National Insiders

• News
• Insider Features
• Subscribe
• About Us

A Man Enters the Mall of America With ‘Jesus Save’ Shirt ( )You Won’t Believe What Happens Next,

National Insiders

• News
• Insider Features
• Subscribe
• About Us

“JESUS SAVES” EVERYWHERE, EXCEPT IN THE MALL OF AMERICA IN MINNESOTA

It’s no secret that Americans’ religious liberties are under attack. For years, the radical left has gone to war with Christians. They sue us over their constitutionally protected faith, dragging Christians into court because they don’t support gay marriage or other left-wing holy grails.

During COVID, the government went after religious Americans. Democrat governors banned Christians from worshipping. In some states, they raided churches, sued pastors, and even threw some into jail. But the persecution only seems to be growing stronger. Now, its not just limited to Democrats. A man entered the Mall of America, wearing a “Jesus Saves” t-shirt. That is a very typical shirt many Christians wear, all the time, everywhere.

But guess what happened when security approached him?

A man wearing a “Jesus Saves” T-shirt was approached by security and told that he must remove the item of clothing or leave Mall of America, in a video clip that has gone viral on social media. The security guard can be heard explaining to the man that “Jesus is associated with religion and it’s offending people,” telling him, “If you want to shop here you need to take off that shirt.” A spokesman for Mall of America told the Daily Mail that the man was ultimately allowed to continue shopping while still wearing the shirt, but the more than two minutes of berating that the man has to endure from mall security certainly don’t suggest that ending.

MAN GETS TOLD TO LEAVE MALL OF AMERICA BECAUSE HIS SHIRT SAID JESUS SAVES 

 (@CLOWNWORLD_) JANUARY 17, 2023

Something very wrong is going on in the Mall of America. Security guards confronted a man (who happens to be black) wearing a Christian t-shirt. They berated him for two minutes, demanding he takes off the shirt if he wanted to keep shopping.

The man stated he was bothering no one. He was simply walking through Macy’s. The mall claims that, eventually, the man was allowed to shop without removing the t-shirt. But some people are skeptical. The video of the encounter has gone viral and it is outraging Americans.

Nobody has the power to demand someone to remove their shirt because it has a religious message. A shopping mall might be privately owned, but it is a public space. And the Constitutional protects the religious liberties of someone within a public space.

Imagine if those security guards demanded a Muslim woman remove her hijab, because that is religious. The ACLU and every Democrat within a 50-mile radius would be marching on the Mall of America. But because this man had a “Jesus Saves” t-shirt, he is not allowed to shop?

According to reports, people are organizing to protest at the mall. They will wear their own “Jesus Saves” t-shirts to send a message to those security guards.

Honestly, those guards should be fired. They berated a man of color, demanding he removes his clothing, because of his religious faith. This is a gross violation of his First Amendment rights and his Civil Rights. Some say he should sue the mall. We’ll have to see what happens.

Author: Bo Dogan

It’s no secret that Americans’ religious liberties are under attack. For years, the radical left has gone to war with Christians. They sue us over their constitutionally protected faith, dragging Christians into court because they don’t support gay marriage or other left-wing holy grails.

During COVID, the government went after religious Americans. Democrat governors banned Christians from worshipping. In some states, they raided churches, sued pastors, and even threw some into jail. But the persecution only seems to be growing stronger. Now, its not just limited to Democrats. A man entered the Mall of America, wearing a “Jesus Saves” t-shirt. That is a very typical shirt many Christians wear, all the time, everywhere.

But guess what happened when security approached him?

A man wearing a “Jesus Saves” T-shirt was approached by security and told that he must remove the item of clothing or leave Mall of America, in a video clip that has gone viral on social media. 

The security guard can be heard explaining to the man that “Jesus is associated with religion and it’s offending people,” telling him, “If you want to shop here you need to take off that shirt.” 

[…]

A spokesman for Mall of America told the Daily Mail that the man was ultimately allowed to continue shopping while still wearing the shirt, but the more than two minutes of berating that the man has to endure from mall security certainly don’t suggest that ending. [Source: The Post Millennial]

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1615223516865114112&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalinsiders.com%2Fa-man-enters-the-mall-of-america-with-jesus-save-shirt-you-wont-believe-what-happens-next%2F&sessionId=115e2a1404084daef02706ae593b08e6a7e9c08a&theme=light&widgetsVersion=2b959255e8896%3A1673658205745&width=550px

MAN GETS TOLD TO LEAVE MALL OF AMERICA BECAUSE HIS SHIRT SAID JESUS SAVES PIC.TWITTER.COM/TPY4QFX1X9

— CLOWN WORLD ™  (@CLOWNWORLD_) JANUARY 17, 2023

Something very wrong is going on in the Mall of America. Security guards confronted a man (who happens to be black) wearing a Christian t-shirt. They berated him for two minutes, demanding he takes off the shirt if he wanted to keep shopping.

The man stated he was bothering no one. He was simply walking through Macy’s. The mall claims that, eventually, the man was allowed to shop without removing the t-shirt. But some people are skeptical. The video of the encounter has gone viral and it is outraging Americans.

Nobody has the power to demand someone to remove their shirt because it has a religious message. A shopping mall might be privately owned, but it is a public space. And the Constitutional protects the religious liberties of someone within a public space.

Imagine if those security guards demanded a Muslim woman remove her hijab, because that is religious. The ACLU and every Democrat within a 50-mile radius would be marching on the Mall of America. But because this man had a “Jesus Saves” t-shirt, he is not allowed to shop?

According to reports, people are organizing to protest at the mall. They will wear their own “Jesus Saves” t-shirts to send a message to those security guards.

Honestly, those guards should be fired. They berated a man of color, demanding he removes his clothing, because of his religious faith. This is a gross violation of his First Amendment rights and his Civil Rights. Some say he should sue the mall. We’ll have to see what happens.

Author: Bo Dogan

Biden Says Cause Of Delayed Planes Wasn’t Understood, Issues Warning. Biden and Buttigieg do not know why all flights were grounded on Wednesday morning.

(Presidentialwire.com)- The FAA ordered all flights to be grounded on Wednesday morning, and President Joe Biden addressed the assembled press on the White House lawn.

Biden turned to the media while accompanying his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, for surgery to remove a skin lesion above her eye. He briefed them on the persistent aircraft delays.

