Tag Archives: The Daily Signal

Lying To Get Elected

Posted on by
Reply

On Saturday, The Daily Signal posted an article about the midterm elections and some of the Democrat rhetoric leading up to the election. In recent years, some Democrats have had a very tenuous relationship with truth.

The article reports:

We had a midterm election in which the Democrats and the Left were wildly successful. There is one way in which this makes some of them look either deeply stupid or dishonest. Many of them who rejoice now tried to claim there wouldn’t be any more elections if Donald Trump won in 2024, or that he might cancel the midterms. 

On Oct. 18, 2023, Rachel Maddow plugged her new book about American fascism on ABC’s “The View,” claiming that Trump is “basically portraying a future for America, if he is put back in the White House, in which we don’t have another election after that.” Then it got even dumber. Co-host Sara Haines claimed Trump would “cancel the news. Like, the news, you’re done.” Maddow agreed and added: “He wants to put MSNBC on trial for treason so that he can execute us.” 

Insert “Twilight Zone” theme song here. But there’s more. 

Right before the 2024 elections, then-MSNBC host Joy Reid ranted: “We’ve laid out the stakes in this crucial election, where one side stands for freedom, while the other meets the textbook definition of fascism.” Trump was Hitler, so: “Make sure that on the morning of Nov. 6, you can say that you are proud of what you did in this moment. That you didn’t sit out what could be our last election.”  

Recently I posted this meme:

That statement sums up what actually happened vs. what the Democrats were claiming.

The article concludes:

On the June 17, 2026, “Jim Acosta Show,” Behar’s old colleague Rosie O’Donnell set off the bells on the Kook Alert: “We’re going to have an event here in the United States, maybe another ‘assassination attempt,’ and he’s going to declare that the elections are off,” she said, making quotation marks with her fingers as she said “assassination attempt.”  

Rosie feverishly believes Trump wasn’t really shot in 2024. She was referring to the 2028 elections, so that wild-eyed theory isn’t disproven yet.  

This is where people should roll their eyes when the Left complains about all the “misinformation” and evidence-free conspiracy theories creeping all over the conservative media.  Every conspiracy theorist who suggested the midterms were going to get canceled should … get canceled. Democracy is still alive. It’s not dying in darkness. But the Left pretends there is no Democracy unless they win. Well, now they won. But nobody should expect them to stop the crazy talk. It’s a business model.  

Listen to the Democrats at your own risk!

Good News From Florida

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Daily Signal posted an article about the results of a recent court case in Florida.

The article reports:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has suspended operations in Florida after a federal court rejected its request to block the state’s designation of the organization as a domestic terrorist group.

Earlier Thursday, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier posted on X: “This morning, a federal court upheld Florida’s Domestic Terrorist Organization law and rejected CAIR’s attempt to stop the designations.”

It should be noted that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, which involved terrorism financing allegations. It is appropriate to name them as a domestic terrorist group. They are closely aligned with The Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR is the arm of the Brotherhood that uses lawfare to advance the cause of Islam in America. They tend to be involved in cases related to Sharia Law in areas such as honor killings and female genital mutilation.

The article notes:

The CAIR Florida webpage says: “We have suspended our operations in Florida because of Governor DeSantis and other state officials’ baseless and unconstitutional enforcement of the state’s unprecedented new ‘domestic terrorist organization’ laws against us. The ACLU*, SPLC*, and their partners are representing us in a federal lawsuit challenging this designation on First Amendment and due process grounds.”

The webpage then directs people to the American Civil Liberties website. “CAIR is the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country and CAIR-Florida is its state chapter. The nonprofits are organized under the laws of the District of Columbia and Florida, respectively,” the ACLU post says. It adds, “They have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. They do not engage in ‘terrorist activity.’ They serve, and employ, Floridians.”

…CAIR was founded in 1994 and characterizes itself as a civil rights group for Muslims. It is also politically active.

CAIR Action, a separate political advocacy organization, announced that a record 97 Muslims were elected nationwide in Tuesday’s elections.

Muslims who practice Islam believe in Sharia Law, which is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Part of Sharia Law is Taqiyya, which essentially says it’s okay to lie to non-Muslims to advance the cause of Islam. Keep that in mind as you watch the elected Muslims swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. How many of these elected officials will take their oath of office on a Quran?

*You are known by the friends you keep!

Taking Back The Religious Freedom Our Founders Gave Us

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Daily Signal posted an article about a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. The case involves Colorado’s exclusion of a Catholic church from a “universal” preschool program.

The article reports:

Justices heard oral arguments in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy on Tuesday. 

“This is not a zero sum game. Letting families use universal preschool funding at Catholic schools won’t take away a single seat from the over 2,000 preschools already participating in the program,” argued the plaintiffs’ attorney Nicholas Reaves before the court.  “In fact, letting Catholic schools in will create more seats for everyone even for families who disagree with Catholic teachings.”  

Colorado’s actions were at the center of religious freedom disputes before the high court in 2018, 2023, and earlier this year, losing each case.  

In this case, the state’s program provides all children with up to 15 hours of tuition-free preschool, but it requires participating schools to admit LGBTQ-identifying children and the children of LGBTQ-identifying parents. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal justice, became animated at several points during her questioning, asserting that the “bottom line” was “Your Catholic schools will reject the child merely because their parents are homosexual.” 

Reaves disagreed.  

“If the government is excluding someone from a public benefit solely on account of their religious exercise, that would trigger strict scrutiny,” Reaves said. “The government would have to come forward and say, ‘we have a really good reason for this.’ And we just don’t think they’ve done that in this case.”  

