Shenandoah Civil War Park Potential New Home for Confederate Memorial

(Morgan Sweeney, The Center Square) — A Confederate memorial was removed this week from Arlington National Cemetery and could be relocated to the New Market Battlefield State Historical Park in the Shenandoah Valley if Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin gets his way.

The park is operated by the Virginia Museum of the Civil War, which is run by the Virginia Military Institute, one of the commonwealth’s 15 public universities and the oldest state-supported military college in the U.S.

The removal of the memorial was instigated by the Naming Commission, a commission established by Congress in 2021 to identify and notify the Department of Defense of military assets that show honor to the Confederacy that they might be renamed or removed.

The memorial’s sculptor, Moses Ezekiel — buried beneath it — was a Virginian and the Military Institute’s first Jewish student. He fought at the Battle of New Market.

After receiving formal notice that the statue would be removed in March, Youngkin wrote to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Like others who argued that the monument stood for reconciliation more than the Confederate cause, Youngkin urged the secretary to disregard the Naming Commission’s recommendation and leave the monument where it stood.

“I would respectfully ask that you visit the sculpture before deciding its fate. I trust you will see this spot in Arlington as a sacred burial ground reflecting the aspiration to unify a Nation divided,” Youngkin wrote.

The memorial sculpture is undoubtedly a representation of the American South and the Confederacy, with ample Confederate symbolism and two enslaved people among the wartime depictions on its base (one a southern “Mammy” and another following his owner to war). But it’s replete with biblical and ancient symbolism, as well.

The crowning jewel of the monument representing the American South is a classical woman who stands at the top. She holds a laurel wreath, a plow stock and a pruning hook, reinforcing the message of the inscription upon which she stands — a verse from the biblical book of Isaiah: “They shall beat their swords into plough-shares and their spears into pruning hooks.” Seemingly, a message of peace.

However, another prominent inscription in Latin reads, “Vitrix causa diis placuit sed victa Caton.” It translates to, “The victorious cause was pleasing to the gods, but the lost cause to Cato.”

The classical studies department chair at William & Mary, Vassiliki Panoussi, disagrees with interpretations of the memorial as reconciliatory, saying that the Latin lines encapsulate Cato as a martyr for the Roman Republic. Cato governed the ancient city of Utica when Julius Caesar won a battle that decisively ended a near-80-year Roman civil war. An opposer of Caesar and a Stoic, Cato took his own life upon receiving news of the loss.

“Cato became famous for committing suicide in order to avoid being captured by Caesar and succumbing to Caesar’s victory. So that’s where you have this line, ‘The victorious cause was pleasing to the gods’ because Caesar won, but ‘the lost cause’ was pleasing to Cato because he killed himself and martyred himself for that cause,” Panoussi told The Center Square.

This is why the memorial has been seen as glorifying ‘The Lost Cause’ of the Confederacy — since the Union was ultimately victorious and, according to the ancients, “the gods” or “God” commands history, its cause could only be interpreted as “pleasing to God.” But some southerners still proudly and defiantly clung to “the lost cause.”

Though there can be many ways to interpret ancient epics, this explanation, as it pertains to the memorial, seems most likely to Panoussi.

If the Department of Defense ultimately decided to dismantle the memorial, as it has, Youngkin proposed the alternative of New Market Battlefield State Park.

“The governor… believes that the park will provide a fitting backdrop to Ezekiel’s legacy as a legendary sculptor and Virginian, even though he disagrees with the Biden administration’s decision to remove it,” Youngkin’s spokeswoman Macaulay Porter wrote to The Center Square in an email.

The Center Square reached out to the Virginia Military Institute concerning the memorial’s future but did not hear back in time for publication.

The memorial’s granite base and foundation will remain in place to avoid disturbing surrounding graves, according to the cemetery.

House Homeland Security Committee Releases Report Highlighting Waste

(Bethany Blankley, The Center Square) – The House Committee on Homeland Security Majority released its fifth and final interim report as part of its nearly year-long investigation into “the causes, costs, and consequences of the crisis at the Southwest border and how the reckless decision-making and legally dubious policies of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and President Joe Biden have precipitated the worst border crisis in American history.”