According to video reports, Biden explained that he Buttigieg and spoke. They do not know what caused it. But he talked to him on the phone and instructed him to contact him quickly with any information. Aircraft can still safely land, but they cannot take off at this time. They don’t know what caused it, but they anticipate that they will know what caused it in a few hours.

https://decide.dev/lad/14099425392023142?pubid=ld-2879-8345&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fpresidentialwire.com&rid=&width=696

I’m sure they’ll let you know just as soon as they know. You know?

According to reports, the FAA requested that all flights be halted until at least 9 AM to fix a widespread computer issue.

Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House Press Secretary, had previously said that they did not think it was a hack, but Biden said that they don’t yet know what caused the computer issue, leaving all options open.

Many have used the airline tracking website FlightAware to get updates on delays and cancellations.

Speaking of travel, Biden has spent the majority of his days away from the White House—39% of them—in Delaware, his home state.

According to a report, Jacob Schneider of the RNC created a vibrant calendar of holidays, which he showed reporters. Biden had taken 282 days off since assuming office, or 40% of his time as president. This includes 191 days in Delaware and 66 days at Camp David.

Schneider stated that Biden takes more frequent vacations than almost any other president in contemporary times. In addition to taking more holidays than any of his immediate predecessors, Biden has also given significantly fewer news conferences and interviews.

If you need to get anywhere, why not hitch a ride with Joe on Air Force One?  It’s always going somewhere.

According to a report, Jacob Schneider of the RNC created a vibrant calendar of holidays, which he showed reporters. Biden had taken 282 days off since assuming office, or 40% of his time as president. This includes 191 days in Delaware and 66 days at Camp David.

Schneider stated that Biden takes more frequent vacations than almost any other president in contemporary times. In addition to taking more holidays than any of his immediate predecessors, Biden has also given significantly fewer news conferences and interviews.

If you need to get anywhere, why not hitch a ride with Joe on Air Force One?  It’s always going somewhere.

Biden Says Cause Of Delayed Planes Wasn’t Understood, Issues Warning

(Presidentialwire.com)- The FAA ordered all flights to be grounded on Wednesday morning, and President Joe Biden addressed the assembled press on the White House lawn.

Biden turned to the media while accompanying his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, for surgery to remove a skin lesion above her eye. He briefed them on the persistent aircraft delays.

According to video reports, Biden explained that he Buttigieg and spoke. They do not know what caused it. But he talked to him on the phone and instructed him to contact him quickly with any information. Aircraft can still safely land, but they cannot take off at this time. They don’t know what caused it, but they anticipate that they will know what caused it in a few hours.

https://decide.dev/lad/14099425392023142?pubid=ld-2879-8345&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fpresidentialwire.com&rid=&width=696

I’m sure they’ll let you know just as soon as they know. You know?

According to reports, the FAA requested that all flights be halted until at least 9 AM to fix a widespread computer issue.

Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House Press Secretary, had previously said that they did not think it was a hack, but Biden said that they don’t yet know what caused the computer issue, leaving all options open.

Many have used the airline tracking website FlightAware to get updates on delays and cancellations.

Speaking of travel, Biden has spent the majority of his days away from the White House—39% of them—in Delaware, his home state.

According to a report, Jacob Schneider of the RNC created a vibrant calendar of holidays, which he showed reporters. Biden had taken 282 days off since assuming office, or 40% of his time as president. This includes 191 days in Delaware and 66 days at Camp David.

Schneider stated that Biden takes more frequent vacations than almost any other president in contemporary times. In addition to taking more holidays than any of his immediate predecessors, Biden has also given significantly fewer news conferences and interviews.

If you need to get anywhere, why not hitch a ride with Joe on Air Force One?  It’s always going somewhere.



The Manic Methods

of Mad Democrats

By: Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

January 16, 2023

For all Joe Biden’s talk about “semi-fascist” and “un-American,” “ultra-MAGA” Republicans, it is the Democratic Party that has far more radically changed. It is descended into a woke, neo-socialist, radically green party. And it is committed, as Barack Obama once promised, to fundamentally transforming America. How it proceeds with that agenda is now as entirely predictable as it is creepy.

Election Warping

Before any presidential or midterm election, strict news suppression ensures that all bad news will follow, not precede, the voting. The Twitter files, Project Veritas ambush interviews, the Podesta emails, and occasional left-wing braggadocio like Molly Ball’s now infamous post-2020 election revelations in Time magazine, confirm the fusion between the media and the Democratic Party.

To the degree there is any independent journalistic inquiry about Biden—such as we are only now seeing with Biden’s security violations—it is likely only because the party wants the 80-year-old enfeebled Biden out of office.

The Democratic-media-deep-state nexus quashed all 2020 pre-election revelations about the embarrassing Hunter Biden laptop. Its contents more or less proved that the Biden family was corrupt.

Twitter and Facebook confessionals show how, in lapdog fashion, social media forbade coverage of the truth about the laptop. More than 50 former intelligence officers, organized by the confessed liars John Brennan and James Clapper—both of whom have admitted to deceiving Congress while under oath—used their former titles to fortify the pre-election lie that Hunter’s laptop was likely Russian disinformation.

A poll conducted after the election revealed that those voters who knew of the story might have changed their vote had they known the truth. Neither Clapper nor Brennan nor any of their subordinates has ever apologized. Their lack of contriteness recalls the late Senator Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) post-election brag about his effective pre-election lies concerning candidate Mitt Romney’s taxes: “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

Joe Biden, his lawyers, and the Justice Department likely knew that Biden had violated national security laws surrounding classified documents. Yet they suppressed that information until the 2022 midterms were over. The same is true of the pre-midterm news blackout of the massive fraud of mega-Democratic donor Sam Bankman-Fried. In close Senate races, where Democrats often referenced Mar-a-Lago, it might well have mattered if they were confronted with Biden’s Garage-gate scandal and the Madoff-like albatross of the obnoxious Bankman-Fried and his enabling family.

The list of 2022 pre-election gambits is endless. Biden offered amnesties for both student-loan debt payments and federal marijuana convictions. But perhaps the most flagrant Biden pre-midterm contortion was his sudden interest in flooding markets with oil and gas, hitherto reduced in supply within the United States due to his own green handlers.

Biden requested the Saudis to postpone OPEC cutbacks until after the election. Before the midterms, he begged illiberal regimes like Venezuela, Iran, and Russia to pump more oil as well. They were not keen to help him out, so, in the weeks leading up to the midterms, Biden began draining millions of barrels of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve to reduce gasoline prices, even as he lied that his policies were bringing down oil and natural gas prices. Then shortly after the midterms, Biden announced he would cease drawing down the reserve that was banked at low prices under Trump and instead would buy a few million barrels at sky-high prices.