This is a preschool program. When did we get to a point where preschool children were identifying as LGBTQ? In my mind, the school has no right to deny entrance to a child because the child’s parents are part of the LGBTQ community, but a preschooler who claims to be part of that community is not your average preschooler and has probably  been taught some things along the way that might be a problem in the classroom.

Colorado has a history of not always honoring the free exercise of religion. The article reminds us:

In 2023 and 2018, the high court held that Colorado could not compel a Christian website designer and a Christian baker, respectively, to provide specific creative services for same-sex weddings.

One Impact Of The Trump Administration

Posted on by

It is becoming obvious that when you deport criminals, crime goes down. What  is interesting is the extent that crime has gone down during President Trump’s second term.

On Monday, The Daily Signal reported:

  • Data from the Census Bureau’s National Crime Victimization Survey shows violent crime victimization fell 25% and property crime victimization fell 19% during President Donald Trump’s first year in office.
  • The survey estimated Americans age 12 and older experienced about 7.5 million violent victimizations in 2025. That’s down from 8.2 million in the final year of the Joe Biden administration and the biggest drop in the survey’s history.
  • “This report is proof that President Trump’s ‘Make America Safe Again’ agenda is working,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward says.

The article concludes:

Among the most common crimes, property crime victimization fell 19%, from about 18.4 million incidents in 2024 to 14.9 million in 2025, the data says.

Burglary and trespassing victimization fell 25%, from 1.87 million incidents to 1.41 million, while motor vehicle theft victimization dropped 30%, from 1.19 million incidents to 841,000.

The Justice Department argues that crime is falling because more effective policing encourages victims to report offenses. It also credits the increased immigration enforcement at the southern border, citing the removal of more than 400,000 illegal aliens previously charged or convicted of crimes.

The Justice Department further points to stepped-up drug enforcement, citing a reported 25% increase in fentanyl seizures, as another factor contributing to the declines in victimization.

Further, the department notes the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reported a 57% increase in criminal charges associated with its gun-trafficking enforcement efforts, while the FBI disrupted 1,800 gangs and criminal enterprises.

According to AI, 60 percent of felony arrests are repeat offenders. If you deport the felons, you cut down on the crimes.

If you want America’s streets to be safer, vote Republican. The statistics prove that the Republicans tend to enforce the law, punish the criminals, and protect Americans.

Changing His Tune On Taxes

Posted on by

The Democrat Party claims to be for the working man, yet when it came time to vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) which cut taxes for the working man, the Democrats in Congress voted against it. Just for the record, the passage of that bill raised federal revenue 3 percent last year. As I have previously reported, “According to the latest “Monthly Treasury Statement,” revenues in FY 2026 came in at just over $5.4 trillion while spending was just under $7.4 trillion, leaving a deficit of $1.992 trillion.” But the Democrats are still complaining that the tax cuts increase the deficit–no, the excess spending grows faster than the increased revenue from the tax cuts.

On Saturday, The Daily Signal posted an article about a tax cut Senator Adam Schiff is actually supporting.

The article reports:

A family in Ohio has worked hard and sacrificed for three generations to keep their small-town grocery store in business, serving a community they live in and love.

A billionaire in California who invests some of his money in the movie industry lives in a beachside mansion in Malibu.

For which of these two entrepreneurs would Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., support a tax cut?

It would be the moviemaker.

When the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act came up in Congress in 2017, The Heritage Foundation published a report summarizing what it would do. “The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is the most sweeping update to the U.S. tax code in more than 30 years,” said Heritage’s analysis. “The recently released bill would lower taxes on businesses and individuals and unleash higher wages, more jobs, and untold opportunity through a larger and more dynamic economy.” 

“The framework lowers rates for almost every tax bracket,” said the analysis. “The current seven brackets remain, but with new generally higher income thresholds and lower rates.” 

Schiff, who then served in the House of Representatives, was outraged by the proposal. 

He argued that he was standing up for the little guy and against increasing the federal debt.

“I just voted NO on the Republican tax plan,” Schiff said in a 2017 Facebook post. 

The article concludes:

“A study published just this week found that the share of production spending by U.S. studios on movies that are made primarily or partially in the U.S. declined from 74% to 24% over the last quarter century,” said Schiff. “That is a staggering loss in the industry, but this tax credit, which is a base credit of 20%, with additional 5% credits going up to 30% of a tax credit, is layered upon whatever the state of California or other states do. That is powerful enough for the first time to really bring not just TV production back, but film production back, and all the multiplier impacts that has on the economy.” 

“We’ve got to get this done,” said Schiff. 

So, the opponent of the Trump tax cuts that reduced the tax burden on small family-owned business all across the country now believes that tax cuts—at least for the movie and television industries in Hollywood—can help this nation’s economy. 

Did someone offer him a starring role?

Creating Future Unrest

Posted on by

What is currently happening in France and other parts of Europe will eventually come to America. The seeds have been planted (and are being planted), and we will see the results of those seeds either about the time of the current election or during the lead-up to the 2028 election.

On Wednesday, The Daily Signal reported:

The Democratic Socialists of America is training members to form “militant tenant unions” to organize renters against landlords, with the stated goal of “mass organization.”

The DSA’s Housing Justice Commission is asking members to apply for its program to train “tenant organizers” and support the formation of “militant tenant unions” rather than mere building-level tenant associations.

