Video Shows Louisville Police under Fire from Bank Shooter

(Headline USA) Police body camera video released Tuesday showed the chaotic moments when police arrived at the scene of a mass shooting at a bank in downtown Louisville, as the shooter they couldn’t see from the street rained bullets down on them.

The videos, taken from two wounded officers’ lapels, offer a rare perspective of police officers responding to a massacre that killed five and injured eight others Monday. One, a rookie officer, was shot in the head within minutes of arriving at the scene, as his partner was grazed by a bullet and sought cover while still trying to take down the shooter.

Louisville Metro Police Department Deputy Chief Paul Humphrey walked reporters through edited footage and still photos at a new conference Tuesday and praised the responding officers for their heroism.

They received the call of a shooting at Old National Bank at 8:38 a.m., and the two officers arrived three minutes later, according to a chronology provided by police. They hadn’t even gotten out of the patrol car when the gunman began firing on them.

“Back up, back up, back up,” one officer shouted as gunshots thundered in the background.

One still image from surveillance video showed the 25-year-old shooter, who worked at the bank, holding a rifle, wearing jeans, a blue button-down shirt and sneakers, surrounded by broken glass inside the building. He had already shot numerous people inside, and police said he set up an ambush position to attack officers as they arrived.

The front doors were glass, elevated from the sidewalk, and because of the reflection, the officers could not see the shooter inside, Humphrey said. But he could see them.

Officer Cory Galloway retrieved a rifle from the trunk of the patrol car.

“Cover for me,” he said, and they reported to dispatch that there had been shots fired.

Galloway was training rookie Officer Nickolas Wilt, who had graduated from the police academy just 10 days earlier. The videos showed them walking up the stairs toward the front door when the gunman fired a barrage of bullets.

Wilt was shot in the head, though that was not captured on video. Galloway was grazed in the shoulder, police said. His body camera showed that he fell and then took cover behind a concrete planter at the bottom of the staircase leading to the building. Sirens from the dozens of police cars coming toward them wailed in the background.

“The shooter has an angle on that officer,” he said in the video recording. “We need to get up there. I don’t know where he’s at, the glass is blocking him.”

A video taken by a bystander across the street, which police also released Tuesday, showed him darting back and forth from one side of the planter to another, trying to get a shot at the gunman.

He waited, and as other officers arrived, more gunshots rang out and glass shattered.

Galloway fired toward the gunman at 8:44 a.m., three minutes after arriving.

“I think I got him down! I think he’s down!” he shouted. “Suspect down! Get the officer!”

He advanced into the building, and shards of glass crunched under his feet. The video then showed Galloway approaching the suspect, who lay on the ground inside the lobby next to a long rifle.

“I think you can see the tension in that video,” Humphrey said Tuesday. “You can understand the stress that those officers are going through. … They did absolutely exactly what they needed to do to save lives. Once officers arrived on scene, not another person was shot.”

Wilt was transported in the back of a police car to a hospital, Humphrey said. In the chaotic first minutes, police treated and triaged the victims inside. Humphrey said the ambulance service was short-staffed, so a police lieutenant drove the ambulance while emergency crews treated people at the scene.

Wilt was still in critical but stable condition Tuesday, according to University of Louisville Hospital Chief Medical Officer Dr. Jason Smith.

Two of the four wounded still in the hospital had injuries that were not life-threatening, Smith said.

Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg said it was crucial to release the footage because “transparency is important — even more so in a time of crisis.”

Police Chief Jacquelyn Gwinn-Villaroel said at a news conference that bank employee Connor Sturgeon, 25, bought the AR-15 assault-style rifle used in the attack at a local dealership on April 4.

Armed with the rifle, Sturgeon killed his co-workers — including a close friend of Kentucky’s governor — while livestreaming the attack.

“We do know this was targeted. He knew those individuals, of course, because he worked there,” Gwinn-Villaroel said, but didn’t give an indication of a motive behind the shooting.

Gwinn-Villaroel praised the “heroic actions” of officers who engaged the shooter without hesitation when they arrived.

“They went towards danger in order to save and preserve life,” she said. “They stopped the threat so other lives could be saved. No hesitation, and they did what they were called do to.”