The report was published after the committee’s chairman, U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., said he planned to impeach Mayorkas in January. It was also published after the committee released a series of transcripts of interviews it conducted with Border Patrol sector chiefs earlier this year.

The first report details the laws and court orders the committee says Mayorkas “ignored, abused or failed to follow.” The second report details how Mexican cartels “have seized unprecedented control at the Southwest border to smuggle illegal aliens, criminals, suspected terrorists, and deadly fentanyl and other drugs into the United States.”

The third report detailed how transnational gangs are working with cartel operatives to oversee a massive human smuggling operation; the fourth estimated border crisis costs to U.S. taxpayers of over $451 billion.

The final interim report details “consistent misuse and abuse of taxpayer resources enabled by Mayorkas, specifically through his failure to detain illegal aliens and use Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention resources in accordance with their intended purpose.” It also addresses the costs of halting construction of the border wall already paid for by taxpayers.

It first compares the costs to taxpayers to house illegal foreign nationals in hotels instead of in ICE detention facilities, instead contracting with unqualified providers.

“There are significant differences in costs associated with using ICE detention facilities compared to housing illegal aliens in other facilities, like state-run shelters,” the report notes. It also suggests that DHS is “purposefully passing on the cost of housing illegal aliens to the states, since DHS consistently requests fewer detention beds than are reasonably necessary.”

According to DHS’ fiscal 2024 budget justification, the projected daily cost of an ICE detention facility bed (which includes meals, health care, and other services) was $142.44 or less per person. According to President Biden’s 2024 budget request, the rate was $157.20. New York City reported daily costs for families was $339 and $184 for single adults. DHS also asked for thousands less detention beds, not more, during an unprecedented crisis, the report notes.

This is after ICE was already not using detention facilities at full capacity, which taxpayers pay for regardless of whether they’re used or not. 

With 25,000 ICE beds costing $142.44 a day, 365 days a year, costs to taxpayers totals $1.3 billion; daily costs of $157.20 totaled $1.43 billion. 

Instead of using the detention facilities at capacity to hold and deport illegal aliens, the report notes, Mayorkas implemented a “catch and release” policy, whereby illegal foreign nationals are processed to be released into the U.S. 

If they were being held in ICE detention facilities, as required by law, they may not be subjected to conditions “far below the standards required by ICE facilities and private contractors with whom ICE coordinates these services,” the report suggests, pointing to examples of people sleeping on police station floors, sidewalks and other substandard situations. 

The report also points to $600 million in taxpayer money spent on no-bid contracts to Family Endeavors, an NGO responsible for housing and caring for unaccompanied minors and families, which, before 2021, had no experience providing such services. 

It also points to an April 2022 DHS Office of Inspector General report, which found that DHS spent $17 million on unused “hotel space and services” through an Endeavors contract. The report also found that Endeavors “did not follow required ICE standards to ensure the proper care for housing migrant families while in its facilities,” among other deficiencies. 

“Instead of holding illegal aliens in ICE facilities, as required by law, taxpayers are on the hook for those beds, additional federal contracts to outside vendors, and reimbursing states for hotels and other shelters,” the report states.

Halting construction of the border wall cost taxpayers $10 billion, “an astounding waste of taxpayer resources,” the report found. Additionally, DHS spent $72 million in shutdown costs to halt border wall construction.

“The wholesale waste and abuse of taxpayer resources made possible by Mayorkas’ refusal to enforce the laws of the United States is unacceptable,” the report concludes. “His reckless actions and decisions have not only forced cities and states to pick up the tab for unprecedented numbers of illegal aliens, but have actively wasted federal funds reserved for securing the border and enforcing the law. There is simply no excuse for such, at best, utter incompetence, and at worst, willful mismanagement of precious taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, careful stewardship of the public trust has proven yet another casualty of Mayorkas’ failed leadership of the department.”