Supporters describe tenant unions as a way for renters to unite in negotiations with property owners. Critics, however, warn that the DSA’s effort is an attempt to build a permanent political power base.

Left-leaning foundations have generously funded efforts to organize tenant unions. In June, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation gave the National Housing Law Project $3,550,000 “to provide core support to the Tenant Union Federation in countering authoritarianism by building the collective capacity of poor and working-class people to practice noncooperation and civil resistance.”

“Political influence is the goal,” said Nicole Huyer, a senior research associate at The Heritage Foundation. Socialists “will use these tenant unions to create sustained constituencies for rent regulation, eviction restrictions, right-to-counsel programs, social housing, collective bargaining with landlords, and similar policies,” she said.

This is class warfare. It has been used historically to bring in communist rule. It has never worked in America, but I will admit that I am worried. The entitlement attitude that currently permeates many Americans will be used to destroy the benefits they currently enjoy. Communism does not bring a level playing field–it brings wealth to the ruling class and poverty to everyone else. Under communist rule you may be entitled to have a place to live, but you may be sharing a three-bedroom house with four other families. The outcome of this move will be to create social unrest and to feed the attitude of entitlement.

The article concludes:

Huyer acknowledged that renters face serious affordability hurdles, but she emphasized that DSA-style policies will not alleviate their struggles.

“We can absolutely empathize with the economic hardship of young Americans and renters who feel priced out,” she told the Daily Signal. Yet she warned that “the DSA’s plan aims to use those real frustrations to make the case for greater government control of housing rather than fixing the policies that restrict housing supply (and put upward pressure on price) in the first place.”

The DSA is also attempting to infiltrate existing labor union infrastructure.

Watson noted that labor unions have had “over 100 years of experience and perpetual recruiting machines (longstanding unionized workplaces) that tenant unions don’t have,” but he warned that “politicians interested in strengthening tenants’ organizations could model tenancy policies on monopoly unionization, collective bargaining, and compulsory dues arrangements.”

There is no point in organizing labor unions when the people you are targeting may not have jobs!

The More You Know…

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Daily Signal posted an article about an effort made by the State Department to avoid bad publicity for the Biden family before the 2020 election.

The article reports:

A former Ukrainian diplomat who was at one point set to give negative testimony about Hunter Biden’s business links appears to have wrongly had his visa to the United States revoked, according to newly released documents.

The White House Task Force on Government Transparency and Election Integrity released the information to reporters late Wednesday about the State Department and Treasury Department taking action in 2020 to revoke the visa of Andrii Telizhenko, the Ukrainian diplomat. Telizhenko had worked for the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington.

Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin had called him to testify in early 2020, shortly after the first President Donald Trump impeachment, regarding the president’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which Trump inquired about then-former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden’s links to the energy company Burisma.

Democrats accused Telizhenko of promoting Russian disinformation.

The deep state was (and is) alive and well and working against President Trump.

The article concludes:

The Democrat-led House impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December 2019, but the Senate acquitted him in February 2020.

Johnson, then chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, announced in a February letter his intention to subpoena Telizhenko. But the interview did not happen after Democrats said he was spreading Russian disinformation.

In October 2020, the State Department revoked Telizhenko’s visa, and in January 2021, the Department of the Treasury sanctioned him, alleging he was tied to Russian efforts to influence U.S. elections.

Somehow I don’t think it was the Russians who were trying to influence U.S. elections.

Sunlight Is The Best Disinfectant

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Signal posted an article about the federal government’s efforts to track the foreign money that is coming into American universities.

The article reports:

Foreign influence on university campuses in the U.S. is a serious threat to national security. In 2024, a congressional investigation exposed nearly $40 million in unreported research contracts between the Chinese Communist Party and two top U.S. research universities.

To protect national security and provide greater transparency to the American people, the U.S. Senate should consider the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions (DETERRENT) Act to shine sunlight on university dealings with foreign entities.

Yet some organizations are trying to stop any attempts to provide transparency over such funding. For example, earlier this month, the Association of American Universities filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education in a bid to stop the second Trump administration from publishing data on foreign spending sources on U.S. colleges just as the administration was prepared to release it. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order pausing the release of the data.

The Education Department intends to proceed, stating that “Americans deserve transparency about the billions flowing from overseas to U.S. campuses, and [the Department of Education] will fight AAU in court to deliver it.”

In this case, I totally agree with the Department of Education.

The article concludes:

Unfortunately, the Senate has yet to consider DETERRENT. Earlier this month, however, 27 organizations asked the U.S. House and Senate Armed Services committees to include DETERRENT in the final conference report for H.R. 8800, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027. Passed each year, the NDAA authorizes the operations of the Department of War and sets annual spending levels.

However, institutions don’t have to wait for federal action to take necessary steps to safeguard against the influence of foreign adversaries. Universities should strengthen internal reviews of foreign gifts and contracts, proactively disclose foreign funding, and refuse partnerships with entities tied to hostile governments.

By adopting these safeguards now and supporting stronger federal reporting requirements, institutions can protect academic independence, national security, and public trust.

It would be interesting to know what is blocking the Senate from considering DETERRENT. Those involved in that blocking need to be unelected when their term expires.

Avocados As Instruments Of War

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Signal posted an article about the role avocados are playing in the fight against Mexico’s cartels.

The article reports:

All the Republicans in California’s congressional delegation are advocating for tighter restrictions on the Mexican avocado trade in an effort to thwart Mexican drug cartels.