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

National Science Foundation Spent $5.7M to Combat Disinformation

(Adam Andrzejewsk, RealClear Wire) After this column reported that the State Department was funding nonprofits that target “disinformation” and that have tried to censor American news outlets, we now know that the National Science Foundation has also funded $5.7 million in grants to target disinformation about elections and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, uncovered the two NSF grants from 2021 and 2022.

The first, from 2021 was worth $750,000 and was awarded to the University of Wisconsin system to understand and address, “skepticism regarding the integrity of U.S. elections and hesitancy related to COVID-19 vaccines” by developing a “three-step method to identify, test, and correct real-world instances of these forms of online misinformation.”

Then, in 2022, those same researchers at the University of Wisconsin system received a raise. This new grant was worth $5 million. This time the purpose was for a special project called “Course Correct — Precision Guidance Against Misinformation” that would be “a flexible and dynamic digital dashboard that will help end users such as journalists to (1) identify trending misinformation networks on social media platforms … (2) strategically correct misinformation … (3) test the effectiveness of corrections in real time.”

Of course, what constitutes disinformation or skepticism is subjective, and models like this pose serious threats to free speech and free press. The idea that the U.S. government would directly fund this project is chilling, especially from a scientific agency that should understand the value of open debate and disagreement to get to the truth.

The Chicago Teachers Union Now Runs the Mayor’s Office

(Matt Paprocki, RealClear Wire) Socialism hasn’t always been mainstream. It started off as radical: too hot to touch. So in 2010, radical new leadership of the Chicago Teachers Union started slowly.

“Convincing our members to wear a red T-shirt on Friday was a task,” said Brandon Johnson, who on April 4 became mayor-elect in Chicago. He was speaking at the Socialism 2013 conference about his push to normalize radical progressive politics among rank-and-file Chicago teachers. “Took us a year to convince [Chicago Teachers Union] members that it’s OK to associate yourself with labor. The baby Socialists would just wear the buttons, right? You gotta start them off gently. And so eventually, they started putting on red T-shirts.”

Those red shirts flooded the city of Chicago in 2012, as teachers union members packed city trains, crowded city streets and abandoned city schools during one of the most militant and contentious teacher strikes in the city’s history.

The red shirts have become a constant symbol of CTU’s growing power. Since the 2012 strike, CTU has only grown stronger under the watchful eyes of uber-progressive leaders such as Karen Lewis, Jackson Potter, Jesse Sharkey and current CTU president Stacey Davis Gates.

CTU leadership’s brand of union politics has little to do with students and teacher representation and more to do with an expansive political agenda that includes defunding the police, hiking taxes (on “the rich,” broadly), and pumping more city resources into the Chicago Public Schools system, where classroom spending is way up and student outcomes way down since the Caucus of Rank and File Educators rose to power.

Since 2010, CTU has drawn the blueprint for how to seize control over America’s largest cities. The union runs the schools, holding as hostage Chicago kids and families whenever union bosses are unhappy with management. They also donate to the bulk of the Chicago City Council, having contributed financially to 34 of Chicago’s 50 current aldermen.

But their reach expands beyond the city to politicians in the Illinois statehouse. In total, CTU since 2010 has spent at least $19 million on politics in Illinois, including over $2.5 million to Illinois Senate and House candidates.

Even Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker likes to cater to the CTU, passing a law that gave the union more leverage in contract negotiations and more opportunities to go on strike. By contrast, eight of the nation’s 10 largest school districts prohibit teacher strikes.

The consequences of increased CTU power and the ideology they’ve pushed on Chicago are clear.

There have been five work stoppages – in 2012, 2016, 2019, 2021, and 2022 – since CORE took over. The city has increased spending by 55% since then, but nearly 80% of Chicago 11th graders could not read or perform math at grade level, according to state data from 2022. Meanwhile, nearly half of CPS students are chronically absent. Nearly 90,000 students have left the district since 2010, and nearly one-third of CPS schools are half full.

With results like that, the union still clamors for more power. And they take out anyone who stands in their way. After beloved CPS teacher Joe Ocol refused to walk out on his students during the 2016 teacher strike, he was kicked out of CTU and asked to give up his pay.

Ifeoma Nkemdi refused to leave the classroom during the 2019 walkout, too. She said union members vulgarly threatened and harassed her, surrounding her in the parking lot as she crossed the picket line.

“Students need to be in the classroom,” Nkemdi said. “We can negotiate while teaching.”

