WINTERS: Mother Jones Exposed as Front for CCP Propaganda via Whistleblower Attacks

Editor 1
-
0
WINTERS: Mother Jones Exposed as Front for CCP Propaganda via Whistleblower Attacks

(Natalie Winters, Headline USA contributor) Mother Jones may claim to be an American news outlet, but its relentless attacks against the New Federal State of China, a movement seeking to remove the Chinese Communist Party from power, makes it seem like a Beijing-based propaganda front.

The comparison is not a stretch; the Chinese Communist Party has historically relied on propaganda and information laundering to extend its control and power beyond China’s borders. “Wherever the readers are, wherever the viewers are,” explained Xi Jinping, “that is where propaganda reports must extend their tentacles.”

Why would an American media outlet launch an all-out assault on the leading group whose raison d’être is to “take down the CCP”? After all, the Chinese Communist Party is the largest existential threat facing all Americans.

No movement understands the dangers of the Chinese Communist Party better than the New Federal State of China, also known as the Whistleblower Movement. The international effort has no political affiliation in the U.S. and has taken up causes including uncovering the true origins of COVID-19 despite Beijing’s massive coverup and educating Americans on the perils of communism.

Many “whistleblowers” have risked their own lives to provide valuable information to America, including details about the inner workings of the Chinese Communist Party, and fiercely opposed COVID-19 vaccine mandates over pharmaceutical companies’ financial ties to China.

Put simply, attacks on the New Federal State of China are a surefire way to keep the Chinese Communist Party in power and American elites beholden to the communist regime.

Intricate conflicts of interest related to financial matters, personnel, and robust foreign influence operations conducted by Chinese Communist Party front groups may tell us why the content published by Mother Jones could easily be reprinted in Chinese state-run media outlets like China Daily or The Global Times without one single edit.

Who is Dan Friedman?

Beyond peddling falsehoods about the New Federal State of China and its founder Miles Guo (including placing blame on him—not Capitol Police or the FBI—for the events that transpired on Jan. 6, 2021), writing for Mother Jones, author Dan Friedman attempts to engage in a full-blown character assassination of the New Federal State of China.

In his Mother Jones article “A Fugitive Chinese Mogul Spent Big to Overturn the 2020 Election,” Friedman uses the mainstream media’s deceptive and deceitful tactics to smear opponents of the Chinese Communist Party.

As well as depicting the New Federal State of China, which is a nonpartisan movement, as belonging to the American far right, Friedman’s headline is intentionally misleading.

Friedman did, however, admit in the piece that “no Guo supporters have been accused of engaging in illegal conduct … and there is no evidence that Guo had any connection to the violence that weekend,” in reference to the Nov. 14, 2020, rally dubbed the “Million MAGA March.”

The American patriots who constitute the New Federal State of China were simply exercising their rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

Friedman, however, alleges this rally “culminated in the January 6 attack” on the U.S. Capitol. He fails to provide convincing evidence for this claim, let alone a shred of evidence to place the blame on the New Federal State of China. In fact, Guo advised his supporters against entering the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, and members of the New Federal State of China heeded his suggestion.

In other words, Friedman’s bold headline falls flat.

So, why would he take such interest in attacking a movement that seeks to “take down the CCP”?

The answer—which applies to most mainstream media outlets in America—likely has to do with decades of calculated and comprehensive compromise and infiltration carried out by Chinese Communist Party-backed foreign influence groups in the U.S.

In the case of Friedman, he previously worked at National Journal for over five years as a government operations reporter before shifting roles to become a congressional staff writer. His focus areas included “congressional oversight of federal agencies, congressional investigations, lobbying and federal election rules.”

National Journal is a Washington, D.C.-based advisory firm engaged in government affairs that also publishes a variety of op-eds and articles regarding American politics.

Put simply, it’s a lobbying shop that also functions as a media outlet—two sectors of American society the Chinese Communist Party has spent billions of dollars to influence.

The outlet has been involved with the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), a leading Chinese Communist Party-funded foreign influence group that functions as part of Beijing’s United Front.

CUSEF is a Chinese Communist Party-funded initiative founded by Tung Chee Hwa, who serves as vice chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), a key oversight body of the United Front.

According to a report from the U.S.–China Security and Economic Review Commission, the effort aims “to co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition to the policies and authority of its ruling Chinese Communist Party.”

“The United Front strategy uses a range of methods to influence overseas Chinese communities, foreign governments, and other actors to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred policies,” the report continues.