“Cartels should not be able to use their influence over Mexico’s avocado supply chain to game the American market. Period,” Rep. James Gallagher, R-Calif., told the Daily Signal. “Sudden import surges are driving down prices and putting American avocado production at risk. We need fair trade rules that protect lawful American growers.”

Gallagher’s statement to the Daily Signal comes days after he, alongside fellow California Republican Reps. Jay Obernolte, Ken Calvert, Young Kim, David Valadao, Darrell Issa, and Vince Fong, sent a letter to President Donald Trump’s administration urging the federal government to put an end to the potentially deadly trade.

“That’s why I penned a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, calling for reasonable and enforceable limits on avocado import surges as part of negotiations over the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA),” Gallagher continued.

As it stands, Hass avocados from the Mexican states of Michoacan and Jalisco, known as drug cartel hotspots, are allowed to be sold in the United States as long as they comply with regulations from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Reports estimate that around 90% of all avocados in U.S. markets come from Mexico.

In their letter, the lawmakers added that Mexican drug cartels, which have allegedly stolen avocado farms from law-abiding Mexican citizens, are now profiting from the sale of those avocados while interfering with U.S. Department of Agriculture inspections and controlling transportation routes.

To further support its argument, the letter also cited the fact that Mexico’s government has been forced to deploy its military to avocado-harvesting regions across the country.

It seems odd to be talking about avocados in relation to Mexican cartels, but this is another example of the consequences of not being self-sufficient. We are now going to have to achieve avocado independence along with energy independence.

Do Preachers Have The Right To Quote The Bible?

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Daily Signal posted an article about a newly enacted law in California. The law requires employers to give all employees “anti-hate speech” training. I have always had a problem with the concept of hate speech. Who determines what is hateful speech? If I am concerned about a friend’s health and tell her to lose weight, is that hate speech?

The article reports:

But as observers like the California Family Council (CFC) are pointing out, the legislation does not define “hate speech,” instead handing the job to the state’s Civil Rights Department. The bill mandates that the training must confront workplace speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against individuals based on what the state has already deemed a protected characteristic, which includes sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

The CFC goes on to observe that the statute, which will go into effect on January 1, 2028, never mentions churches or religious nonprofits and their First Amendment rights to hold sincerely held religious beliefs about sexuality and gender. It also “fails to separate protected expression from unlawful conduct,” noting that the Supreme Court held in 2017 that “the First Amendment has no hate speech exception.”

Greg Burt, who serves as vice president of CFC, further pointed out the problems with AB 1803’s vague language regarding key terms that it says constitute “hate.”

“What does it mean to vilify? What speech actually humiliates?” he wondered during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Tuesday. “[M]any times legislators consider many Christian beliefs when they’re expressed — especially regarding sexuality or gender — they accuse us of hating people. That’s [the] farthest thing from my mind. But we are simply advocating for our view that sex is determined by biology, and God created us both male and female. Well, to many people that is humiliating and that incites hatred. And so that’s the problem with this legislation.”

Burt went on to clarify that AB 1803 is being folded into a previously enacted statute that mandates sexual harassment training, which already specifies that using accurate biological pronouns constitutes “harassment.”

This is the camel’s nose under the tent. There is nothing in the First Amendment that limits speech. We need to follow our Constitution.

Misleading, But Informative

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Daily Signal posted an article about the Senate voting down a bill that would have banned insider trading by Congressmen. They gave various excuses for voting down the bill, but voting down the bill had nothing to do with insider trading–but the bill was combined with a nationwide voter ID mandate. That is what the Senate Democrats really were voting against.

The article reports:

The bill failed 53-to-47 along party lines. The bill, which originated in the House and was sponsored by Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses and dependent children from purchasing stocks. The measure would also require public notice before these individuals could sell stocks.

In July, HR 7008 passed the House 232-198, with 218 Republicans and 13 Democrats voting “yes,” along with one independent. A total of 198 Democrats voted “no.” Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., did not cast a vote.

The act was bound to fail in the Senate due to its being combined with a nationwide voter ID mandate, which Democrats vehemently opposed. Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., described the voter ID provision as a “poison pill” during the House debate, arguing that it would suppress millions of voters by imposing unnecessary restrictions.

After the vote, Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., wrote on X, “Senate Democrats blocked a bill to stop any sort of insider trading by government officials and to require legal ID to vote. North Dakotans overwhelmingly support both these measures, yet when it came time to vote, Democrats said no.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., also posted on X following the vote, saying, “EVERY Senate Democrat just joined EVERY House Democrat in voting AGAINST banning congressional stock trading. @RepBryanSteil’s Stop Insider Trading Act is the accountability the American people demand. But every Democrat blocked it from becoming law.”

Why are the Democrats so strongly against voter ID laws? In today’s computerized society, everyone needs an ID to do anything–bank, board an airplane, buy beer, buy cigarettes, etc. Also, states with voter ID offer free ID’s for people who may not have a driver’s license or other form of ID.

The only reason for opposing voter ID is to make it easier to cheat. Do you still trust the Democrats to support election integrity?

Lowering Healthcare Costs

Posted on by

The hospital lobby is alive and well in America. In North Carolina they have so far successfully opposed the full repeal of Certificate of Needs (CON) Laws despite the matter being brought before the state legislature almost every year. I am sure we are going to hear from them about the latest rule change that President Trump has made to medical billing.

On Monday, The Daily Signal posted an article about a move by the Trump administration to lower healthcare costs.

The article reports:

Currently, doctors can charge Medicare recipients twice for exams during same-day services. The exam fee is called an “evaluation and management fee” and can cost more than $235.