The political ambition of union leadership has gotten so out of hand that a handful of teachers have taken the brave step of suing their union, filing an unfair labor practice claim because the union won’t stop violating its own rules by taking member dues and funneling them into political spending – namely, Johnson’s mayoral campaign.

Chicagoans started to catch on to CTU’s political ambitions and corruption as the election cycle played out, with CTU favorables dropping precipitously from +17 to +2 during election season. Parents already knew how bad CTU’s influence could be – 52% of Chicago parents polled just weeks before the election said CTU had too much power over city government. Unfortunately, it was too late to stop CTU from seizing the mayor’s office.

So what now? Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, invested heavily in Johnson after an embarrassing loss in the Virginia gubernatorial election. She spent time stumping for the CTU’s candidate ahead of Election Day.

Why? She smells opportunity to replicate teachers union efforts to win major political offices in other cities. What union boss wouldn’t want to sit across from one of their own at the bargaining table? Winning the mayor’s office in Chicago is the perfect way to cut out the middleman. The Chicago election made one thing very clear: Teachers union leadership is more political than ever, and their focus has shifted from kids and teachers to gathering power.

Chicago is the first city to hold major mayoral elections in 2023. Others will follow later this year, including Houston and Philadelphia.

“From Philly to Chicago, a movement of educators fought against decades of austerity, anti-teacher, school closing policies and now we are remaking our cities,” tweeted Philadelphia mayoral candidate Helen Gym, a former teacher turned social justice movement leader, after Johnson declared victory. Like Johnson, she has the backing of her city’s local AFT union affiliate. “Joyful for Chicago. We got next Philly!”

Voters in those cities should keep an eye on Weingarten’s travel itinerary. They may be next.

COMMENT: Dangerous Overreach in Manhattan and Tennessee

(Charles Lipson, RealClear Wire) To sustain a constitutional democracy, public officials must do more than obey written laws. They must respect the unwritten ones that have cumulated over the years. Together, they are the cement of our society. Unfortunately, in recent weeks, we’ve seen two disturbing cases of elected officials smashing those unwritten rules. One was a Democrat, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg; the other was Tennessee’s Republican legislature.

Both were exercises in bad judgment. Although the actions seem to have been legal, they trampled over informal norms of long standing. Crushing those norms not only invites retaliation, it undermines public confidence in the fairness and good sense of elected officials, if any still lingers.

Alvin Bragg had every legal right to convene a grand jury, present them with his case against Donald Trump, and work to indict the former president. It’s not hard to convince grand juries, and Bragg succeeded. If the trial is held in Manhattan, he will present the case to a Trump-hating jury, ready to mete out punishment.

Still, the case is thin and tendentious. That’s why Bragg’s predecessor declined to move forward with it. Not Bragg. He has collected several alleged misdemeanors and ramped them up to a felony by linking them to another alleged crime. What is that other crime? Bragg won’t say. Apparently, New York law doesn’t require him to say, so he won’t, despite the obvious national interest.

Bragg also has the right to try to show that New York State election laws were violated, even though specialists in that field at the Department of Justice and Federal Election Commission decided there were no violations. Ignoring the statutes of limitation, which expired long ago on these alleged crimes, is a tougher sell, but the courts will have to rule on all these issues. All that will take time, however. Meanwhile, the case hangs over the 2024 presidential campaign.

There is also the troubling question of unequal treatment. The conduct Bragg alleges to be criminal is not the salacious act of making hush payments to a porn star. It is that Trump hid those payments as a business expense, and did so to help his presidential campaign. If so, he’s not alone. Another New York resident, who lives in Chappaqua, listed all her payments to create the Russian collusion hoax as “legal expenses.” They’ll find Jimmy Hoffa’s body before New York ever investigates that crime.

When prosecutors pursue political vendettas, as Bragg has, they undermine two pillars of our legal system. First, the law should be impartial. That’s especially important when the targets are controversial political figures. Second, law enforcement should begin with a crime and then look for the perpetrator, not the reverse. It should never begin with a target and then look for a crime to pin on him.

