandemic, the WHO repeatedly relied on false information from the CCP.”

The review warned that while the WHO was claiming there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission,” that conclusion was the simple result of Chinese authorities “jailing any doctor that disseminated any information about COVID-19 that was not first cleared through state-run media.”

The WHO chief, Tedros Ghebreyesus of Ethiopia, in fact, praised China’s non-existent “transparency” during COVID.

China also precluded U.S. scientists from a review of its COVID-19 activities, and WHO also has limited input into its proposed plan by operating behind closed doors on many issues.

The report said, “The World Health Organization’s draft ‘Pandemic Treaty’ does not solve the organization’s underlying problems and may affirmatively harm the United States.”

American organizations concerned about the global agenda have warned the plan could set up “freedom-strangling” mandates that could be switched on to create a “turnkey totalitarian state.”