When testifying before the Senate earlier this year, Mayorkas said, “I have unflinching confidence in the integrity of my conduct.” He has also repeatedly testified before Congress that the border is secure. He also says he has no plans of resigning.

States Sue Biden Administration Over Highway Emissions Rule

(Chris Woodward, The Center Square) – A group of attorneys general in 21 states is suing the Biden administration over new highway emissions rules.

The new rule by the Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Department of Transportation, which goes into effect on Jan. 8, would require transportation departments in states with National Highway System mileage to create targets for carbon dioxide reduction and send results to the federal agencies.

The states’ complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western district of Kentucky, argues the federal agencies don’t have the authority granted by Congress to require states to reduce emissions.

“Congress has not given FHWA or DOT authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,” the complaint says. “Nor can the Agencies compel the States to administer a federal regulatory program or mandate them to further Executive policy wishes absent some other authority to do so—which is lacking as to this rule.”

According to the Federal Register, the rule “requires State departments of transportation (State DOT) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to establish declining carbon dioxide (CO2) targets for the GHG measure and report on progress toward the achievement of those targets. The rule does not mandate how low targets must be.”

In addition to Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, 20 other attorneys general from the following states joined the complaint: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

“President Biden is unconstitutionally ramming his radical climate agenda through administrative agencies that lack Congressional authority to implement such actions,” Cameron said in a statement. “We will not stand by while this administration attempts to circumvent the legislative process.”

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office noted in a statement the rule would disproportionately harm rural states where drivers have to drive farther distances.

“This rule is another unlawful and overreaching regulation by the Biden Administration to force the President’s radical green agenda onto Americans regardless of the costs,” Knudsen said. “This one-size-fits-all approach might work for the Washington, DC bureaucrats who cooked it up, but it won’t work for Montana.”

President Joe Biden, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, and FHWA Administrator Shailen Bhatt are named as defendants.

The states ask the court to vacate the rule and block its enforcement.

KOLEAN: Michigan Up for Grabs as Trump Gains Midwest Momentum

(Charlie Kolean, Headline USA contributor) Michigan, a pivotal battleground state that witnessed President Donald Trump’s narrow defeat in 2020, is now signaling a resurgence of the Trumpian wave and a potential victory in the 2024 presidential election.

Recent polling paints a compelling narrative of dissatisfaction with President Biden’s performance, hinting at the possibility of a Trump triumph in Michigan.

In 2016, Donald Trump achieved a historic victory by narrowly flipping Michigan by less than 0.3 percentage points.

Although Biden managed to reclaim the state in 2020, the latest numbers suggest a shift in sentiment among Michiganders, with Biden facing a -14% net approval rating. A mere 35% of voters approve of his job performance, while a significant 49% disapprove.

His administration’s failure to effectively address the concerns of the auto industry and its workers—a vital sector in Michigan’s economy—has only fueled discontent.

The tepid response to the United Auto Workers strikes is a glaring example of this administration’s disconnect with the blue-collar demographic. With only 28% approving of Biden’s handling of the situation, it’s evident that Trump’s pro-worker, pro-growth policies are sorely missed.

Furthermore, when it comes to supporting auto workers in Michigan, voters believe Trump has been more effective, with 42% favoring him over Biden’s 39%. Equally significant is Biden’s handling of international affairs, particularly the Israel—Hamas conflict.

Despite 48% of Michigan voters siding with Israel and disapproving of far-left Detroit-area Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who faced censure over comments on the conflict, Biden finds himself with a concerning 18% approval rating on his response to the war.

This reveals a disconnection between the president and voters on critical foreign policy issues. These findings extend beyond isolated statistics; they underscore a broader trend across the Rust Belt. Michigan—along with states like Pennsylvania and Ohio—witnesses a resurgence of Trumpian sentiment, especially among working-class whites.

As this demographic increasingly shifts towards the Republican Party, Trump’s support seems to be growing, necessitating a strong mobilization of urban and young voters in key areas like Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Ann Arbor for Democrats to counter this tide.