The U.S. State Department has also compared the effort to the Chinese regime’s “magic weapon” to advance its preferred policies with strategies including infiltration and lucrative deals.

CUSEF has deployed these tactics heavily against American media outlets and National Journal is no exception.

The relationship between National Journal and CUSEF is revealed in the Department of Justice’s Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) filings, which reveal journalists from the outlet participated in private dinners and sponsored trips to China.

The identities of most participants have not been disclosed. Could Dan Friedman have been a participant? Who knows.

A 2011 FARA filing details CUSEF’s agreement with American lobbying firm BLJ. It outlines how CUSEF set out to “effectively disseminate positive messages to the media, key influencers and opinion leaders, and the general public” regarding the Chinese Communist Party. This would also entail attacking its opponents and detractors, of which the New Federal State of China is the most formidable.

To ensure positive coverage, CUSEF targeted both working journalists and journalist students:

“In order to develop favorable coverage in key national media, BLJ will continue to organize and staff “familiarization trips” to China. This includes recruiting top journalists to travel to China, selected for effectiveness and opportunities for favorable coverage.”

Among the participating news outlets was National Journal:

“BLJ arranged for two journalist visits consisting of four high-profile journalists to visit China in May and November 2009. The journalists represented top publications in the United States including Newsweek, the National Journal, the Nation, Congressional Quarterly, U.S. News and World Report, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Note. In total, there were 28 media placements generated as a result of these visits,” continues the FARA filing.”

An additional FARA filing from 2015 lists the National Journal as one of several media outlets continuing to participate in meetings with CUSEF leadership, suggesting that the company’s relationship with the Chinese Communist spans several years.

Mother Jones also has a track record of publishing people with ties to CUSEF, such as Orville Schell, Director of U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society in New York. The Asia Society is a pro-Chinese Communist Party lobbying group that sponsors several Confucius Institutes across the United States.

Schell has participated in CUSEF-sponsored events as a panelist and contributed several articles to Mother Jones. Pieces he has penned for the outlet are often China-focused, including one article urging a newly-elected Bill Clinton to visit China to grant “Chinese leaders that important element of dignity.”

Why Mother Jones?

Analysis of Mother Jones’ financials reveals another interesting link to the Chinese Communist Party through one of its largest donors: the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.

The California-based charity counts Catherine Dooling as a former investment officer. Dooling, married to Bo Shan, the daughter-in-law of Chinese billionaire Weijian Shan.

Shan has used extensive lawfare against the New Federal State of China and Guo, suing for tens of millions of dollars after botched deals with PAG, a leading Asia-based private equity firm chaired by Shan.

In other words, a family member of a businessman engaged in high-stakes legal battles against Guo was responsible for helping allocate funds on behalf of a foundation backing a media outlet relentlessly attacking Guo.

Mother Jones, however, fails to disclose this conflict of interest entirely.

Adding to Mother Jones’ financial conflicts of interest, the outlet’s website conceals the identity of 41 donors as “anonymous.”

Additionally, the Mother Jones Legacy Society, which represents people who have included the outlet in their will or estate plan, has 18 anonymous members.

Who’s to say the Chinese Communist Party or its enablers who seek to keep the regime in power are not among them?

Whether utilizing foreign influence groups like CUSEF or cold, hard cash, the Chinese Communist Party is not a silent investor. They seek to annex American media outlets as their own, effectively making their talking points ‘made in China’ – like most things in America.

They’ve set out to seize the reins of mainstream media production.

When outlets like Mother Jones and authors like Friedman baselessly criticize movements like the New Federal State of China, they’re doing the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party.

And it’s all to the detriment of America.

Natalie Winters is an investigative reporter for The National Pulse. She has been credited with breaking dozens of exclusive stories on Chinese Communist Party infiltration into American politics, academia, and media. Her investigations have been cited by groups including the Congressional Republican Study Committee, the National Association of Scholars, and the Committee On the Present Danger China. She frequently appears on Steve Bannon’s War Room: Pandemic, Newsmax, OAN, and more to discuss her work and co-hosts the National Pulse podcast with Raheem Kassam.

Dems Push to Count Mail-In Votes of Those Who Died Before Election Day

Editor 1
-
0
Dems Push to Count Mail-In Votes of Those Who Died Before Election Day

(The Center Square) Hawaii’s mail-in voting system presents a dilemma for elections officials.

What happens if a voter dies after they mailed in their vote and the ballot has not been counted?

If Senate Bill 19 passes the Legislature and is signed by Gov. Josh Green, that vote would count.

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard comments for and against the bill on Friday. Ultimately, the committee deferred the bill.