Bragg’s approach is fundamentally different from the cases being developed in Georgia and Florida. Those cases appear much stronger, but that’s not their only difference. They began with specific allegations of felonies. In Georgia, there were recorded phone calls from Trump and his allies to senior state officials, pressuring them to find enough additional votes to win Georgia’s presidential contest. At issue is whether Trump and his supporters were seeking legitimate votes which had not been properly counted (his position), or non-existent votes to fraudulently pad his total. In Florida, there are really two issues. Did the former president have a right to retain certain documents from his White House years or was he required to turn them over to the National Archives, as they demanded? Second, did he obstruct justice when he later declared he had turned over all relevant documents? Despite that formal declaration, a subsequent FBI search found he had retained many of the requested documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Special Counsel Jack Smith is pursuing yet another angle, this one involving Trump’s role in the events of Jan. 6 and perhaps other issues. The problem with all special counsels, including this one, is that they fall somewhere between “starting with a crime” and “starting with a target.”

Bragg’s indictment poses two additional difficulties, perhaps the most serious of all. It breaks a long-standing precedent and sets a new one. The broken one is prosecutors declining to indict former presidents. If that precedent is to be broken, the case should be formidable, involve a major crime, and be grounded in well-established law. Bragg’s case fails on all those criteria, which is why it looks like a partisan witch hunt.

Because Bragg leveled these charges as a local prosecutor, he has set a precedent of his own – a very bad one. He has opened the door for similar actions by Republican district attorneys across the country, who could go after former Democratic presidents for their own partisan reasons.

Still, Bragg has the legal authority to take the actions he has. So does Tennessee’s Republican legislature, which expelled two Democrats for breaking the House’s basic rules. There’s no question the legislators flagrantly violated those rules and blocked all business for an hour. There’s no question the Tennessee legislature has the authority to punish them.

The punishment they chose, however, goes too far. It’s legal but unwise. That’s not an excuse for the expelled members’ behavior. No legislature can tolerate its members seizing control of the House well, yelling into a bull horn, and disrupting all other business. To compound the problem – and the danger – the members’ disruption came in support of a mass demonstration inside the capitol building itself.

Still, expelling state legislators for breaches of House rules is an exercise in bad judgment unless the breaches are repeated or violent. These were not. They were serious, first-time offenses, and they were non-violent. Some sanctions are certainly appropriate, but expulsion goes too far for several reasons.

First, it deprives constituents of their elected representatives, at least until replacements are named.

Second, the case seethes with racial tension because the two expelled members were black. Race should not matter in dealing with these violations, but, inevitably, it does. It certainly affects how people see the expulsions, which only deepens our national divisions over race.

Not surprisingly, Democratic leaders have jumped on the story, decried the punishment, and moved to support the expelled representatives. Their party counts on near-unanimous support from black voters, so Democrats look for opportunities like this to demonstrate their solidarity. Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t miss her chance. She immediately flew to Nashville to offer her backing. Others are sure to follow.

Like-minded friends in the legacy media were quick to note that a white legislator was not expelled, even though she had joined her two black colleagues in the well of the House. They say she got better treatment because of her race. Others respond that her case was different because she stood silently and was not disruptive. (She held onto her seat by a single vote.)

Third, expulsions like this encourage other elected bodies to act the same way. State legislators, city councilmen and school board members don’t always stick to the rules or observe decorum, so tit-for-tat treatment could proliferate as each party considers expelling its opponents.

Finally, expulsions like the one in Tennessee undermine the informal rules and procedures that preserve our democracy. Granted, the expelled legislators had violated the rules themselves. Important rules. But excessive punishment represents more than an eye-for-an-eye. It is two eyes. Its aim may be to restore order but its practical effect is likely to be the opposite.

The overall message, both in Tennessee and Manhattan, is more than “both sides do it.” The deeper message is that preserving our democracy requires prudence, good judgment, and some self-restraint by elected leaders and judges. Those qualities are now endangered species, killed by the bitter politics of payback and revenge, cloaked in self-righteous contempt for opponents. The tide of vitriol is rising. That’s another swamp that needs draining.

Small Businesses ‘Cynical’, Sour about Future, Survey Finds

(Casey Harper, The Center Square) Small businesses are less optimistic about the future, a newly released survey shows.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses released survey results showing their small business optimism index decreased in March, “marking the 15th consecutive month below the 49-year average of 98.”

“Small business owners are cynical about future economic conditions,” NFIB Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg said. “Hiring plans fell to their lowest level since May 2020, but strong consumer spending has kept Main Street alive and supported strong labor demand.”