In this dynamic political landscape, RED PAC stands out as a federal super-PAC that has achieved success in winning down-ballot races across conservative areas.

With a strategic focus on key messaging—advocating for strong private property rights, government transparency, and economic development—RED PAC has garnered significant enthusiasm among Republicans in Michigan and nationwide.

As a influential force shaping the conservative narrative, RED PAC continues to play a pivotal role in mobilizing support for candidates who align with its values.

As Michigan’s political landscape shifts, the message is clear: President Trump’s influence is growing stronger, while Biden’s policies continue to fail our blue-collar communities.

The 2024 election is shaping up to be a critical juncture for Michigan and the nation, where the choice will be between continuing down a path of economic decline or embracing a conservative agenda that revives the American Dream for the working class.

Charlie Kolean, the chief political strategist at RED PAC, has been involved in politics for over a decade as an activist, candidate, political consultant, and party leader at the state and national level. Kolean was a bundler on the Trump Finance Victory Committee, and he has acted as an advisor to numerous campaigns, super-PACs and multimillion-dollar ballot proposals. He is a member of the American Association of Political Consultants.

Editor’s Note: The above piece is an opinion piece. Although Headline USA does curate and edit such pieces for style purposes, the views expressed in it do not necessarily represent those of the publication. Headline USA did not receive nor furnish any compensation for the submission. 

MURDOCK: 4 Enemies Worse than J6 Dissidents Biden Has Aided and Comforted

(Deroy Murdock, Headline USA) Joe Biden should mind what he wants for Christmas.

The Great Uniter embraced the Colorado Supreme Court’s divisive decision Tuesday to boot Donald J. Trump from the Centennial State’s presidential ballot, for inciting an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Never mind that Trump has not been convicted, tried or even indicted for that crime. Concluding that day’s speech, Trump urged his followers to express themselves on Capitol Hill “peacefully and patriotically.” This was the polar opposite of a rebel yell.

Regardless, Biden concurred with Colorado’s Supreme’s. He told journalists in Milwaukee Wednesday that Trump “certainly supported an insurrection. No question about it. None. Zero.”

Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Virginia and Wisconsin are among 15 states considering barring Trump from their ballots.

Rather than encourage this anti-democratic insanity, Biden should beg the U.S. Supreme Court to drop kick Colorado’s ruling into the Potomac—ideally unanimously. Legalities aside, the political repercussions could be disastrous for America in general and Biden in particular.

If SCOTUS affirms Colorado’s decision, Democrat states gleefully would pry Trump from their ballots.

Democrats should not expect Republicans to curl up like armadillos and cry. The GOP would have no choice but to retaliate.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which Colorado’s four Democrat judges weaponized to get Trump, disqualifies federal candidates who have “given aid or comfort to the enemies” of the U.S. Constitution.

Republicans could argue that Biden does exactly this.

• Biden’s calamitous withdrawal delivered Afghanistan to the Taliban, the same murderers who coddled al-Qaeda before Sept. 11. Biden left behind a fabulous housewarming gift: $7.12 billion in weapons that he should have removed or destroyed, not bequeathed.

• Biden’s deliberate obliteration of the southern border has turbocharged America’s foes. Mexico’s drug cartels are earning an estimated $12 billion in annual human-smuggling revenues.

Under Biden, 6,553,837 illegal aliens have been apprehended on the southern frontier through October, including 294 on the terrorist-watch list.

Another 1.7 million known got-aways have escaped into the interior with zero scrutiny. A daily-record 12,600 illegals invaded on Monday. One illegal received an immigration-hearing date:  Jan. 23, 2031!

The cartels are exporting fentanyl, the No. 1 cause of death for those aged 18 to 45. It fatally poisons some 70,000 Americans annually. Biden could not care less as bodies stack up like bricks.

Biden’s priority is to keep the “border” as open as a machete wound and wave in as many Future Democrats of America as possible. Biden and the Left reckon that these illegals will be grateful for all the freebies and, thus, vote at least 51% Democrat—immediately or eventually. If so, Mission Accomplished. All else is collateral damage.