“It came to our attention during testimony that there’s a uniform law on this topic,” Chairman Karl Rhoades said.

In written testimony, the Hawaii League of Women Voters said, “Regardless of which method is used, if a registered voter submits a valid ballot on time, it is possible the voter may become subsequently ineligible, including by death or perhaps by moving and registering to vote in another state after submitting their valid Hawaii ballot. Importantly, this bill makes clear that anyone who was eligible to vote in Hawaii at the time they cast their ballot should have this ballot counted, even if they later become ineligible. Every vote counts.”

Oahu resident Corinne Solomon opposes the bill. Tracking the number of people who died, newly convicted felons who have lost their right to vote, and people who move out of the state is nearly impossible, Solomon said in written testimony.

“Adding a 6-week average of deaths, convicted felons, and residents moving out of state gives us 9,630 potential eligible-to-ineligible ballots to track, both before and after they have been removed from their signature envelopes,” Solomon said.

“SB19 offers no insight on how this would be accomplished,” she continued. “We need a simpler election system of in-person Election Day voting with Voter ID, not one that requires complicated statutes that cannot be enforced.”

The bill passed out of the committee by a vote of 4-1, with Republican Sen. Brenton Awa casting the only “no” vote.

The committee also considered a bill requiring electors to cast their Electoral College votes only for names appearing on the ballot.

Lorna Takehara Strand said she supported the legislation because of an incident that occurred in 2016.

“We were shocked and dismayed when a Democratic presidential elector, elected by Democrats at the Democratic Party of Hawaii Convention to perform the duties of an elector, decided to cast his vote for Bernie Sanders,” Strand said in written testimony.

“Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in the November 8, 2016 general election in Hawaii 61% – 29.4%,” she said. “Yet, one of Hawaii’s preciously few electoral votes went to Bernie Sanders who was not even on the ballot.”

Sanders is independent; he does caucus with Democrats.

The Party of Mitch

Wire Editor
-
0
The Party of Mitch

(A.B. Stoddard, RealClear Wire) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is all that is left of what was once the Republican establishment. Sure, there are still some GOP voters who agree with McConnell, and he has like-minded lieutenants serving in the GOP Senate leadership alongside him. But there is a new MAGA establishment now that didn’t exist two years ago when McConnell thought he was done with Donald Trump. It has taken over the House Republican conference and the Republican National Committee, and will dominate the upcoming 2024 presidential nominating contest. To put it nicely, McConnell is largely alone on an island in the Republican Party, an outcast.

And, after a midterm debacle that should have made him majority leader but didn’t, McConnell doesn’t seem to care. He stopped speaking with former President Trump more than two years ago. And it sure looks like he isn’t interested in taking any calls from the rest of his party’s top brass.

During Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s historically chaotic election as speaker of the House, McConnell made headlines by appearing with President Joe Biden at an event to highlight the bipartisan infrastructure law, which McConnell supported. Celebrating a Biden accomplishment wasn’t some rash decision; every choice and every last word of McConnell’s are carefully calibrated. It was a stark contrast with McCarthy’s international embarrassment, and a thumb in the eye of Trump and all his critics – mission accomplished for Mitch.

This week when asked whether he would be supporting Ronna McDaniels, who was facing a challenge in her reelection as chair of RNC and pulled out a win, McConnell sniffed “I think they oughta be able to figure it out by themselves.”

McConnell refuses to engage in speculation over whether the House Crazy Caucus will push the United States into our first ever default. “We won’t default,” he said Monday, as though he’s already bored. On Tuesday he officially made it clear that Senate Republicans are out of the chaos business. “I can’t imagine any debt ceiling provision passed out of the Senate with 60 votes could actually pass this particular House,” he said. “So I think the final solution to this particular episode lies between Speaker McCarthy and the president.” It looked like it was all McConnell could do not to bust out laughing and say “not my problem.”

Had McConnell gotten what he wanted, and had GOP primary voters been focused on winning like he is, the debt ceiling high wire act would be his problem. But McConnell is serving in a Democratic majority because the voters of his party nominated too many clowns.

McConnell assumed that in a Republican year, when voters would punish an unpopular president and his party in the midterm elections, his party would clean up. He planned to convince great candidates to face off against Trump and challenge his influence in the 2022 GOP primaries, hoping that this year Doug Ducey, Chris Sununu, and David McCormick would be serving in the majority. But they’re not. Several rational Republicans decided they weren’t interested in becoming the focus of Trump’s wrath and facing off against MAGA candidates in primaries. McCormick tried, but lost to Trump’s pick – Dr. Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania. Oz then lost. In Georgia, Trump chose Herschel Walker, and McConnell went along knowing it was stupid. Other establishment Republicans tried to win Senate and gubernatorial primaries, only to fall to MAGA candidates who also went on to lose.