Since the election’s conclusion, he has been silent about concerns for the voter’s gasoline and natural gas price woes. Why the change?

Projection

The Democratic Left has mastered the art of projection. Most of their nefarious activity (now soon to be revealed) will be recalibrated as the crimes of their opponents.

Hillary Clinton used three firewalls to conceal her employment of the fabulist Christopher Steele. He, in turn, never set foot in Russia to do any research. Instead, Steele, via money from the Clinton stream, enlisted a Moscow-based Clintonite Charles Dolan and Russian Brookings Institution analyst Igor Danchenko, either to invent fantasies or pass on real Russian disinformation.

Clintonites in and out of government then released the resulting concocted “dossier” to the media on the eve of the 2016 election, supposedly proving that Trump was, as James Clapper would later lie again, “A Russian asset.”

In truth, Hillary was a colluding conduit for Russian disinformation and tried to warp the election by spreading Steele’s lies among top government officials to lend authority to preplanned media leaks, as the FBI deceived FISA court judges to spy on Clinton’s political opponents.

Then we come to election denialism, which began in earnest in 2000 when, almost immediately after the final Florida count, the Democratic National Committee pushed the lie that the Electoral College vote was illegitimate, and George W. Bush was “selected not elected.” In 2004 it was Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) turn. She, along with the recent chairman of the January 6 committee, U.S. Representative Benny Thompson (D-Miss.), and 31 other House members, voted to refuse to accept the Electoral College vote from Ohio.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton led the charge that Trump was “illegitimate” and had stolen the election. She never recanted and was soon joined by scores of Democratic officials, including perennial election-denier former President Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden. Her surrogates like Jill Stein sued to invalidate the election on the premise that computers were rigged, while has-been Hollywood actors peddled videos begging the electors to renounce their state popular vote tallies.

As a rule, leftists who most ardently denied the 2016 election—current House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is the most notorious example—were the most vigorous in attacking conservatives for “denying” the 2020 election.

Stacey Abrams, who lost the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election by more than 50,000 votes but who described herself as the “real” governor, created a lucrative career barnstorming the country and lecturing Democratic audiences about how “voter suppression” had “robbed” her of the governorship.

Since 2000, as a general truism, the only presidential elections Democrats did not deny were those they won.

Suppression

We now know that prominent Democrats such as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), along with the FBI, successfully used Twitter and Facebook to ban bothersome news stories and silence political opponents. The locus classicus of such efforts was the left-wing banning of the president of the United States from social media platforms while Iranian theocrats, ISIS, and the Taliban freely used them.

The reading public is only now learning through the Twitter disclosures of the accurate Nunes House Intelligence Committee majority memo, and the utterly fraudulent Schiff minority version—a truth that was self-evident but mostly suppressed by the media.

Again, Molly Ball outlined how Silicon Valley poured hundreds of millions into selected precincts to warp the voting turnout, how it suppressed unwelcome news, how the Democratic elite modulated the 2020 violent street demonstrations to fit Biden’s advantage, and how corporate America help to fund and advance what she called variously a “cabal” and a “conspiracy.”

• Post

Changing the Rules

It is hard to determine any major constitutional norms or long-held customs and traditions the new Jacobin Party has not sought to alter or junk to its own advantage. Remember there is no consistent policy concerning any of these proposed changes. Radical demands for reforms from the Left hinge only on their perceived short-term temporary political advantage.

In the House, Democrats destroyed the old idea that the minority leader was granted his own party’s selections to serve on congressional committees simply to stack the January 6 committee. They also recalibrated congressional House subpoenas as matters of criminality and staged performance-art arrests of anyone who resisted—the antithesis to how the subpoena denier and former Attorney General Eric Holder simply ignored all summons with impunity.

Jacobins normalized the idea of impeaching a first-term president the moment he lost the House, and conducting such a proceeding without a special counsel’s report or serious cross-examinations. They also introduced the new idea of impeaching a president twice, and then once he left office trying him as a private citizen in the Senate.

Thanks to Democrats, we have a new custom of raiding a former president’s private home in search of classified presidential papers, on the allegation that said president had not yet used his legal authority to declassify them.

The Democrats predictably want to end the filibuster and destroy the Electoral College—but predicated in the former case only on whether they currently enjoy a Senate majority, and in the latter only when it lost the Electoral College vote but won the popular balloting.

The Democrats wish to bring Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. into statehood. Were it a matter of adding new conservative states, and with them four additional conservative senators, they would abort the idea in its infancy.

They want to stack the court by enlarging it to 15 justices. Had any conservative voiced such “reforms” during the heyday of the Warren Court, he would have been denounced as an insurrectionist nut.

To ensure nationwide outlawing of voter IDs, Democrats tried to pass a national voting law to surpass the constitutional directive that the primary responsibility to establish voting laws remains with the states.

In just four years, the Left engineered the most radical changes in voting laws in U.S. history. The result was that in many states, under the excuse of COVID, some 70 percent of the electorate did not vote on Election Day—even as the rejection rate of improper non-Election Day balloting plunged.

The Left clamored for extended balloting because it had mastered the arts of mass-mailing absentee ballots, third-party ballot harvesting, ballot curing, and relaxing rules on authenticating addresses, and signatures, and matching ballots with registrars’ lists.

Asymmetries

One overriding principle of the new Democratic Party is asymmetry—or the notion that the Left’s moral superiority earns absolute exemption from the very methods they employ against their opponents.

Disproportionality explains why the historic Mar-a-Lago raid was constructed in a bogus fashion as a legitimate search for “nuclear codes.” Yet it would have sparked outrage had the FBI, on rumors of Biden’s sloppiness, sent armed agents into Jill Biden’s underwear drawers looking for classified papers concerning Ukraine and Iran, or towed away Joe Biden’s Corvette to get access to a garage full of unlawfully stored classified papers, or strewn Biden’s papers across the floor for an FBI concocted photo-op.

The buffoonish protestors and rioters of January 6 were to be jailed for months without formal charges, put in solitary confinement, and often sentenced to the maximum punishment possible. But the rioters, shooters, and killers of 120 days of mayhem and violence during the summer of 2020 were calibrated as “summer of love” rowdies. Antifa and Black Lives Matter sort of, kind of, got a little bit out of hand in torching a police precinct, a federal courthouse, and an iconic Washington, D.C. church, as well as trying to storm the White House grounds, sending the president into an underground bunker.

That Antifa and BLM plotted much of their anarchy and violence on social media unimpeded was unremarked upon. That fact mattered not at all in comparison to the illegal paraders and rioters of January 6. Police who shoot unarmed protestors usually have their identities immediately revealed; yet when they lethally shoot the likes of an Ashli Babbitt, their identities are suppressed, and their questionable conduct lauded.