• Meanwhile, thanks to Biden’s flaccid “response” to drone and rocket attacks on commercial and military vessels by Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen, freight and oil carriers are shunning the Suez Canal and diverting at least 120 ships around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope.

This route slows the ride from Singapore to Rotterdam from 34 days to 43. This logically increases CO2 emissions by 26.5%. Container-shipping costs from China to the Mediterranean already have soared 70% since Nov. 19.

This catastrophe is largely due to Biden’s chest-feeding of Iran’s ayatollahs. Biden’s desperation to revive the wretched Iran-nuclear deal has fueled an appeasement policy that makes Neville Chamberlain resemble Douglas MacArthur.

Just 23 days after becoming president, Biden delisted the Iranian-sponsored Houthis as terrorists. The Houthis show gratitude by…perpetrating terrorism.

Biden has unfrozen or approved a staggering $87.02 billion to Iran, Earth’s No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. That is a heaping helping of aid and comfort to one of America’s most cutthroat enemies.

• Biden’s appeasement of China—e.g., his failure to confront Xi Jinping on COVID-19’s origins or prevent Beijing’s spy balloon from snooping on U.S. military facilities—also aids and comforts a U.S. enemy.

If cornered, Republicans justifiably could block from state ballots Joe Biden, the best friend of these and other U.S. foes.

Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor.

Study Reveals 60% of Illegals, Green Card Holders Are on Welfare

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) A report by the Center for Immigration Studies unveiled that 59 percent of households led by illegal immigrants use at least one major taxpayer-funded welfare program, far higher than the 39 percent of U.S.-born households. 

Authored by CIS analysts Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler, the study relied on newly released data from the 2022 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), shedding light on the burden carried by U.S. taxpayers by illegal immigration. 

Government-funded social programs typically are not offered to illegal aliens. However, those with children born in the U.S. can bypass these restrictions by accessing benefits provided to their children, CIS reported.

The report highlighted that some U.S. states offer Medicaid to some adult illegal aliens and children, with other states providing SNAP, commonly known as food stamps.

The 59 percent figure refers to non-citizen households, including those conformed by permanent residents (also known as green card holders) and illegal immigrants. 

“Our best estimate is that 59 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants, also called the undocumented, use at least one major program,” the report read, before warning that there is no evidence of fraud tied to the benefits. 

The rate among legal immigrants is equally higher than U.S.-born households, standing at approximately 52 percent. 

“No one program explains the higher overall use of welfare by immigrants,” the report continued. “For example, excluding the extensively used but less budgetary costly school lunch/breakfast program, along with the WIC nutrition program, still shows 46 percent of all immigrant households and 33 percent of U.S.-born households use at least one of the remaining programs.” 

Additionally, the report emphasized that the substantial number of welfare recipients cannot be attributed to “unwillingness to work,” as 83 percent of all immigrant households and 94 percent of those led by illegal immigrants have at least one employed member. In contrast, 73 percent of U.S.-born households have at least one worker. 

“Immigrant households without children, as well as those with high incomes and those headed by immigrants with at least a bachelor’s degree, tend to be more likely to use welfare than their U.S.-born counterparts,” the report added. 

These findings come amid the Biden administration grappling with unprecedented levels of illegal immigration at the southern border. 

Several Democratic governors and mayors have criticized President Joe Biden for the overwhelming influx of illegal aliens flooding border states and various cities, including New York City and Chicago. 

New York City Mayor Eric Adams was forced to significantly reduce the city’s budget to offset the taxpayer-funded services provided to illegal aliens. 

Similarly, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson filed a lawsuit against busing companies transporting illegal aliens to Chicago.

‘Conservative’ Beer Company Releases Bikini Calendar w/ Riley Gaines, Others

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) The Ultra Right Beer company, which presents itself as a very conservative company, released its “Conservative Dad’s Real Women Of America” calendar for 2024 on Dec. 10, 2023, with the help of former college swimmer and conservative activist Riley Gaines.