The survey results found other troubling economic indicators.

“A net negative 6% of all owners (seasonally adjusted) reported higher nominal sales in the past three months. Sales are trending down,” the group said. “The net percent of owners expecting higher real sales volumes deteriorated six points to a net negative 15%.”

NFIB also recently reported that small businesses are citing the labor market as a top concern, with 43% of small businesses saying they have job openings they cannot fill. The group has also raised serious concerns about President Joe Biden’s proposed tax increases.

The small business group launched an ad campaign to push back on tax increases on small businesses proposed in Biden’s latest budget. The NFIB launched an ad campaign to push back on those tax hikes put forward in Biden’s recent budget proposal.

“Main Street cannot afford these new tax increases,” NFIB President Brad Close said. “As expectations for better business conditions remain low, while high inflation and worker shortages continue to plague Main Street, these proposals would hurt small businesses’ ability to recover, grow and create jobs. The White House should instead focus on promoting economic growth by providing certainty, such as permanently extending the Small Business Deduction.”

Watchdog Presses for Ethics Probe of Squad 2.0 Rep. Bowman

(Christian Wade, The Center Square) A watchdog group says New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman violated House ethics rules by recording TikTok videos inside the U.S. Capitol building and in his congressional office.

The complaint, filed Tuesday by the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, alleges Bowman used social media accounts in violation of House rules and “abused official resources” for political purposes. The watchdog group is asking the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate the claims.

The group alleges the Democrat, whose district includes Bronx and Westchester County, has posted political content on his official TikTok account and used official resources to make posts on his political TikTok account, such as a video he recorded from inside the U.S. Capitol building.

Federal law requires congressional lawmakers to separate campaign and official activities and prohibits campaigning using official resources, such as government buildings, websites and social media profiles.

“The law is clear and the posts above speak for themselves,” Kendra Arnold, the group’s executive director wrote in the complaint. “The laws at issue in this case are important because not only do they protect taxpayer-funded resources from abuse, they also protect the integrity of official proceedings.”

Bowman is the latest House Democrat to be slapped with an ethics complaint over use of TikTok, along with fellow U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. and Wiley Nickel, D-N.C.

President Joe Biden argues that the platform, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, poses a national security threat at a time of growing competition with China.

The complaint noted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Communications Commission has warned that data from TikTok, such as biometric identification, browsing history, and location could be shared with the Chinese government.

Bowman is among a small group of Democrats who have pushed back against the government’s efforts to ban TikTok, accusing them of fostering xenophobia and “anti-China” hysteria.

In March, he held a rally outside the Capitol with dozens of social media influencers who use apps to tout the virtues of the platform used by more than 150 million Americans and criticize efforts by his colleagues in Congress to ban it.

But the watchdog group alleges Bowman has crossed a line with the use of the social media platform as part of his official duties as a congressman.

“Anytime a Member does not comply with these laws it is troubling and should concern citizens,” Arnold wrote. “The OCE must move swiftly to investigate and enforce these bright-line standards and apply the requisite penalty.”

SELLERS: Invoking Soros’s Former Religion to Defend Evil Is TRUE Anti-Semitism

(Ben Sellers, Headline USA) Once again, last month’s outrageous indictment of former President Donald Trump has led leftists to deploy Judaism as both spear and shield for the sake of defending billionaire oligarch George Soros and his anti-American agenda.

Attack-dog media like the globalist Agence France–Presse continue carrying water for Soros, the Blofeld-like Hungarian expat with an affinity for meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations in order to short-sell their economies and turn a profit.

“Republican Party… is once again falling back on their anti-Semitic George Soros conspiracy theories,” tweeted J Street, a Washington, D.C.-based Jewish lobbying group, according to AFP. “It’s as tired as it is dangerous.”

Ironically, France is one of the many countries that has wisened up to Soros’s ways and indicted him for insider trading, even as AFP—its leading, quasi-public news agency—sings his praises.

Among the other nations to send Soros packing is China, which quickly identified his attempt to drive down its economy in 2016.

However, America’s once-vaunted system of civil liberties and God-given rights has been its Achilles heel for this freedom-leeching scavenger, and corrupt Democrats have welcomed Soros’s nation-meddling with open arms as they strive to rewrite the political playbook in more favorable terms.