So in primaries McConnell battled where he could against the extremists, and when MAGA voters nominated them, McConnell still tried bailing them out knowing swing voters wouldn’t stomach them. McConnell spent far more than Trump on Senate nominees last year – $238 million to Trump’s $14.8 million.

For his efforts, McConnell is a pariah on the right. Trump lambastes the “Old Crow” constantly on his social media site, and he has become particularly focused on using racist attacks against his wife, Elaine Chao, to further injure McConnell with the GOP base. Chao just responded to them for the first time Wednesday, saying the attacks say far more about Trump than they do about Asian Americans, after not one Republican had defended her against Trump’s bigotry.

McConnell is already taking heat from his right wing foes because former Gov. Mitch Daniels is interested in the 2024 Indiana Senate race to replace retiring Sen. Mike Braun. Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Banks has already declared, and a primary battle between them would be incredibly divisive as they are prototypes of the old and new guard of the GOP. Radio host Mark Levin tweeted Tuesday: “I’ll bet McConnell’s behind recruiting yet another RINO dinosaur in Daniels. McConnell hates conservatives like Jim Banks.”

Daniels may not run but if he does it will surely be with McConnell’s blessing and support. And McConnell won’t be tiptoeing around MAGA world or Trump this year.

While the map this year is a dream for Republicans – with ripe opportunities in red and purple states in at least eight races – McConnell wants every seat, no matter how many there are to spare. He has seen his party lose too many winnable races in 2010, 2012, and 2022. And he’s had it.

Unlike the former chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Sen. Rick Scott, McConnell has an ally in charge. Scott didn’t intervene in primaries, spent all the committee’s resources before the critical fall stretch of the campaign, sucked up to Trump, and actively worked to undermine McConnell. New NRSC chair Sen. Steve Daines, sounds like someone ready to challenge extremists in primaries.

“I will tell you this. If I have heard one thing since the last election, a little over a month ago, Republicans are sick of losing, and we’re gonna do whatever it takes to win. We want to make sure we have candidates that can win general elections,” Daines told Fox News. “We’re gonna do whatever it takes to make sure we have a Republican majority.”

“Whatever it takes” means McConnell’s patience has run its course. He doesn’t care if Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene calls him “Biden’s bitch” again. He isn’t going to try to rescue House Republicans while they walk into buzzsaws. And he isn’t going to sweat Trump’s assaults against him on Truth Social.

McConnell is going to defend his tiny island in the new GOP that wants to run it over, MAGA be damned.

Congress Must Probe the Rationale for Covid Mask Mandates

Wire Editor
-
0
Congress Must Probe the Rationale for Covid Mask Mandates

(Robert E. Moffit, RealClear Wire) The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives recently authorized formation of a new Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. Peering into the murky Chinese origins of COVID-19, especially any connection to U.S. government funding, will be a top priority. And that’s as it should be.

Dr. Anthony Fauci will no doubt be a star witness. The former director of the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases at the NIH says he would welcome an invitation to testify on his role during the pandemic. Lawmakers should note, however, that in his recent deposition in the continuing case of The State of Missouri, et al. v Joseph Biden et al in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Fauci responded to questions by saying that he could not recall… 174 times. New congressional inquiries might refresh his memory.

However, the subcommittee must concentrate more on “The Science” than on Dr. Fauci. Throughout the pandemic, federal officials who claim to represent “The Science” gave mixed messages. This left citizens eager to follow “The Science” frightened and confused.

Take, for instance, the issue of masking and mask mandates. The mixed messages had a tremendous effect on all Americans, especially schoolchildren.

On this topic, Dr. Fauci’s recent deposition was revealing. In a February 2020 email, Sylvia Burwell, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services asked Fauci whether she should wear a mask at the airport in her travels. He replied:

Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected, rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drugstore is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep [sic] out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you’re going to a low-risk location.

So, Fauci expressed privately to a former colleague a strong conviction that cloth masks were ineffective. That view was broadly shared by other senior federal public health officials, including both Dr. Nancy Messonnier, Fauci’s colleague at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and former Surgeon General of the United States Jerome Adams. Indeed, in a March 2020 social media message to the public Dr. Adams warned: “Seriously, people, STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching Coronavirus.”