On its website, the company wrote that all of the calendars are made in America and feature a whole host of “beautiful conservative women,” including Gaines, Ashley St. Clair, Dana Loesch, Josie “The Redheaded Libertarian,” and many others. The company also added that the purpose of the calendar is to celebrate “conservative women who are fighting woke extremists to preserve real women.”

In addition to that, 10% of sales from the calendars will be going towards the Riley Gaines Center, which seeks to protect women’s sports from biological men. Gaines became well known for her powerful stance against biological male William “Lia” Thomas, who pretended to be a woman to compete against females and, therefore, easily get awards, the Daily Caller reported.

For the most part, the response to the calendar has been positive. For example, Josie The Redheaded Libertarian had a huge response to her Ms. November photo.

“I am Ms. November for The Conservative Dad’s Ultra Right Beer calendar. Link in comments,” she wrote.

However, some people either questioned or opposed the initiative since selling bikini photos that could easily appear on the pages of Playboy or Maxim doesn’t sound like something a true conservative would do.

“Stripper heels while cooking a pie next to Jesus. [Please] pick a lane,” one person wrote.

Others also pointed out that the calendar doesn’t like something a supposedly Christian company would do.

“This is tacky, I understand the impulse to ‘own the libs’, but even attempting a conservative version of this is conceding to a worldview that is 100% left-wing,” another person wrote.

Josie replied by mocking the Christian beliefs of a person and the author of the original post answered sarcastically.

“So based! Scantily dressed women posing in front of the cross of our Lord Jesus, you gotta be gay if you aren’t fully on board for that! Our hot women calendar is so much better than their hot women calendar, so glad to be on the side of tradition & Christianity!” the person wrote.

Instagram Influencer Threatens to Decapitate Jewish Man on LAX Airport Bus 

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) A disturbing video taken on an LAX shuttle bus shows a reality TV show and rapper physically assaulting a Jewish man, even going as far as threatening to “knock” the man’s “f*cking head off.” 

In the recorded video, Atasha Jefferson, a social media influencer with millions of followers also known as Tommie Lee, is seen standing on the bus, clutching pink and blue Birkin bags, while screaming: “Don’t ever point your camera at me, I’d knock your f*cking head off, b*tch.”

The altercation escalated as Lee told the man, “Don’t play with me,” to which he retorted, “Don’t talk to me like that, ma’am.” 

“Don’t play with me,” Lee interjected as she walked towards the exit of the bus’s exit. Despite the man’s seated pleas, saying, “Don’t talk like that,” Lee delivered a slap to his face. “Get that f*cking camera off my face,” she continued aggressively. 

The Stop Antisemitism non-profit was among the first accounts to share the now-viral video. The pro-Israel non-profit mentioned that the man was wearing a kippah but didn’t specify what prompted him to start recording the altercation nor what ignited Lee’s curse-laden tirade. 

Lee is a well-known figure in hip-hop and urban culture, first gaining notoriety from her time on MTV’s Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta. On Instagram, she shares semi-nude photos with her over 5 million followers.

No charges have been filed against Lee, but social media users quickly identified her allegedly from an Instagram video she posted in the same attire as shown in the altercation. 

Lee took to her Instagram to seemingly address the turmoil surrounding the video. She posted on her temporary Instagram stories, “Spread Love Not Hate.” 

It remains unclear whether the man has pressed charges against the reality show star or if law enforcement authorities are investigating the incident.

Lee has encountered law enforcement issues previously, having been arrested for alleged child abuse and assault, as reported by urban news outlet HotNewHipHop.com

In 2016, Lee purportedly attempted to run over her Love & Hip-Hop co-star Joseline Hernandez. She was booked in a local Georgia prison for violating a restraining order placed by Hernandez. In 2018, she was slapped with an alcohol monitor due to a DUI case and assaulting a jewelry store owner, according to TMZ.

That same year, Lee allegedly struck her daughter’s hand with a purse strap before slapping her face, resulting in child cruelty, aggravated assault and aggravated stalking charges.