The Left destroyed the southern border to attract 5 million illegal-alien and impoverished future constituents from Mexico and former Third World Latin American and Caribbean countries. Had conservatives fast-tracked a massive legal immigration program to attract 5 million skilled and degreed immigrants from Europe or the former British commonwealth, the Left would have gone berserk in their cries of “racist,” and their current “demography is destiny” boasts suddenly would be replaced by the slur of “Great Replacement Theory.”

Donald Trump was deemed crazy. A Yale physiatrist made the rounds on television and in Congress to claim he needed an intervention and straitjacket. The FBI and an interim attorney general discussed wearing a wire to entrap Donald Trump and convince his cabinet he was nuts. If the FBI and the Justice Department did the same to Joe Biden, the Left would have claimed a coup was in progress.

Ditto if a major former Bush official wrote, in Rosa Brooks fashion, 11 days after the inauguration of Joe Biden, that he should be removed by either the 25th Amendment, impeachment—or a military coup.

Would anything be comparable to the twisted genre of murderous fantasies among has-been politicians, Twitter creatures, and grade-C actors—competing to dream up how Biden should be torched, stabbed, decapitated, hanged, dismembered, and shot, in the manner of the four-year venom from Trump haters? Would the FBI investigate all that if there were?

What would the Left have done if a conservative version of Madonna had screamed on Inauguration Day that she dreamed of blowing up the White House, as rioters flooded D.C. streets?

Joe Biden daily forgets where he is and what he is doing. Someday historians will fault those who knowingly used a non compos mentis septuagenarian, without regard for the interests of the American people, to mask a radical neo-socialist agenda.

Biden shakes imaginary hands. He insists his son died in Iraq. In his mind, Brian Sicknick was murdered on January 6. In Walter Mitty-style, he brags that he has been a semi-truck driver, an arrested civil rights activist, a major college football prospect, a U.S. Naval Academy scholarship prospect, and on and on. If Biden was given the Montreal Cognitive Test, as was Trump, he would likely flunk it outright.

Conservatives should be aware that they are not dealing with the party of JFK and LBJ. The Democratic Party has nothing in common with the agendas of a slick Bill Clinton and is well beyond the “fundamental transformations” of arch-narcissist Barack Obama.

We are faced with a strictly disciplined, no-nonsense revolutionary party, well known from history that aims to change the nation into something unrecognizable by most Americans. And it feels that it has now created the means to do it.



The Willing Puppet

By: Judd Garrett

Objectivity is the Objective

January 16, 2023

Last week, CBS broke the story of Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents. CNN has been calling for a special counsel to investigate this scandal. Newsweek ran a story quoting Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow, saying that Biden’s document scandal was “embarrassing”. ABC News quoted Representative Adam Schiff claiming that Biden’s mishandling of classified documents could have national security implications. On MSNBC, Representative Ilhan Omar said that she was “glad that there is a special prosecutor that’s been appointed to investigate this.”  The White House press corps has been grilling Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre with questions about this scandal like they used to grill President Trump’s press secretaries about everything. Even Vanity Fair and the Huffington Post have covered this story without pulling punches, and without offering excuses.

Some have claimed that the media is finally turning on Joe Biden. That observation tells us everything we need to know about the legacy media. The media should never be allied with a politician to the extent that they could actually “turn”on him. The relationship between the media and the politicians they cover should be cordial, but adversarial, reporting the facts in an unbiased manner. In cases like this, the media should always follow the evidence which will lead to either his guilt or innocence, but rarely they do. 

Far too often, the media has been either allies with certain politicians, working as their protector and apologists, as they have been with Joe Biden, or they have been direct enemies of politicians, actively working to undermine or even remove them from office as we have seen with Donald Trump. That dynamic, in and of itself, is disturbing. The media should never be a defender nor an enemy of any politician, but sadly that has primarily been the case.

So, if the media is turning on Joe Biden, why are they doing so now? Why has the media gone from protector of Joe Biden to his enemy? It can’t be this document scandal. This scandal is small potatoes compared to a list of other Joe Biden scandals that the media has either willfully ignored or actively covered up.

The present-day media failed to cover the fact that Joe Biden is a proven plagiarist. He was almost thrown out of law school for plagiarism, and in his political career, he has stolen speeches from John F Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and British politician Neil Kinnock, revelations that derailed his other Presidential runs decades before. In the 1980s and 1990s, plagiarism was a disqualifier for President, but not in 2020.

While the Democrats were impeaching Donald Trump for a phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in which they alleged that quid pro quo was proffered by Trump, the media willfully ignored the quid pro quo that Joe Biden was recorded admitting to with the Ukrainian President Poroshenko, threatening to withhold one billion dollars of aid to Ukraine if Poroshenko didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s corrupt energy company. 

The media has ignored, and even covered up Joe Biden’s obvious cognitive impairment. During his Presidential campaign, Biden hid in his basement, rarely doing interviews, and the ones he did, he always had a teleprompter feeding him the answers. During one of the debates, moderator Chris Wallace answered numerous questions for Biden and appeared to be the one debating Trump more than Biden himself. And the legacy media did not bat an eye, acting like this was all normal.

The media helped to suppress and censor the Hunter Biden laptop story which showed evidence of Joe Biden selling influence to corrupt oligarchs and our geopolitical enemies for millions of dollars, crimes much more of a threat to the United States than mishandling classified documents.

The media has failed to cover Biden’s war on the fossil fuel industry which is tanking our economy and has made it impossible for us to use economic leverage to bring an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. Because we are no longer energy independent, we cannot provide Europe the energy they need as an alternative to buying Russian oil, which has been financing their Ukraine war. The economic sanctions we put on Russia have hurt our economy worse than Russia’s. Russia’s economy is better off today than it was at the start of the war almost a year ago. In short, Joe Biden’s energy policies are financing Russia’s war against Ukraine, and the media has completely ignored it.

Joe Biden has completely opened our southern border and over 4 million foreign nationals have entered our country illegally during his term. Aiding and abetting an invasion into the United States should be an impeachable offense. Completely erasing our border and destroying our national sovereignty should be a high crime and misdemeanor. Helping drug cartels to poison our communities with drugs that kill over 100,000 Americans every year, should result in a murder charge. But the media has completely ignored our border crisis which is much more dangerous and much more of an existential threat to our nation than Biden’s mishandling of classified documents. 