For example, during a Medicare recipient’s standard dermatology exam, the doctor can charge the recipient twice for an exam of a mole if the removal service is performed on the same day. This is a common form of Medicare double billing among health care providers.

In a recent audit by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of the Inspector General found that 42% of Medicare beneficiaries were double-billed for intravitreal injections during eye exams, a recurring procedure. The same-day exam and procedure allowed the claims to bypass the system designed to prevent improper payments.

California and Florida are the top two states, with roughly 10 million Medicare beneficiaries combined, to benefit from this rule change. It is expected to take effect in January, just after the midterm election.

The proposed rule was announced in July and was open for public comment through mid-September. Now, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is evaluating the public comments and will soon announce the finalized rule.

The American Hospital Association is obviously opposing this move.

The article notes:

The proposed rule was announced in July and was open for public comment through mid-September. Now, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is evaluating the public comments and will soon announce the finalized rule.

The proposed rule suggested cutting the initial exam fee to 50% from 100% and keeping the final exam and procedure fee at the standard 100% charge. While the Trump administration has supported the rule change, Medicare providers and beneficiary associations have opposed the rule, claiming it would cause “fragmented care and reduced access for patients.”

It’s time to consider the consumer as well as the provider. Keep in mind that the more money that flows through government agencies, the greater chance of corruption.

Bringing Sanity Back To Women’s Sports

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Signal posted an article about the Department of Education rescinding the Biden-era ruling concerning Title IX and gender identity.

The article reports:

Supporters of women’s sports and sex-based protections have reason to celebrate. The Department of Education announced Sept. 28 that it is formally rescinding the Biden administration’s 2024 Title IX rule and reinstating the 2020 Title IX regulations promulgated under the first Trump administration.

Ongoing litigation has prevented the Trump administration from being able to formally rescind the illegal 2024 Biden regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations, even though the Education Department has been following the 2020 Trump-era Title IX regulations since January of last year.

In April 2024, the Biden administration issued final regulations rewriting the more than 50-year-old civil rights law, Title IX, to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Essentially, it allowed boys who claim to identify as girls to participate in girls and women’s sports at schools that receive federal funding.

Women’s sports advocate and former collegiate swimmer Riley Gaines said at the time, “Fifty-two years of progress and sex-based protections have been erased with the stroke of a pen.” She was right. Thankfully, many states agreed, and seven circuit courts temporarily blocked the Title IX rewrite, preventing it from taking effect in 26 states.

The article concludes:

Advocates for child protection must still work from state to state, however. As our Heritage Foundation colleague Laura Hanford explains, child-welfare workers are classifying parents as “abusive” if they treat a child according to his or her sex instead of self-proclaimed “gender.” Social science research has found that affirming a child who claims to have been born in the wrong body does not resolve mental health issues underlying a child’s sexual confusion. Adults who do not caution a child confused about his or her sex could be neglecting that child—and failing to address the true reasons for the child’s distress. Conditions such as anxiety and depression can go untreated or worsen when adults focus on advocating “gender affirmation.”

So-called gender advocates claim that children will become suicidal if adults do not affirm their children. Yet no scientific evidence supports this claim, as even the ACLU acknowledged before the Supreme Court. And contrary to activist statements, new findings from the research and advocacy organization Do No Harm show that laws banning “gender-affirming care” do not increase suicide rates.

Nevertheless, Hanford explains that some courts are removing children from their homes even when there is no evidence of actual abuse. Social workers in the foster care system, meanwhile, are affirming children’s confusion about their sex.

The Department of Education’s rule change should bolster families and state officials protecting children from making irreversible medical decisions they may come to regret. In the states, policymakers must remain vigilant.

Ignoring The Real Problem

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Daily Signal posted an article about a claim made by Representative  Ayanna Pressley that there is a national crisis of “widespread modern-day lynchings” and “racial terror.”

The article lists eight cases of black people found hanging from trees. Only one of those people, a woman, was found to be the victim of foul play. Her murderer, a black man,  has been found and arrested.

The article reports:

The investigation found no national racist conspiracy. From 1995 through September 1998, authorities investigated 670 arsons, bombings or attempted bombings involving houses of worship. Two hundred twenty-five involved predominantly black churches. Most did not. Of the 106 suspects arrested for arson at black churches, 68 were white, 37 were black, and one was Hispanic. 

Some fires were indeed racist crimes, but the sweeping media narrative was false. America had again been stampeded into believing white racism had suddenly and everywhere reared its head. 

The article notes:

Meanwhile, these so-called leaders ignore the elephant in the room. 

They ignore the epidemic of black children born without a father married to and living with their mother, despite overwhelming evidence that two-parent families improve economic, behavioral and educational outcomes. 

They ignore the crisis of K-12 schools in urban America, where most black fourth graders are not proficient in reading or math. Democrat politicians and teacher unions control and defend public urban schools. 

They ignore black-on-black crime. In 2023 more than half of the nation’s homicide victims were black, and of those victims, nearly 90% of the identified offenders were black.  

They ignore the effect of illegal immigration on black joblessness and wages. A U.S. Commission on Civil Rights investigation found that illegal immigration has tended to increase the supply of low-skilled labor and depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American workers—a disproportionate number of whom are black men. Research presented to the commission estimated that the immigration influx from 1980 through 2000 reduced the employment rate of low-skilled black men by 8 percentage points. Other research estimated that immigration cost the average American man without a high school diploma approximately $1,800 annually in reduced wages. 