She posted a $27,000 bond and was released. However, she was arrested on the same night for violating a restraining order against her daughter, according to the urban news outlet.

Maine Supreme Court Says Chris Christie Ineligible for 2024 Ballot

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) Supreme Court of the state of Maine ruled that RINO presidential candidate and former Gov. of New Jersey Chris Christie, R-N.J., will not appear on the 2024 ballot because his campaign failed to gather enough certified signatures from registered voters.

The decision was made after Christie’s campaign brought an appeal in response to a previous decision by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows that the anti-Trump politician did not gather the necessary 2,000 certified signatures, according to Trending Politics. The Christie campaign turned in just 844 signatures, Bellows said.

“We appreciate that the court upheld the integrity of Maine’s well-established ballot access requirements. Every candidate, including presidential candidates, must follow the law to qualify for the ballot. We are glad that the court recognized that Maine law is workable and fair to all,” she said.

The process of gathering signatures from voters is long and difficult since either candidates or their staff must collect raw signatures from voters in the field, which are then turned into local city or town halls for certification, the news source wrote. After that, the certified signatures must then be picked up from each community and delivered to the secretary of state, with Nov. 20, 2023, being the deadline for the state of Maine.

To register as a write-in candidate, Christie still has until Dec. 26, 2023.

However, it seems that Christie doesn’t need to worry so much about meeting the deadline since he isn’t even as popular as other RINO presidential candidates like Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., and Nikki Haley, R-S.C., who are currently either in the single digits or low very double digits when it comes to their approval rating, depending on a poll.

As of Dec. 22, 2023, Republican candidates who have qualified for the Maine ballot were Haley, DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, local pastor Ryan Binkley and Donald Trump.

Christie promised to withdraw from the race if he would not be popular enough in the state of New Hampshire, the second state to vote in the Republican primary season. It seems that Christie would not be able to do that since Gov. Chris Sununu, R-N.H., who is another RINO, recently endorsed Haley.

Billionaire-Bought Wisc. Supreme Court to Gerrymander Districts for Dems

(Headline USA) The massive amounts of money Democrats invested in buying a judge to flip the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the 2022 election will yield its expected returns as far–left Justice Janet Protasiewicz will help deliver the state for Democrats, potentially securing permanent majorities as they work to codify mail-in voting and other dubious election “reforms.”

The court announced the decision late Friday on the afternoon before Christmas, a time when few were paying close attention to the news cycle.

However, it was a long-anticipated decision that Protasiewicz had campaigned on, along with an equally controversial abortion ruling that she already helped to deliver, overturning a state law that had been on the books for more than a century.

The court overturned Republican-drawn legislative maps on Friday and ordered that new district boundary lines be drawn as Democrats had urged in a redistricting case they hope will weaken GOP majorities.

It comes less than a year before the 2024 election in a battleground state where four of the six past presidential elections have been decided by fewer than 23,000 votes, and Republicans have built large majorities in the Legislature under maps they drew over a decade ago.

The court ruled 4-3 in favor of Democrats who claimed that the legislative maps were unconstitutional because districts drawn weren’t contiguous. New maps are likely to be unveiled in about two months.

“Because the current state legislative districts contain separate, detached territory and therefore violate the constitution’s contiguity requirements, we enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from using the current legislative maps in future elections,” Justice Jill Karofksy wrote for the majority.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers hailed the ruling, saying he looked forward to submitting proposed maps for the court to review.

“And I remain as optimistic as ever that, at long last, the gerrymandered maps Wisconsinites have endured for years might soon be history,” he claimed.

Dan Lenz, an attorney for Law Forward, which brought the lawsuit, called the ruling “a victory for a representative democracy in the state of Wisconsin.”

“For too long, rightwing interests have rigged the rules without any consequences,” he claimed in a statement. “Gerrymandered maps have distorted the political landscape, stifling the voice of the voters. It challenges the very essence of fair representation and erodes confidence in our political system.”