It seems strange that right now the media is turning on Joe Biden because of this document scandal. When it was discovered that Hillary Clinton had dozens of top-secret and classified documents on her private server at her home which had been hacked by foreign entities, the same media that is going after Joe Biden, defended Hillary Clinton and downplayed the seriousness of her offense.

We all know this is staged. We all know that either these documents were planted there, or they had been known about, and those who are really in charge, i.e., Barack Obama, leaked their existence because they do not want Joe Biden to run for President in 2024. This is a manufactured crisis because getting Biden on the mishandling of classified documents is like getting Al Capone for tax evasion. Capone’s real offenses were 10 times more egregious than not paying taxes, but that was the best and only way to get him.

This is all very calculated by the person who was actually running everything, Barack Obama. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is paving the way for either Gavin Newsom or Michelle Obama to run in 2024 – Michelle is Obama’s wife and Newsom is a relative of Nancy Pelosi. The power will stay in the hands of the families of the powerbrokers. Joe Biden is expendable now because he served his purpose. He is the face of all of the disastrous far-left policies that they needed to pass so they could radically transform America and wrest control of it without them taking the blame for all the suffering they caused. 

Biden is the perfect patsy. There was no other way he could have become President, so he was willing to be the fall guy so he could have the job that he could never get based on his own merit. He will now be blamed for everything that is wrong in America. He was the one who opened the border allowing 4 million foreign nationals to walk into the country, 80% of whom will vote Democrat once they are given amnesty. He is the one who is destroying our oil and gas industry to implement the green new deal which is crippling America’s economy and our energy industry but enriching Democrat donors. He is the one who signed several multi-trillion-dollar spending bills which caused massive inflation but were political payoffs to Democratic donors.

After all this damage is done to our country, either Gavin Newsom or Michelle Obama will be ushered into office and their hands will be clean of all of these disastrous far-left policies. Joe Biden will get blamed for all of that when history is written. Not Michelle, not Gavin. Joe Biden was Barack Obama’s avatar. His puppet. He did everything that Obama wanted him to do, and he’ll be the one who takes all of the blame.

So now, after Joe Biden has served his purpose, and he will either be removed from office or prevented from running again, clearing the path for either Michelle or Gavin. And after all the damage that has been done is blamed on Biden, whoever the new president is, can start talking more reasonably about border security or stopping drug overdose deaths or lowering inflation or fiscal responsibility or crime. They can do that because Biden has changed the country’s demographics to a point that the Democrats will never lose another national election in our lifetime. They can play the part of the good guy, because Biden has already played the part of the bad guy, wrenching the country so far left that it will never go right again. And now that he has served his purpose, Biden is being tossed to the side, discarded, and the country will never be the same again. And after Joe Biden is dead and gone, we will be left to suffer the consequences of Biden being a willing puppet.

    On 2 July 2012, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Müller to a five-year term as the Cardinal-Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and made him an archbishop as well. He became ex officio the President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the International Theological Commission, and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.    His views, then, arguably, have a certain value for assessing the orthodoxy of Church doctrine and the key issues in the Church’s doctrinal struggles today.    Müller years ago said he hoped to halt the “growing polarization between traditionalists and progressives [which] is threatening the unity of the Church and generating strong tensions among its members.” (link)     He continued by commenting on “traditionalists against progressives or whatever you would call them. This must be overcome[;] we need to find a new and fundamental unity in the Church and individual countries.     “Unity in Christ, not a unity produced according to a program and later invoked by a partisan speaker.     “We are not a community of people aligned to a party program, or a community of scientific research[;] our unity is gifted to us.     “We believe in the one Church united in Christ.”   