It’s time to make stable families great again!

A Change In Leadership

Posted on by

A historical museum should not reflect current cultural trends, it should reflect history,  but unfortunately the Smithsonian in recent years seems to have gone woke. An article posted at the Daily Signal on Tuesday reports that the current head of the Smithsonian, Lonnie G. Bunch III, will be stepping down before the end of the year.

The article reports:

The secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Lonnie G. Bunch III, is stepping down, amid continued criticism from the White House about the direction of the Smithsonian museums.

“There is no place like the Smithsonian—it has been one of the great loves of my life, and I am extraordinarily proud of what we have accomplished together,” Bunch said in a statement. “I leave with pride and sadness, gratitude and joy, and with enormous confidence in the people who will carry this remarkable institution forward.”

Trump administration officials have raised concerns about the Smithsonian museums in recent weeks.

A July White House report charged that the National Museum of American History had become “subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”

Bunch criticized the report, calling it “not a fair characterization of the work” in a memo addressed to Smithsonian staffers.

The article notes:

In August, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and White House Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley sent a letter saying federal agencies could not “continue to support the Smithsonian under current leadership.”

…They also suggested that the institution may be involved in “significant violations of federal antidiscrimination law.”

“Indeed, the administration has recently uncovered evidence that the Smithsonian leadership’s institutional culture may have resulted in significant violations of Federal antidiscrimination law, including creating a hostile work environment and engaging in practices that classify individuals and allocate opportunities, funding and other benefits on the basis of race, ethnicity and other protected characteristics.”

The article concludes:

“We can only hope that the next Secretary of the Smithsonian will not treat the Institution as a battleground for his culture wars,” Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Signal. “Instead, let’s hope that he or she takes seriously the mission of the national museum complex that he or she leads, that is to say to preserve and transmit America’s history, culture and art—in a word, heritage—to future generations.”

The last time I visited the Smithsonian was more than 25 years ago. At that time, it was amazing and apolitical. Hopefully we can go back to amazing and apolitical soon.

Fighting To Preserve The Deep State

Posted on by

Unionizing government employees was never a good idea. There are too many instances of unions making unfair wage or procedural demands that interfere with the working of the government. One of those areas is in the hiring and firing of employees. In private industry, the goal is to make a profit, and it is fairly easy to justify the firing of an employee if he is not helping to meet that goal. The government is not about either saving money or making a profit, and that complicates things.

On Monday, The Daily Signal posted an article explaining how federal employee unions are resisting parts of President Trump’s agenda.

The article reports:

Who ultimately decides how the executive branch works? Is it the president, elected by the American people, or career federal employees and the unions that represent them?

The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union representing federal employees, sued the White House’s Office of Personnel Management last month, aiming to block new rules governing how federal employees are evaluated, disciplined, and removed.

The lawsuit represents only the latest in a long series of legal challenges the union has brought against President Donald Trump’s administration since January 2025. According to a July roundup AFGE posted on its website, the union had filed 18 lawsuits against the administration before the latest case.

These lawsuits have targeted a wide range of administration initiatives, including government-wide reorganizations, workforce reductions, collective bargaining restrictions, employee classification reforms, and changes to federal personnel rules.

AFGE has been far from alone in these cases. Democracy Forward, a left-leaning legal advocacy organization that has represented plaintiffs in numerous lawsuits challenging Trump policies, has represented AFGE or other plaintiffs in these cases. Such challenges have involved broad coalitions, including advocacy groups and local governments, alongside labor unions.

Critics argue that these cases amount to more than traditional labor litigation, representing a form of institutional resistance from federal employees and their allies against an elected administration’s effort to reshape the executive branch.

The union was not elected to run the country–the President was. That should end the discussion.

The Move To Clean Up The Voter Rolls

Posted on by

The majority of Americans want elections decided by citizens. Non-citizens voting makes no sense. If someone is not an American citizen, why should they be able to vote in American elections? Can you name any country in the world where people who are not citizens of that country are allowed to vote in the country’s elections? The Trump administration is attempting to make sure that only American citizens vote in American elections.

On Tuesday, The Daily Signal reported:

The Supreme Court’s Monday decision cleared the way for the Department of Homeland Security to establish a state-by-state list of eligible voters based on a crosscheck of citizenship data, the Social Security database, and other government information.

“The DHS can determine who is eligible to vote because the federal government does not want to be complicit in fraud through sending mail-in ballots to noncitizens,” Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told the Daily Signal. “So it makes sense as to why the administration would want to prioritize this.”

The list would be shared with states, but states are not obligated to use the list to police voter rolls.

High-profile Democrat election lawyer Marc Elias expressed alarm over the high court’s ruling in a statement on his website, Democracy Docket.

Regarding the DHS list of eligible citizens, Elias said, “It orders the federal government to compile a list of Trump-approved eligible voters to be sent to the states.”

The above statement is spin. These voters are not Trump-approved–they are people confirmed as American citizens eligible to vote. By putting President Trump’s name into his statement, Elias hopes to distract from the validity of the idea of only citizens voting and appeal to the people who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

The article at The Daily Signal concludes:

Though it was a decision on standing rather than the merits of the executive order, that is still significant in curbing what plaintiffs can do, and what national policy district court judges can block, said election lawyer Cleta Mitchell, chairman of the Election Integrity Network at the Conservative Partnership Institute.