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos called it “a sad day for our state” and suggested it would be appealed, saying the U.S. Supreme Court would have the final say.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court said it will proceed with adopting remedial maps in time for the 2024 election unless the Republican-controlled Legislature can pass maps that Evers will sign. Evers vetoed the current maps.

The court appointed two consultants who already had a hand in reshaping districts in other states.

Jonathan Cervas, of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, redrew New York’s congressional and state Senate maps after a court struck down ones adopted by the Democratic-led Legislature.

Bernard Grofman, of the University of California, Irvine, helped redraw Virginia’s federal and state legislative districts after a bipartisan commission deadlocked.

Conservative justices also objected to the hiring of the consultants, saying their selection, the legal authority to appoint them and their responsibilities all raise serious questions.

The maps from parties to the lawsuit are due by Jan. 12, with supporting arguments due 10 days later. Reports from the consultants are due by Feb. 1, with responses a week later. That means the court will release new maps likely sometime in late February or early March unless the Legislature acts first.

The state elections commission has said maps must be in place by March 15 if the new districts are to be in play for the 2024 election.

The lawsuit was filed a day after the court’s majority flipped to 4-3 liberal control in August. That’s when Protasiewicz joined the court after her April election victory.

Protasiewicz called the GOP-drawn maps “unfair” and “rigged” during her campaign, leading Republicans to threaten to impeach her before she had even heard a case.

Vos backed off the threat on Wednesday and said even if she ruled in favor of throwing out the maps, impeachment was “super unlikely.”

Protasiewicz joined with Karosfky and justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Dallet in the majority. Conservative justices Annette Ziegler, Rebecca Bradley and Brian Hagedorn dissented.

All of the dissenting justices accused the majority of putting politics above the law.

“This deal was sealed on election night,” Ziegler wrote in her dissent. “Four justices remap Wisconsin even though this constitutional responsibility is to occur every ten years, after a census, by the other two branches of government. The public understands this.”

She accused the majority of “judicial activism on steroids” and said “the court of four takes a wrecking ball to the law.”

Rebecca Bradley, in her dissent, referred to the liberal majority as “handmaidens of the Democratic Party,” saying they “trample the rule of law, dishonor the institution of the judiciary, and undermine democracy.”

Hagedorn called it “a sad turn for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.”

“Today, the court dives headlong into politics, choosing to wield the power it has while it has it,” he wrote. “Wisconsinites searching for an institution unpolluted by partisan warfare will not find it here.”

Wisconsin’s redistricting ruling comes one day after a federal judicial panel also struck down some of Michigan’s state House and Senate districts and ordered them to be redrawn. The Michigan court said the districts were illegally drawn based on race.

Wisconsin Democrats argued for having all 132 lawmakers stand for election under the new maps, including half of the members of the state Senate who are midway through their four-year terms.

But the court rejected the request from Democrats to invalidate the 2022 results, which would have forced all state Senate seats to be on the 2024 ballot.

In a significant win for Democrats, the court said it would not favor maps that have the least amount of change over existing boundary lines. The previous conservative-controlled court had adopted the “least change” approach for the maps adopted in 2022, which closely resembled the maps Republicans passed in 2011.

The court agreed with Democrats who argued in Wisconsin that the majority of current legislative districts—54 out of 99 in the Assembly and 21 out of 33 in the Senate—violate the state constitution’s contiguity requirement.

Wisconsin’s redistricting laws, backed up by state and federal court rulings over the past 50 years, have permitted districts under certain circumstances to be noncontiguous, attorneys for the Legislature argued.

The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 64-35 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate.

There is nothing inherently illegal about “gerrymandering,” or drawing districts in such a way that is favorable to the party in control at the time of redistricting. However, left-wing activists have increasingly relied on the courts to undermine the legislative authority, despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution delegates that power to the state legislatures.

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, led by former Attorney General Eric Holder, is the most notorious of the activist groups overseeing the effort.

Litigation is ongoing in more than dozen states over U.S. House and state legislative districts enacted after the 2020 census.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press