abyssumJan 17    ”Now we can finally sign the document.” —Words that Archbishop Arthur Roche, 72, who heads the Vatican office in charge of the liturgy (succeeding Cardinal Robert Sarah), allegedly uttered when he heard Pope Benedict XVI had passed away at the age of 95 on the last day of 2022, December 31.     “Regarding the rumor of a new document on the Latin Mass, a rumor that was widespread last week, our sources in Rome have denied its existence, or at least that it is planned.” —Rorate Coeli, in an article entitled “So… about that rumor…” published today, January 17 (link)    ***    Letter #20, 2023 Monday, January 17: The Old Mass    ”Now we can finally sign the document.”    These are the words allegedly spoken by British Archbishop Arthur Roche (link), the head of the Holy See’s liturgical office, a few days ago, after learning that Pope Benedict XVI had passed away at the age of 95 on December 31.    The reported comment has spread far and wide on the internet.    It has been interpreted to mean that a document further restricting the old Mass — which Benedict XVI in 2007 had allowed, saying the old Mass should always be regarded as honorable and good — has already been prepared, though not yet signed.    Following Benedict’s death, the hypothetical “more restrictive” document could be signed, a number of people speculated.    But is there any truth to this story?    Is there such a draft document?    The Rorate coeli website is now saying (link) that its Vatican sources have advised that no such document exists, that these various reports were just… speculation.     But with one caveat (see below for the caveat).    The first report    The first report on this matter came on January 13, four days ago, from a German website focused on liturgical matters named summorum-pontificum.de at this link.    Here is the entire report, translated from the original German, with my own notes in brackets:    Bang or rumour?    summorum-pontificum.de    January 13, 2023    The Roman “jungle telegraph,” to which we are connected via several links, does not always work reliably — which is why we usually hold back a little with the public reproduction of the messages received from it.     Not everything is worth sharing: The fact that Arthur Roche, the head of the authority responsible for liturgy, reacted to the news of Benedict’s death with the words: “Now we can finally sign the document!” seemed to us at best to be of anecdotal interest.    [Note: So this report takes for granted that Archbishop Roche did actually make such a remark as “Now we can finally sign the document” after learning of Benedict’s death; but, it did not consider the remark of much importance or interest (“at best of anecdotal interest”). In the next sentence, however, this source speaks of receiving “news” of the “form and content” of an actual document… so this report is not based just on extrapolation from an alleged chance remark of Archbishop Roche, but on additional “reports”… ]    News is now reaching us about the form and content of this document — and it sets off all the alarm bells.     It concerns a new Apostolic Constitution, with which Francis, who is extremely dissatisfied with the slow implementation of Traditionis Custodes, finally wants to put an end to the old Mass. Francis chose the form of an Apostolic Constitution in order to align himself with the corresponding constitution Missale Romanum of Paul VI and to emphasize the parity of its current regulations with the 1969 Act.    [Note: So, this source is claiming that there is in the works in Rome an Apostolic Constitution which would “put an end to the old Mass.”(!) This is why other Catholics reading this report became agitated. The German site continues by sketching the (alleged) contents of the (alleged) Constitution…]    According to our information, the expected constitution contains 4 main decrees:    In no (diocesan?) church may only the old Mass be celebrated.    [Note: The key word here is “only.” In other words, this supposed decree would (seemingly) forbid any Catholic church to be exclusivelydevoted to the old liturgy; in every Catholic church this (alleged) decree would require that the Novus Ordo liturgy be celebrated as well as the old liturgy.]    In (diocesan?) churches it is not allowed to celebrate every Sunday in the old rite.    The use of the 1962 books (with the modifications ordered by Francis) is permitted only for the celebration of Mass, not for the administration of sacraments and sacramentals.    Every priest is obliged to (publicly?) celebrate Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI.     [Note: the article then concludes as follows…]    This is the status of our information as of January 13th. We’ll keep an eye on things and an ear to the telegraph.    [End, original report on this matter.]    =========    The second report    The French website Médias-Presse-Info then picked up the story, publishing it on January 14 at this link under the title: “Profitant de la mort de Benoît XVI, François veut parachever son œuvre destructrice” (“Taking advantage of the death of Benedict XVI, Francis wants to complete his destructive work”).    The author is Christian Lassale.        The subtitle is: “Pour que puisse triompher la «Grande Eglise synodale et apostate», il faut que la messe traditionnelle soit détruite” (“In order for the ‘Great Synodal and Apostate Church’ to triumph, the traditional Mass must be destroyed”).     This article then repeats the original German article word for word, regarding the (alleged) content of the (supposed) document that will be signed “now that Benedict had died.”    The article ends: “Prions pour que cette nouvelle ne soit pas avérée, bien que nos craintes devraient malheureusement être confirmées par la folie destructrice de celui qui ne veut plus porter le titre de «Vicaire du Christ»” (“Let us pray that this news is not proven, although our fears should unfortunately be confirmed by the destructive folly of the one who no longer wants to bear the title of “Vicar of Christ”).    [Note: The author gives a footnote to explain his final remark: “Dans son édition 2020, l’Annuario Pontificio, l’annuaire du Vatican publié chaque année avec toutes les informations sur la hiérarchie de l’Eglise catholique, laisse tomber la désignation du pape comme «Vicaire de Jésus-Christ». Cette mention est reléguée comme «titre historique» dans une note de bas de page. Pour le cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, il s’agit là de rien moins qu’une «barbarie théologique».” (“In its 2020 edition, the Annuario Pontificio, the Vatican yearbook published annually with all the information on the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, drops the designation of the pope as ‘Vicar of Jesus Christ.’ This reference is relegated as a ‘historical title’ in a footnote. For Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, this is nothing less than ‘theological barbarism.'” ]    =======    The third report    The Italian website of my colleague, Marco Tosatti, called Stilum curiae, then picked up the report.    At this link, he simply gives a translation of the French article.===============    A denial    And now, just today, there is a new report that suggests there was no basis at all for the story… with “one important caveat.”    Here below is the complete text and link to thatreport today, January 17:    Rorate Coeli (link)    January 17, 2023    So… about that rumor…    Regarding the rumor of a new document on the Latin Mass, a rumor that was widespread last week, our sources in Rome have denied its existence, or at least that it is planned.    ***    One important caveat, however, and this is our own, not from our sources: this Pontificate has seen a plethora of new legislation coming out every month. And, differently from what used to happen in the past, the legislation enacted by Francis does not derive from a measured procedure, in which each Congregation concerned is asked for feedback and considerations.    In Francislaw, there is no procedure.    The clique around the Pope selects ready-made projects from any loud ecclesiastical lobbyist that will find a favorable audience in the Jesuit circle: and, if it is favored by those who in turn are favored by Francis, it has a great chance of becoming law.     This is what happened with Traditionis custodes: it is bad law, badly written, and filled with grotesque language because it was authored mostly by a liturgical dilettante, Andrea Grillo, whose only personal qualification is his hatred for the Traditional Mass. It was placed before Francis by his entourage, he accepted and decreed it.    It is all very bizarre: in a system, as the papacy, in which the sovereign is executive, legislator, and judge, the limits to his power are the procedural guidelines developed over the centuries.     When these are ignored, all bets are off.     And the very legitimacy of the institution comes undone.     Each new month of the Francis pontificate is a month of growing illegitimacy due to the collapse of institutional bulwarks protecting the rights, duties, and prerogatives of all — from bishops and cardinals to the laity.     This is all to say that the rumor may not be completely true, but not that something like it is impossible. One simply never knows what is going on or who is being currently favored by the clique.    [End, Rorate coeli article denying there is a new decree about to be signed]    ***    Addendum    Cardinal Müller on Church unity    Cardinal Gerhard Müller, 75, was for five years (2012-2017) the highest doctrinal official in the Church, under the Pope himself.    On 2 July 2012, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Müller to a five-year term as the Cardinal-Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and made him an archbishop as well. He became ex officio the President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the International Theological Commission, and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.    His views, then, arguably, have a certain value for assessing the orthodoxy of Church doctrine and the key issues in the Church’s doctrinal struggles today.    Müller years ago said he hoped to halt the “growing polarization between traditionalists and progressives [which] is threatening the unity of the Church and generating strong tensions among its members.” (link)     He continued by commenting on “traditionalists against progressives or whatever you would call them. This must be overcome[;] we need to find a new and fundamental unity in the Church and individual countries.     ”Unity in Christ, not a unity produced according to a program and later invoked by a partisan speaker.     ”We are not a community of people aligned to a party program, or a community of scientific research[;] our unity is gifted to us.     ”We believe in the one Church united in Christ.”    