Fauci’s initial response to Burwell’s question was in accord with previous scientific research. Furthermore, in the following months, peer-reviewed literature on masking and viral infection confirmed Fauci’s initial advice. For example, a May 2020 review of the professional literature on the subject for the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, concluded “In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” Also in May 2020, researchers writing in The New England Journal of Medicine observed: “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.” In March 2022, a British Medical Journal study on the masking of Spanish school-aged children found that cloth face masks “…were not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 incidence or transmission, suggesting that this intervention was not effective.”

Yet, in April 2020, the federal government’s masking advice took a 180-degree turn. The CDC recommended that all Americans wear masks, and CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield went as far as to declare in a congressional hearing that face masks would be even more effective than a (yet unavailable) Covid-19 vaccine.

The CDC recommendations were quickly translated into state and local mask mandates (sometimes, as in New York City, with stiff fines) throughout the nation. In January 2021, CDC imposed a mask mandate on persons taking public transportation, which was subsequently struck down in federal court because CDC had no statutory authority to impose such a mandate.

Here’s the mystery. Why exactly did CDC masking policy change so dramatically in that brief period between February and April 2020?  Did CDC conduct its own randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of either masking or the kinds of masks that would be most efficacious? The agency should have, of course, but it did not.

Did federal officials come into possession of some groundbreaking scientific research refuting previous peer-reviewed studies that had cast doubt on the efficacy of masking?

That question came during the Nov. 23, 2022, deposition:

Attorney: “How many studies were done between February of 2020, when you emailed Ms. Burwell and told her that ‘the typical mask you buy in the drugstore is not really effective in keeping out the virus, which is small enough to pass through the material” between when you said that and April 3rd of 2020, what studies were done of the efficacy of masks… in preventing the spread of- of- Covid-19?”

Dr. Fauci: “I could find those—and get them for you, but I don’t have them in my fingertips right now.”

Later during the deposition, Fauci said that he changed his mind about masking because by April of 2020 there was no feared shortage of masks for health care workers, and the public could get them without depriving these workers the much-needed protection that masks would provide.

Dr. Fauci also said that it had become clear that the virus spread from persons who did not have symptoms, and that masking would help stop asymptomatic transmission. Finally, he asserted, “Evidence began accumulating that masks actually work in preventing acquisition and transmission.”

Under further questioning, Dr. Fauci repeated that his view on masking changed due to “new” scientific evidence., Missouri’s attorney again, therefore, pressed the question about the science behind the masking policy.

Attorney: “Were there placebo-based, randomized, double-blind studies of the efficacy of masking that were done between February and April of 2020?”

Dr. Fauci: “I don’t recall. I’d have to go back and take a close look at the literature. I don’t recall.”

Attorney: “Have you seen any studies that contradict the efficacy of masking?”

Dr. Fauci: “There were some studies early on—I don’t know the dates of them—that made the statement that masks were not effective. When those studies were subject to statistical scrutinization, they were felt to be not definitive. Subsequent to that time, there have been studies to indicate that in situations where mask wearing was compared to not mask wearing, that masks clearly have an effect.”

While lawmakers may want to trust Dr. Fauci on this point, they must verify it.

Maybe Dr. Fauci can produce those studies he did not have “at his fingertips.” Perhaps at some point between February and April of 2020 there were novel studies on the effectiveness of masks, including the advantages of the mandatory masking of schoolchildren. Conceivably, new evidence was “accumulating” that, contrary to previous studies, masking was broadly effective in preventing viral infection and transmission. Perhaps the “statistical scrutinization” of previous studies on masking did indeed reveal flaws.

Lawmakers can resolve these questions by securing the more recent scholarship that Dr. Fauci alludes to as refuting previous masking studies. It would also be edifying to know who, in fact, did the “statistical scrutinization” and if—and where—it was published.

What matters is the science, not Dr. Fauci’s memory.

For lawmakers, Fauci’s role during the pandemic is just one item on the congressional oversight agenda. As outlined in a Heritage Foundation Special Report, a dozen other areas are ripe for congressional inquiry, ranging from the debacle of diagnostic testing and flawed vaccine policies to the impact of lockdowns and school closures. The federal government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic is, unfortunately, a target rich environment. Understandably, many members of Congress, like millions of their constituents, are angry.

But a word of caution. A scattershot, highly inflammatory process of congressional investigation will not serve the American people well. Lawmakers should not allow themselves to transform these necessary probes into tiresome “gotcha” political theater—a powerful temptation in our polarized political environment. Rather, House and Senate investigators need to target the specific rationale for each of the major federal policy recommendations over the past three years, with a view toward forging positive legislative changes that would enable the federal government to perform better when the next pandemic hits America’s shores.