In its latest Soros apologia, the New York Times—a media company that, like Soros himself, once actively sided with Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime—invoked as its authority on religious bigotry the far-left Anti-Defamation League, which frequently targets right-wing groups for persecution via its vast database of alleged hate symbols (including the “Okay Hand Gesture”).

“We understand that when someone makes comments about ‘Soros-backed prosecutors,’ that on its own is not necessarily antisemitic,” ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt told the Times. “But when a person or a political party repeatedly and relentlessly makes wild claims such as that there is a ‘cabal of globalists backed by Soros destroying our country, that is invoking a classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theory, and it should be condemned.”

And yet, Soros’s defenders continue using the same stale tropes of their own in an effort to “debunk” what is un-debunkable: the nefarious intentions underlying his vulture capitalism in America, which over the past two decades has metastacized into a network so expansive—and, oftentimes, secretive—that the only way to identify it is to follow the money backward.

JEWS VS. BLACKS

Leftist media and Jewish activist groups would likely make the case that there is some higher principle involved in turning a blind eye toward the deeds of a man who seems to be shamelessly perpetuating Jewish stereotypes to advance his own self-interest.

It is fine, Greenblatt implies, to personally deem Soros’s policies reprehensible, as long as one does not directly link those policies to Soros—because, when it comes to identity politics, an attack on one is an attack on all.

Unfortunately for Greenblatt and others seeking to inflict punitive measures onto supposed anti-Semites, many critics are, themselves, the members of marginalized minority groups.

If an individual, based on his or her heritage alone, is entitled to blanket immunity from any sort of criticism or attack, then clearly the ADL has something in common with the KKK.

In recent months, righteous indignation has been used to bludgeon black celebrities like Kanye West, Dave Chappelle, Kyrie Irving, Whoopi Goldberg and Ice Cube for having the audacity to question the false equivalence between their own lived experiences and the historical oppression of Jews.

As isolated incidents, of course, the Jewish mass genocides of the Nazi regime and Soviet pogroms may take the cake. But from a systemic standpoint, blacks have the obvious edge in the victimhood stakes.

In fact, Jewish privilege is far more likely than so-called white privilege to benefit the bearer. Studies indicate that Ashkenazi Jews—those originating from Europe—may have IQs 20% higher than average, making them the most intelligent ethnic group in the world, according to Shalom Life.

In terms of “social justice,” the entire moral code of Western society may be built on the foundation of Christian values, but those, in turn, are based on their Jewish antecedents.

In essence, to recognize the role that Jewish identity plays in cultural and political dynamics is not necessarily to promulgate bigoted tropes since some of those characteristics are, in all earnestness, rooted in the empirical reality.

Like other populations when taken in aggregate, Jews do, indeed, enjoy many systemically inherited and hereditary advantages. Some use them for good; others, like George Soros, for more self-serving purposes.

On the contrary, to deny those realities is both racist and anti-Semitic insomuch as it conflates the objective truth with false stereotypes—and empowers wicked men like Soros to exploitatively appropriate the victimization of others in order to engage in predation, manipulation and nonconsensual social-engineering.

ANTI-SEMITISM BY PROXY

Fittingly, while many black public figures have been smeared as Nazi sympathizers for denying Jews their victimhood birthright, loyal blacks like Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg are rewarded and brought under the auspices of Jewish victimhood simply for doing the bidding of their masters.

That Bragg and other corrupt prosecutors have benefited politically from Soros’s financial contributions—including as the No. 1 overall donor in the past election cycle—is demonstrably irrefutable, despite Washington Post “fact-checker” Glenn Kessler’s sad attempts to claim otherwise.

Thus, to assert that criticism of Bragg’s partisan witch-hunt—and, by extension, Soros’s efforts to undermine America’s system of jurisprudence—constitutes an anti-Semitic attack must mean, in the eyes of their leftist defenders, that one of the following is also true:

  • There is nothing wrong with what Bragg and Soros are doing.
  • Soros’s actions, however immoral, are reflective of the entire Jewish culture and faith.

Given the nature of Soros’s activities, and their obvious intent to subvert the American rule of law and to weaponize it for political purposes, those who support and abet him in those efforts are, by definition, a cabal.

Therefore, they cannot argue that critics are spreading a false anti-Semitic trope since they, themselves, are complicit in its realization.