    ”Now we can finally sign the document.” —Words that Archbishop Arthur Roche, 72, who heads the Vatican office in charge of the liturgy (succeeding Cardinal Robert Sarah), allegedly uttered when he heard Pope Benedict XVI had passed away at the age of 95 on the last day of 2022, December 31.     “Regarding the rumor of a new document on the Latin Mass, a rumor that was widespread last week, our sources in Rome have denied its existence, or at least that it is planned.” —Rorate Coeli, in an article entitled “So… about that rumor…” published today, January 17 (link)    ***    Letter #20, 2023 Monday, January 17: The Old Mass    ”Now we can finally sign the document.”    These are the words allegedly spoken by British Archbishop Arthur Roche (link), the head of the Holy See’s liturgical office, a few days ago, after learning that Pope Benedict XVI had passed away at the age of 95 on December 31.    The reported comment has spread far and wide on the internet.    It has been interpreted to mean that a document further restricting the old Mass — which Benedict XVI in 2007 had allowed, saying the old Mass should always be regarded as honorable and good — has already been prepared, though not yet signed.    Following Benedict’s death, the hypothetical “more restrictive” document could be signed, a number of people speculated.    But is there any truth to this story?    Is there such a draft document?    The Rorate coeli website is now saying (link) that its Vatican sources have advised that no such document exists, that these various reports were just… speculation.     But with one caveat (see below for the caveat).    The first report    The first report on this matter came on January 13, four days ago, from a German website focused on liturgical matters named summorum-pontificum.de at this link.    Here is the entire report, translated from the original German, with my own notes in brackets:    Bang or rumour?    summorum-pontificum.de    January 13, 2023    The Roman “jungle telegraph,” to which we are connected via several links, does not always work reliably — which is why we usually hold back a little with the public reproduction of the messages received from it.     Not everything is worth sharing: The fact that Arthur Roche, the head of the authority responsible for liturgy, reacted to the news of Benedict’s death with the words: “Now we can finally sign the document!” seemed to us at best to be of anecdotal interest.    [Note: So this report takes for granted that Archbishop Roche did actually make such a remark as “Now we can finally sign the document” after learning of Benedict’s death; but, it did not consider the remark of much importance or interest (“at best of anecdotal interest”). In the next sentence, however, this source speaks of receiving “news” of the “form and content” of an actual document… so this report is not based just on extrapolation from an alleged chance remark of Archbishop Roche, but on additional “reports”… ]    News is now reaching us about the form and content of this document — and it sets off all the alarm bells.     It concerns a new Apostolic Constitution, with which Francis, who is extremely dissatisfied with the slow implementation of Traditionis Custodes, finally wants to put an end to the old Mass. Francis chose the form of an Apostolic Constitution in order to align himself with the corresponding constitution Missale Romanum of Paul VI and to emphasize the parity of its current regulations with the 1969 Act.    [Note: So, this source is claiming that there is in the works in Rome an Apostolic Constitution which would “put an end to the old Mass.”(!) This is why other Catholics reading this report became agitated. The German site continues by sketching the (alleged) contents of the (alleged) Constitution…]    According to our information, the expected constitution contains 4 main decrees:    In no (diocesan?) church may only the old Mass be celebrated.    [Note: The key word here is “only.” In other words, this supposed decree would (seemingly) forbid any Catholic church to be exclusivelydevoted to the old liturgy; in every Catholic church this (alleged) decree would require that the Novus Ordo liturgy be celebrated as well as the old liturgy.]    In (diocesan?) churches it is not allowed to celebrate every Sunday in the old rite.    The use of the 1962 books (with the modifications ordered by Francis) is permitted only for the celebration of Mass, not for the administration of sacraments and sacramentals.    Every priest is obliged to (publicly?) celebrate Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI.     [Note: the article then concludes as follows…]    This is the status of our information as of January 13th. We’ll keep an eye on things and an ear to the telegraph.    [End, original report on this matter.]    =========    The second report    The French website Médias-Presse-Info then picked up the story, publishing it on January 14 at this link under the title: “Profitant de la mort de Benoît XVI, François veut parachever son œuvre destructrice” (“Taking advantage of the death of Benedict XVI, Francis wants to complete his destructive work”).    The author is Christian Lassale.        The subtitle is: “Pour que puisse triompher la «Grande Eglise synodale et apostate», il faut que la messe traditionnelle soit détruite” (“In order for the ‘Great Synodal and Apostate Church’ to triumph, the traditional Mass must be destroyed”).     This article then repeats the original German article word for word, regarding the (alleged) content of the (supposed) document that will be signed “now that Benedict had died.”    The article ends: “Prions pour que cette nouvelle ne soit pas avérée, bien que nos craintes devraient malheureusement être confirmées par la folie destructrice de celui qui ne veut plus porter le titre de «Vicaire du Christ»” (“Let us pray that this news is not proven, although our fears should unfortunately be confirmed by the destructive folly of the one who no longer wants to bear the title of “Vicar of Christ”).    [Note: The author gives a footnote to explain his final remark: “Dans son édition 2020, l’Annuario Pontificio, l’annuaire du Vatican publié chaque année avec toutes les informations sur la hiérarchie de l’Eglise catholique, laisse tomber la désignation du pape comme «Vicaire de Jésus-Christ». Cette mention est reléguée comme «titre historique» dans une note de bas de page. Pour le cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, il s’agit là de rien moins qu’une «barbarie théologique».” (“In its 2020 edition, the Annuario Pontificio, the Vatican yearbook published annually with all the information on the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, drops the designation of the pope as ‘Vicar of Jesus Christ.’ This reference is relegated as a ‘historical title’ in a footnote. For Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, this is nothing less than ‘theological barbarism.'” ]    =======    The third report    The Italian website of my colleague, Marco Tosatti, called Stilum curiae, then picked up the report.    At this link, he simply gives a translation of the French article.===============    A denial    And now, just today, there is a new report that suggests there was no basis at all for the story… with “one important caveat.”    Here below is the complete text and link to that report today, January 17:    Rorate Coeli (link)    January 17, 2023    So… about that rumor…    Regarding the rumor of a new document on the Latin Mass, a rumor that was widespread last week, our sources in Rome have denied its existence, or at least that it is planned.    ***    One important caveat, however, and this is our own, not from our sources: this Pontificate has seen a plethora of new legislation coming out every month. And, differently from what used to happen in the past, the legislation enacted by Francis does not derive from a measured procedure, in which each Congregation concerned is asked for feedback and considerations.    In Francislaw, there is no procedure.    The clique around the Pope selects ready-made projects from any loud ecclesiastical lobbyist that will find a favorable audience in the Jesuit circle: and, if it is favored by those who in turn are favored by Francis, it has a great chance of becoming law.     This is what happened with Traditionis custodes: it is bad law, badly written, and filled with grotesque language because it was authored mostly by a liturgical dilettante, Andrea Grillo, whose only personal qualification is his hatred for the Traditional Mass. It was placed before Francis by his entourage, he accepted and decreed it.    It is all very bizarre: in a system, as the papacy, in which the sovereign is executive, legislator, and judge, the limits to his power are the procedural guidelines developed over the centuries.     When these are ignored, all bets are off.     And the very legitimacy of the institution comes undone.     Each new month of the Francis pontificate is a month of growing illegitimacy due to the collapse of institutional bulwarks protecting the rights, duties, and prerogatives of all — from bishops and cardinals to the laity.     This is all to say that the rumor may not be completely true, but not that something like it is impossible. One simply never knows what is going on or who is being currently favored by the clique.    [End, Rorate coeli article denying there is a new decree about to be signed]    ***    Addendum    Cardinal Müller on Church unity    Cardinal Gerhard Müller, 75, was for five years (2012-2017) the highest doctrinal official in the Church, under the Pope himself.    On 2 July 2012, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Müller to a five-year term as the Cardinal-Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and made him an archbishop as well. He became ex officio the President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the International Theological Commission, and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.    His views, then, arguably, have a certain value for assessing the orthodoxy of Church doctrine and the key issues in the Church’s doctrinal struggles today.    Müller years ago said he hoped to halt the “growing polarization between traditionalists and progressives [which] is threatening the unity of the Church and generating strong tensions among its members.” (link)     He continued by commenting on “traditionalists against progressives or whatever you would call them. This must be overcome[;] we need to find a new and fundamental unity in the Church and individual countries.     ”Unity in Christ, not a unity produced according to a program and later invoked by a partisan speaker.     ”We are not a community of people aligned to a party program, or a community of scientific research[;] our unity is gifted to us.     ”We believe in the one Church united in Christ.”    