Illinois Censors Offensive Vanity Plates

Wire Editor
-
0
Illinois Censors Offensive Vanity Plates

(Zeta Cross, The Center Square) Customized vanity license plates are a popular way for drivers to distinguish themselves from the pack. However, some don’t make the cut.

“BITEME” is one of 400 requested custom license plate letter combinations that were rejected by the Illinois Secretary of State’s office last year. The requested plate falls into the “potentially offensive” category.

“It’s subjective,” Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias told The Center Square. “Everybody’s threshold is different. We don’t want to offend people.”

On his car, Giannoulias has the standard Land of Lincoln, easy-to-read license plate with numbers and letters, he said.

“This isn’t the first time that I have been called boring,” he joked.

Giannoulias encourages motorists to get creative and come up with clever and catchy license plates, he said.

One elderly driver with a handicapped insignia and a good sense of humor opted for PASS ME. A female Iron Man competitor picked IRON WMN. One hairdresser chose HAIR GOD.

“We want people to visit our website and Pick-A-Plate. Life is short. Have fun with it,” Giannoulias said. “It does bring revenue to the state.”

Last year, 54,236 people in Illinois requested customized license plates, opting to pay $27 to $100 a year more to put a message on their license plate.

Plate requests that were rejected last year include DUCKYU, COKAIN and a plate that is hard to read – WMWWWMW.

“Our priority is to make sure that license plates are easily identifiable for law enforcement,” Giannoulias said. “We want people to have fun, enjoy the process and be creative. But we want to make sure that the lines aren’t crossed.”

In Illinois, unique license plates are divided into two categories: vanity plates and personalized plates. Vanity plates contain up to three numbers or one to seven letters. Personalized plates contain both letters and numbers. The Illinois Secretary of State’s website is the place to go to order one.

The most popular dedicated plate last year has the Firefighter Memorial insignia. A portion of the fee from that plate goes to the Illinois Firefighters Memorial at the Illinois State Capitol Complex in Springfield.

The White Sox insignia license plate came in second.

The green and red environmental plate that features the Illinois state bird, the cardinal, perched on the state prairie grass, big bluestem, ranked third.

The Cubs logo license plate ranked number five.

“Most plate requests are approved,” Giannoulias said. “A small percentage do fail to meet the standards of what we believe are good taste and decency.”

Bill Seeks to Block Federal Funds for Schools that ‘Indoctrinate w/ Critical Race Theory’

Wire Editor
-
0
Bill Seeks to Block Federal Funds for Schools that ‘Indoctrinate w/ Critical Race Theory’

(Brett Rowland, The Center Square) A Texas congressman has introduced legislation to ban federal funding for public schools that promote theories that discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin.

“The Combatting Racist Teaching Act will prohibit federal funding from going to schools that seek to indoctrinate children with critical race theory,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said in a statement. “… Parents should be in charge of their kids’ education – not bureaucrats, politicians, or union bosses.”

Colleen Hroncich, policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, said the measure was unlikely to advance.

“For starters, the federal government has no constitutional role in education,” she said. “Regardless, I doubt this bill has any chance of passing both chambers much less being signed by the president.”

She said parents care about a wide range of issues.

“Beyond those issues, parents have a very diverse range of opinions about how all sorts of issues are addressed in schools,” she said. “The solution is for states to adopt universal school choice programs that allow parents to choose the educational environment they want for their children. The conflicts we see in public schools are part and parcel of a government-run monopoly school system – parents are forced to engage in political battles for their preferences to prevail. School choice alleviates those fights by letting parents make choices for their individual children.”

Roy’s bill prohibits federal funds from going to any school that promotes race-based ideologies. It would bar funding to institutions that promote theories describing:

  • Any race is inherently superior or inferior to any other race, color, or national origin.
  • The United States is a fundamentally racist country.
  • The Declaration of Independence or Constitution of the United States are fundamentally racist documents.
  • An individual’s moral character or worth is determined by the individual’s race, color, or national origin.
  • An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race, is inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
  • An individual, because of the individual’s race, bears responsibility for the actions committed by other members of the individual’s race, color, or national origin.

The bill had 32 Republican cosponsors in the 117th Congress, but did not advance.

“The federal government has no place making decisions for students’ education to begin with,” said Adam Brandon, the president of FreedomWorks, a grassroots organization that supports smaller government and personal liberty.