To the second point, those who suggest that Soros’s activities (and those of his goyim surrogates) are inherently Jewish may actually be the true anti-Semites.

To re-examine this from a different angle: It is not racist to say that African–American Saturday Night Live comedian Michael Che enjoys fried chicken.

What would be racist, however, is to insist that it is verboten to discuss or question Che’s dietary preferences because doing so risks perpetuating a longstanding negative stereotype about African Americans.

By that same token, suggesting that criticism of Soros’s actions is offensive to all Jewish people is tantamount to affirming that the underlying stereotypes must be true—or that the person taking offense, at least, believes them to be so.

IS HE EVEN JEWISH?

There is one lingering issue that Jews must also take into account before making Soros their proverbial cross to bear: his own past renunciation of both the Jewish faith and culture.

In the notorious 1998 60 Minutes interview posted atop this article, Soros unequivocally acknowledges that he is an atheist. And, indeed, he has said elsewhere that he has a messianic complex of his own.

“It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out,” he told Britain’s Independent in 1993.

He also has boasted of being amoral and has insisted that “normal rules do not apply” to him.

All would seem to be fundamental rejections of Judaism as a religion, considering three of the five books in its sacred text, the Torah, constitute nothing but rules and laws to which all Jews must adhere.

Fortunately for Soros, his religion has come to embrace Jewish atheism as a belief system unto itself—and, according to some estimates, that may include about half of all those who identify as Jewish.

So, is Soros, by virtue of his birthright, still entitled to claim Jewish status?

Only if a confessed traitor is still entitled to retain membership of the entity he betrayed.

In his 60 Minutes interview, Soros admitted to feeling no remorse for having collaborated with the Nazis to identify fellow Jews and help seize their property while pretending to be gentile.

“I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away, but there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there” he told inverviewer Steve Kroft.

Soros likened the experience of betraying fellow Jews to gambling in the stock market, suggesting that if he had passed on the opportunity, someone else would have taken his place.

“[W]hether I was there or not, I was only a spectator; the property was being taken away,” he said. “I had no role in taking away that property, so I had no sense of guilt.”

Ultimately, the question of whether Soros is still Jewish may be moot given the strong evidence that he is, by any moral standard or religious code, a truly evil individual.

It is not simply the prerogative of conservatives but the categorical imperative of all Americans, regardless of color or creed, to reject his influence.

And if doing so constitutes anti-Semitism, according to the leftist authorities on such matters, then Jews must find themselves in a very dark and dangerous place, staking their own livelihood on defending someone who would never extend to them the same courtesy.

Ben Sellers is the editor of Headline USA. Follow him at twitter.com/realbensellers.

MTG Trolls AOC ‘Playbook’: Let’s Impeach Leftist Judges

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., slammed Democrat-Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., for calling for the impeachment of conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. 

“AOC wants to impeach great Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. We won’t ever let her,” Greene vowed.

Greene’s comments came as a response to Ocasio Cortez’s calls to impeach Thomas, over a leftist ProPublica report that claimed that he and his wife, renowned conservative activist Ginni Thomas, went on several trips paid by billionaire Harlan Crow, a longtime family friend. 

Justice Thomas and Crow defended their friendship, saying the trips were merely personal.  

“Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years. As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them,” Thomas said in a statement. “Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.” 

AOC dismissed Thomas’s response in an interview with CNN’s State of the Union.  “I think that his own statement [..] raises in other ways even more serious questions,” she said. “It is the House’s responsibility to pursue that investigation in the form of impeachment.”  

The leftist Squadster doubled down on her calls for impeachment in comments to the leftist news outlet The Lever. 

“If we decide strategically that the actual author of those articles and who introduces them may not be me […] I will support impeachment,” she said. “But I just think that if no one’s going to introduce it, I would certainly be open to doing so.” 

This would not be the first time that the New York Democrat propped up calls for the impeachment of Thomas, the Court’s only black justice. Ocasio-Cortez listed Thomas as being impeachment-worthy by name in an interview with fake news site NBC, Headline USA reported in July 2022.

Ocasio-Cortez herself is under a House ethics investigation after allegedly accepting prohibited gifts related to her infamous 2021 Met Gala appearance. 

In September 2021, Ocasio-Cortez received a “couture dress, handbag, shoes, and jewelry,” which remained unpaid at the launch of the ethics investigation. AOC, however, proceeded to pay for those services, including her infamous “Tax the Rich” dress, only after the ethics committee “contacted her in connection with this review.  