“I obviously wish the Supreme Court had stepped up and stopped the challenge in its tracks,” Mitchell told the Daily Signal. “It may have been necessary to rule on standing to get the votes. At some point, the Supreme Court should step in with the tyrants in black robes and let them know they are not the president, they are not the legislature, and they are not the state election board.”

The tyrants in black robes need to stay in their own lane.

There Is A Difference Between Creating An Incident And Reporting On An Incident

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Daily Signal posted an article about the church invasion charges against former CNN anchor Don Lemon and independent journalist Georgia Fort. Major media outlets have joined an amicus brief urging a court to dismiss the charges.

The article reports:

Forty-five media outlets and nonprofit organizations joined the brief, including The Associated Press, Dow Jones (which owns The Wall Street Journal), MS NOW, The New York Times, The NewsGuild, PEN America, ProPublica, Slate, and The Washington Post.

Lemon and Fort stand accused of violating federal civil rights laws for their alleged activity in the invasion of Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Jan. 18, protesting the pastor who works for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The Justice Department brought charges against Lemon and Fort under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act, claiming they took part in the agitation that violated congregants’ civil rights. Lemon and Fort have said they were present at the invasion in their capacity as journalists.

The amicus brief, led by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, argues that if Lemon and Fort are convicted, “federal law would be within arm’s reach of prosecutors to muzzle reporting in the public interest.” Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko of the U.S. District of Minnesota added the brief to the court record Monday.

The article notes:

Agitators, who said they targeted Cities Church because one of its pastors works for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, allegedly stood up in the middle of a service, refused to leave when asked, blocked members of the congregation from getting to their children, and chanted, “Who shut this down? We shut this down!”

The indictment notes that Lemon livestreamed the planning meeting before the church takeover, but he told his audience he was leaving out key details to avoid revealing the target beforehand. It also claims Lemon said “the whole point” of the activity was “to disrupt” the service. It further accuses Lemon of confronting the church’s pastor, refusing to leave when asked, and obstructing churchgoers as they left the building.

The indictment presents fewer concrete claims about Fort’s alleged involvement in the agitation. It alleges that she confronted the pastor and that she blocked a minivan from leaving the church’s parking lot by conducting an interview in front of it.

The actions of Don Lemon were not reporting and are not protected by the First Amendment. As soon as you block someone from exercising their right to participate in a religious service, you have broken the law. I hope the people involved in this protest, which involved trespassing if they stayed after they were asked to leave, are punished for their actions. This was not a protest–it was unlawful activity.

Avoiding Clean Voter Rolls

Posted on by

When I was a young child, for a short while I lived in Jersey City. I didn’t understand at the time when my parents made jokes about people sometime around October every election year going through the cemeteries with pens and clipboards to register the people there to vote. I have a better understanding of that now.

On Tuesday, The Daily Signal reported:

North Carolina’s Democrat Gov. Josh Stein vetoed an election law reform that requires the state to cross-check voter registration rolls with death records.

The governor vetoed House Bill 958 in the battleground state, which would also reduce the number of early voting days in certain elections and grant the state auditor new powers to review election results.

Republican lawmakers have enough votes to override Stein’s veto, according to WSOC Charlotte. The bill passed along party lines.

Critics of the legislation contend it would hinder transparency for campaign finance and potentially lead to the purging of eligible voters from voter rolls. The bill allows candidates to disclose fewer donations on contributions, loans, and expenditures, increasing the required amount for reporting from $1,000 to $3,000. 

“Rather than make your life better, they want to make it harder for you to hold them accountable for their failures,” Stein said Monday of the bill’s GOP supporters, WRALRaleigh reported.

“They would rather change the rules of our elections to secure advantage than to do the work that the voters expect, which is to improve people’s lives,” the governor added.

Republicans have argued that the governor is making elections less secure with his veto, WRAL reported.

So changing the rules of our elections so that dead people don’t vote doesn’t improve people’s lives? How does dead people voting help us in any way?

The article concludes:

Under the legislation, the state and county boards of elections would be required to remove ineligible voters from voter rolls and update addresses of eligible voters. They can enter into data-sharing agreements with other states to cross-check voting records. 

The bill would also allow “any registered voter” to challenge the legitimacy of a vote or a voter’s registration.  A decision made by the county board may be appealed to the Superior Court in the county where the challenge originated. 

Early votes cast in-person must be counted at the time polls close on Election Day. The bill stipulates that if a voter lacks photo ID, he or she will get a provisional ballot. 

The bill further bans foreign nationals from donating to a referendum campaign. Numerous other states have banned direct and indirect foreign contributions on ballot measures in recent years. 

The only reason to leave dead people on the voter rolls is so you can cheat!

Pot, Meet Kettle

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Victor Davis Hanson posted an article at The Daily Signal about some of the precedents set by the Democrat party in years past.

The article reports:

Recently, the Left in general and Democrats in particular have been criticizing a lot of things that this administration has done. This came up with the confirmation hearings of Attorney General Todd Blanche, and people suggested that, though he may have been qualified, he had too close a relationship as a personal attorney, or he acted in a legal capacity with [President] Donald Trump, and therefore there would be an incestuous relationship between the [Justice Department] and the White House.

But who broke that standard? I think it was broken during the JFK administration. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic president, appointed his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, as attorney general. They conferred daily. If we were worried that that was an aberration, remember Eric Holder bragged that he was, quote, Obama’s wingman. So, the Democrats have had a long history of a close relationship between the DOJ and the White House.