Lawmakers in other states, such as Michigan, have proposed legislation that mirrors the Texas bill.

Senate Bill 460 was introduced in Michigan in May 2021 that would prohibit a curriculum that includes “coverage of the critical race theory, the 1619 project, or any of the following anti-American and racist theories:

(a) That any race is inherently superior or inferior to any other race.
(b) That the United States is a fundamentally racist country.
(c) That the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution are fundamentally racist documents.
(d) That an individual’s moral character or worth is determined by his or her race.
(e) That an individual, by virtue of his or her race, is inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

DACA Illegal Alien Convicted of a Triple Homicide

Ezekiel Loseke
-
0
DACA Illegal Alien Convicted of a Triple Homicide

(Ezekiel Loseke, Headline USA) Luis Perez, a 27-year-old illegal alien who was protected from deportation by Barack Obama‘s DACA program, has been convicted and sentenced for murdering three Americans.

Perez was also freed by a sanctuary county jail, according to Breitbart News.

The Federal Government granted Perez DACA protection in 2012 and 2014.

DACA, short for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, is an executive order that protects illegal immigrants from deportation, which was created by Barack Obama, according to NBC News.

After the Obama program protected Perez from deportation, police arrested, charged, and detained him for domestic violence in Middlesex County, N.J., in 2017.

As Perez was in custody, ICE requested custody of Perez in order to deport him, but the sanctuary policies of the county prevented immigration services from seizing the criminal illegal alien, according to the Associated Press.

Court records show that in November of 2018, Perez shot and killed his two former roommates in his former residence.

He was then driven from the murder scene by one of his victim’s girlfriend, 21 year old Sabrina Starr.

Perez shot and killed Starr the next day. Starr allegedly provided Perez the murder weapon.

He injured two others in his violent criminal spree.

Perez was sentenced with five consecutive life-in-prison charges for his crimes.

Perez is hardly the only illegal alien committing violent crimes against the American people.

The crime numbers are probably higher than we know, as California has issued over 1 million drivers licenses to illegals since 2015, according to Breitbart. This while the leftist state has hired illegals to serve as state patrol officers. The state of California has also ordered ICE to release 250 criminal illegal aliens because of Covid-19.

McCarthy and Biden to Meet About Spending Cuts and Debt Ceiling

Editor 5
-
0
McCarthy and Biden to Meet About Spending Cuts and Debt Ceiling

(Headline USA) House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Sunday he is looking forward to discussing with President Joe Biden a “reasonable and responsible way that we can lift the debt ceiling ” when the two meet Wednesday for their first sit-down at the White House since McCarthy was elected to the post.

McCarthy, R-Calif., said he wants to address spending cuts along with raising the debt limit.

The speaker pledged that cuts to Social Security and Medicare would be off the table.

“I know the president said he didn’t want to have any discussion (on cuts), but I think it’s very important that our whole government is designed to find compromise,” McCarthy told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “I want to sit down together, work out an agreement that we can move forward to put us on a path to balance — and at the same time not put any of our debt in jeopardy at the same time.”

Asked whether he would make a guarantee, McCarthy said, “There will not be a default,” though he suggested that declaration depended on the willingness of Biden and Democrats to negotiate.

The White House on Sunday confirmed Wednesday’s meeting on “a range of issues.” It said Biden looked forward to “strengthening his working relationship” with McCarthy and to asking about the speaker’s plan on spending, noting that the first House bill passed by Republicans this year to slash IRS funding would ultimately increase the deficit.

McCarthy was elected speaker on a historic post-midnight 15th ballot early on Jan. 7, overcoming holdouts from his own ranks and tensions that have tested the new GOP majority ability to govern.

Word of the long-awaited White House meeting comes at a time of divided government in Washington with a debt ceiling crisis brewing and House Republicans ready for confrontation.

McCarthy has been eager to push Biden to the negotiating table, hoping to make good on the promises the GOP leader made to holdouts during his campaign to become speaker to pare federal spending back to 2022 budget levels, which would be a sizable 8% budget cut.

Biden himself has scoffed at the idea of negotiating spending cuts, telling Democratic congressional leaders last week that Republicans were “genuinely serious about cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare.”

On Sunday, when McCarthy was asked if he would push cuts to those programs, he said, “Let’s take those off the table.” Pressed on possible defense cuts that he may have promised to House conservatives, McCarthy responded: “I want to eliminate waste wherever it is. … I want to look at every single department.”

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

DeSantis Transforming a Progressive Fla. College With Trustee Appointments

Editor 5
-
0
DeSantis Transforming a Progressive Fla. College With Trustee Appointments

(Headline USA) “Your education. Your way. Be original. Be you.”