 The January 6th 

“Insurrection”

By: Victor Davis Hanson

January 12, 2023

Here is what we do not understand about the January 6th Committee—if it truly was intended to appear as a disinterested investigatory body.

1. Why for the first time in memory did Speaker Pelosi forbid the House Minority Leader’s pro forma nominees to a special House committee? Fairly or not, the result was that the only two Republicans who did serve shared two embarrassing requisites: they would likely be out of office, and not by their own volition, in January 2023; and two, they despised Donald Trump and voted for the second Trump impeachment.

So, what were the Democrats afraid of to make them break all precedents with past hearings? Pelosi, in other words, ensured that there would be no cross-examinations of any witnesses, no disagreements about witness lists, no contrasting interviews to the media about the work of the committee, and no diversity in staff interrogatories.

2. Why did the Committee not investigate whether the FBI had numerous agents and informants present on January 6th? Michael Rosenberg, the New York Times assigned a reporter to the demonstration, claimed they were ubiquitous. Were they?

3. Why did the Committee not review the circumstances in detail of the deaths of Officer Brian Sicknick and the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt? These were the two most high-profile and controversial deaths on January 6th, and Babbitt’s perhaps was the only violent death at the direct hand of a known other.

4. Why did the Committee not investigate and release all the communications between the House leadership and the Capitol police to learn why the Capitol was virtually open and unsecured on a day that everyone knew would be the scene of mass protests there?

5. Why did the Committee not investigate all incendiary speech by major elected officials at iconic Washington buildings, deemed inflammatory and allegedly resulting in violence at a subsequent time? For example, in 2020 then Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer screamed to a large demonstration massed at the doors of the Supreme Court:

“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price”? “Hit you”? Did Trump say to supporting demonstrators on January 6th anything like, “Pelosi and Biden, you released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Had Trump said that, would he now be in jail?

Note that not too long after Schumer’s threats, protestors appeared to swarm the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices, including a would-be assassin.

6. Why did the Committee not investigate all organized rioting by activist groups that also damaged federal properties, such as in 2020 a federal courthouse that was torched and attempts to storm the White House grounds to endanger a president?

7. Why did the Committee not release all the full transcripts of all those it interrogated, and why not all the arrangements and conditions with witnesses it finalized to make them appear?

IDAHO

Published January 13, 2023 10:30am EST

Idaho school board shuts down parents, state senator objecting to transgender locker rooms

Caldwell School District abruptly ends board meeting after parents challenge the gender bathroom and locker room proposal

By Elizabeth Heckman | Fox News

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Flipboard
• Comments
• Print
• Email

https://static.foxnews.com/static/orion/html/video/iframe/vod.html?v=20230106023913#uid=fnc-embed-1&url=www.foxnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fidaho-school-board-shuts-down-parents-state-senator-objecting-transgender-locker-rooms

Idaho school board shuts down concerned parents on transgender locker room policy

Caldwell School District mom Brittany Gish, her daughter Gianna and Idaho State GOP Sen. Chris Trakel express outrage over a proposed policy that allows biological boys in girls’ locker rooms.

Idaho parents expressed outrage after their concerns over a proposed school policy that would allow biological boys to use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms were shut down by the local school board. 

Brittany Gish, her daughter Gianna and Idaho State GOP Sen. Chris Trakel joined “Fox & Friends First” on Friday to discuss their fight against the proposed policy in the Caldwell School District. 

“They have no interest in hearing how the parents feel,” Brittany said. “They have no interest in including us in their decisions. They are just tyrants, and they just want to push their agenda and do their own thing. They’ve proven that time and time again.”

SEVEN BOOKS THAT SHOW NYC IS PUSHING TRANSGENDERISM, LGBTQ+ CURRICULUM TO KIDS AS YOUNG AS KINDERGARTEN

A school board meeting in Caldwell, Idaho, reportedly ended abruptly and in chaos after parents and students challenged a proposal that would allow students to use the restrooms and locker rooms according to their gender identity.

Monday night’s Caldwell board meeting ended abruptly and in chaos after Trakel took the podium to protest the policy that would allow students to use facilities that correspond with their gender identity. Trakel’s microphone was shut off and the meeting was adjourned as parents shouted at board members.

Brittany argued her disagreement should not be viewed as hate as she just wants her daughter to feel comfortable at school.

“We want rights for everybody, but what I don’t want is someone else’s rights to infringe on my child’s rights. She has her right to her privacy and all the other children should as well,” she said.

Trakel condemned the school district for “attempting to force a policy” on families that puts students in “harm’s way” by removing their privacy. 

“And all the while, at the same time, they’re supposed to lie about this to the parents as well,” he said.

Video

Brittany said that if the new gender policy goes through, she will take her girls out of school.

“I’m not going to subject them to having to feel uncomfortable and having their privacy taken away from them. I’ll figure out how to homeschool them if I have to,” she said.

Gianna said she and her friends do not want this policy at their school.

“I am very worried… it would be very awkward for everyone,” she said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP  

The school district released the following statement after the meeting: “It was disappointing that some attending refused to follow the rules, which prevented others from sharing their thoughts with the Board.”

“Caldwell School District welcomes and encourages feedback on its work,” it continued. “What we do not welcome are those who refuse to follow the steps necessary for a civil, courteous and respectful environment for that feedback to occur.”

Elizabeth Heckman is a digital production assistant with Fox News.