“But for the OCE opening this review, it appears that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez may not have paid for several thousands of dollars’ worth of goods and services provided to her,” the report claimed. 

AOC’s allies in the Senate followed suit, with Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., sending a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts demanding an investigation of Justice Thomas and his family. 

Both Whitehouse and John have remained silent over their colleague AOC’s own ethics investigation. 

Vanity Fair Hires Brian Stelter as Special Correspondent to Cover Fox News Trial

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) Disgraced ex-CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter has picked up a new job covering Dominion Voting Systems’ upcoming defamation trial against Fox News for its 2020 election reporting.

Stelter’s new Vanity Fair gig covering the lawsuit was announced Tuesday:

Dominion’s $1.6 billion lawsuit is part of a growing body of legal action filed by the voting company and other targets of claims of vote fraud and manipulation.

They accused Fox of amplifying assertions that Dominion altered votes, “sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, severely injuring Dominion in the process.”

According to Stelter, his job will be to write weekly columns about the ongoing trial. He will also host a podcast wherein he will discuss the same thing.

Of course, Vanity Fair did not hire the most impartial observer of the Fox News–Dominion dispute. Stelter has a long history of promoting anti-Fox bias, stemming back to his days at CNN.

For instance, Stelter once ran a segment on his show wherein he confronted a guest’s claim that both Fox and CNN are biased and partisan. Stelter repeatedly insisted that CNN remained blameless and simply reported the facts, despite his guest’s evidence to the contrary.

After authoring a book, Hoax, that obsessed over the right-leaning network, Stelter also railed against Fox News host Tucker Carlson, demanding that Fox fire him following the Kenosha, Wisconsin race riots and flat-out lying about what Carlson said.

According to Stelter, Carlson attempted to “justify the killing” through his condemnation of the leftist authorities.

“[I]f history is any guide, there will be no internal fallout as a result of his latest shocking statement,” he continued.

Stelter also slammed Fox for its coverage of former President Donald Trump‘s rallies, which he called a “hate movement.”

“When you’re in that pen, you really do feel like a zoo animal,” Stelter said, suggesting that Trump supporters are like animals. “Rallygoers gawk at you, take pictures of you, and sometimes sneer while they walk by, saying things like, ‘You’re fake news’ and ‘enemy of the people.’”

In fact, CNN was so biased that last year, under the new management of Chris Licht, the failing network vowed to clean house and rebuild from the ground up in order to renew its reputation as a reliable news source—starting by firing Stelter.

Another Country Artist Cuts Ties w/ Bud Light Over Dylan Mulvaney Ad

(Headline USA) Another country artist announced this week that he’s cutting ties with Bud Light over the company’s partnership with transgender huckster Dylan Mulvaney.

Singer John Rich said he’ll no longer carry Bud Light beers in his Nashville bar, Redneck Riviera, citing low demand from customers in the wake of the controversy with Mulvaney.

“The customers decide. Customers are king,” Rich told Fox News on Monday. “I own a bar in downtown Nashville. Our number one selling beer up until a few days ago was what? Bud Light. We got cases and cases and cases of it sitting back there. But in the past several days you’re hard-pressed to find anyone ordering one. So as a business owner, I go, hey if you aren’t ordering it, we got to put something else in here. At the end of the day, that’s capitalism. That’s how it works.”

Mulvaney revealed last week that Bud Light had sent him custom-made cans of beer featuring his face in celebration of his “365 Days of Girlhood.” A video of Mulvaney with the cans included the hashtag “#budlightpartner” and featured Mulvaney in a bathtub drinking the beer.

Rich said Bud Light is “making a bet that this is going to sell more product.” But the decision will backfire, he predicted.

“What’s happening … is people who have been loyal to brands for decades and decades are finding it hard to stay loyal to them, so they start hunting down other brands that they can support. There are tons of up-and-coming American brands out there that people are flooding to, kind of like mine,” he explained.

Rich’s decision to part ways with Bud Light comes just days after country artist Travis Tritt made a similar decision to remove all Bud Light and Anheuser-Busch products from his tour.

“A great American company that later sold out to the Europeans and became unrecognizable to the American consumer,” Tritt said. “Such a shame.”