That’s how New College of Florida describes its approach to higher education in an admission brochure. The state school of fewer than 1,000 students nestled along Sarasota Bay has long been known for its progressive thought and creative course offerings that don’t use traditional grades.

New College’s reputation as a haven for originality and individualized coursework is now threatened. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis‘ recently appointed six new trustees who intend to turn the school into a classical liberal arts school modeled after conservative favorite Hillsdale College in Michigan.

One new trustee, Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo, said in a column on his website that the governor wants the group to accomplish what he calls “institutional recapture,” which would move New College away from such things as diversity, equity and inclusion programs and teaching of critical race theory — the idea that racism is enmeshed in U.S. society.

“Ours is a project of recapture and reinvention,” Rufo wrote, listing several ways he believes left-wing ideas have permeated universities across the country. “Conservatives have the opportunity finally to demonstrate an effective countermeasure against the long march through institutions.”

The governor’s appointment of the New College trustees, including a government professor at Hillsdale College, are only one part of DeSantis’ effort to shift Florida’s 28 state-funded institutions of higher learning in a more conservative direction. The moves come as DeSantis considers a potential 2024 presidential campaign in which education culture battles could play a prominent part, particularly in a Republican primary.

These efforts include a memo DeSantis sent to all Florida colleges and universities requiring them to list programs and staff involved in diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives. The governor signed legislation last April to change the accreditation method for Florida schools and heighten performance review of tenured professors.

During his second inaugural address earlier this month, DeSantis said his goal is to “ensure that our institutions of higher learning are focused on academic excellence and the pursuit of truth, not the imposition of trendy ideology.”

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Congress Takes Control of The National Prayer Breakfast

Editor 5
-
0
Congress Takes Control of The National Prayer Breakfast

(Headline USA) The National Prayer Breakfast, one of the most visible and long-standing events that brings religion and politics together in Washington, is splitting from the private religious group that had overseen it for decades, due to concerns the gathering had become too divisive.

The organizer and host for this year’s breakfast, scheduled for Thursday, will be the National Prayer Breakfast Foundation, headed by former Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

Sen. Chris Coons, a regular participant and chairman of the Senate ethics committee, said the move was prompted in part by concerns in recent years that members of Congress did not know important details about the larger multiday gathering.

Coons, D-Del., said that in the past, he and Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, the committee’s vice chairman, had questions about who was invited and how money was being raised.

The annual event “went on several days, had thousands of people attending, and a very large and somewhat complex organization,” Coons said in an interview. “Some questions had been raised about our ability as members of Congress to say that we knew exactly how it was being organized, who was being invited, how it was being funded. Many of us who’d been in leadership roles really couldn’t answer those questions.”

That led to lawmakers deciding to take over organizing for the prayer breakfast itself.

Pryor, president of the new foundation, said the COVID-19 shutdown gave members a chance to “reset” the breakfast and return it to its origins — a change he said had been discussed for years.

“The whole reason the House and Senate wanted to do this was to return it to its roots, when House members and Senate members can come together and pray for the president, pray for his family and administration, pray for our government, the world,” Pryor said.

Pryor said members of Congress, the president, vice president and other administration officials and their guests are invited to Thursday’s prayer breakfast, which will be held at the visitors’ center at the Capitol. He anticipated between 200 and 300 people would attend.

Pryor said he hoped the smaller event will regain the intimacy that is similar to the weekly nondenominational prayer gatherings on Capitol Hill. Groups of senators and representatives have long held unofficial meetings for fellowship and to temporarily set aside political differences.

The prayer breakfast addressed by the president has been the highlight of a multiday event for 70 years. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first president to attend, in February 1953, and every president since has spoken at the gathering.

The larger event, put on by a private religious group called the International Foundation, has always been centered around “the person and principles of Jesus, with a focus on praying for leaders of our nation and from around the world,” the group’s spokesman, A. Larry Ross, said in an email.

Earlier this month, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter signed by 30 groups to the White House and members of Congress asking them to boycott the event because of questions about the International Foundation.

The organization’s co-president, Annie Laurie Gaylor, said the foundation’s basic concerns with the breakfast remain despite the split with the larger religious gathering.

“For decades, FFRF has protested the appearance of the National Prayer Breakfast being a quasi-governmental gathering, which pressures the president and Congress to put on a display of piety that sends a message that the United States is a Christian nation,” she wrote.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

1...2,2142,2152,216...3,893Page 2,215 of 3,893