We’ve been told that the Democratic Party is very angry because some local, i.e., state or county or municipal, prosecutors might take a look at Anthony Fauci and see if he had criminal exposure other than federal exposure. And people said, well, what business do these local prosecutors have looking at Anthony Fauci, who was a federal bureaucrat? And if he did anything wrong, it would be a federal offense. You can’t have freelancing prosecutors all over the United States going after—yes, you can. We established that principle with Donald Trump. 

Remember that Letitia James went after him for a real estate deal in which Deutsche Bank, the lender, had no problem with the loan as it was conducted. She was the attorney general of New York. Alvin Bragg could not get Donald Trump on anything other than to bootstrap a federal campaign violation that even federal prosecutors didn’t want to touch. He was just the municipal DA of Manhattan.

The article goes on to cite the charges of a partisan IRS, election denying, and weaponizing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and how those charges relate to past Democrat actions.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It includes great examples of the pot calling the kettle black.

The Manufacturing Boom

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Daily Signal posted an article about what is happening to manufacturing in America.

The article reports:

Beneath the cacophony of media noise, an important untold story emerges: A manufacturing boom is unfolding across America right now, and especially so in the geographic center of the country.

This developing boom represents an epochal shift because investments in factories and tangible production involve the stickiest kind of capital expenditures. The commitment to production involves a macro “bet” on a yearslong cycle, not a near-term wager on the latest fad or concerns about the price of gasoline next week.

As such, this mostly hidden story deserves to be studied and amplified, both for the economic benefits and also for the possible political windfall for candidates on the populist right.

But before considering the import of this shift, it’s important to look at the numbers, the verifiable on-the-ground data sets that prove this new reality. The most-watched gauge of productive activity, the ISM Manufacturing Index, just surged to a fresh four-year high. Specifically, that ISM reading stands at 55 now, well above the 50 mark, which signals expansion. It has been rising for seven months.

In addition, manufacturing employment is rising, similarly marking a new four-year record high. These jobs are high-paying, family-sustaining roles that make our whole society stronger, not part-time “hustles” or gig economy transitions.

The article explains the cause of the manufacturing boom:

How has this renaissance unfolded?

The answer is solid policy. First, the Trump administration insists on fair and reciprocal trade. Gone are the days of America tolerating abusive and predatory trade tactics, particularly China’s.

But even aside from our Chinese Communist Party opponents, allies and “friends” abused America economically as well. For instance, Western Europe massively subsidized exports to the U.S. through its VAT taxation system, making their goods far more affordable for Americans than U.S. goods sent across the Atlantic. Such non-tariff trade barriers have been smartly exposed and repelled by the new American approach to trade.

The article concludes:

America is welcoming a quiet but very real manufacturing renaissance. Admittedly, public economic sentiment remains skeptical right now, which is understandable after 5 years of untenable inflation. But these epochal trends in manufacturing suggest that recent pronounced blue-collar real wage gains, meaning pay adjusted for the cost of living, will only accelerate going forward.

Turning to electoral politics, the legacy media sadly has no interest in covering this huge story. Thus, it is incumbent on our movement and our candidates to broadcast the good news of a very real trend that points to far more Main Street prosperity ahead.

The good economic news has a way of slipping between the cracks when a Republican is in the White House.

This Is NOT The Way To Solve The Problem

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Daily Signal posted an article about the Biden administration’s strategy to track the fentanyl shipments that were coming into America and bring a bigger criminal case against traffickers.

The article reports:

A third whistleblower came forward about a Biden-era operation involving alleged massive shipments of fentanyl into the United States that federal agents were told to track and not seize.

The U.S. Justice Department is conducting an internal probe of the operation that critics say likely led to numerous deaths. The most recent whistleblower complaint details a November 2022 fentanyl delivery from Arizona to New Mexico where Drug Enforcement Administration agents were told to monitor the shipment but not arrest anyone.

“Agents believe the courier made a minimum of at least five large deliveries over the following months, each time bringing 50,000-100,000 fentanyl pills and 20-40 pounds of methamphetamine per trip,” the complaint says. “The DEA did not arrest the courier until June 2023; at that time, agents found him with 19 kilograms of methamphetamine and 7 kilograms of fentanyl.” According to the DEA, as few as 2 milligrams of fentanyl can be lethal depending on a person’s body size and tolerance, and 1 kilogram of fentanyl has the potential to kill 500,000 people.

The new complaint also notes that during a training session, one DEA agent dismissed concerns about the operation, saying, “We walk fentanyl,” but adding that federal prosecutors were aware of it.

The complaint comes after the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General interviewed two other whistleblowers—former DEA Special Agent David Howell and financial investigator Kevin Small, who worked as a contractor for the DEA’s Albuquerque office—on Friday and Monday, respectively.

The article explains the theory behind the actions:

Howell was the first to blow the whistle on the operation, alleging that the DEA allowed hundreds of thousands of fentanyl pills into New Mexico because Justice Department prosecutors wanted to track the shipments and bring a bigger criminal case against traffickers. Former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico Alex Uballez oversaw the program, Howell said. Uballez publicly defended the operation, telling The Associated Press it saved lives, was key to intelligence gathering on drug traffickers, and that “the bigger fish are worth catching.”

I don’t think that the people who lost loved ones because of fentanyl would agree with that strategy.

The Supreme Court Upholds Consequences For Terrorism

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Daily Signal posted an article about a recent U.S. Supreme Court action that ruled in favor of holding terrorists accountable.

The article reports:

The Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority lost again at the Supreme Court, this time in their effort to stop a settlement to pay American victims of attacks.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Monday signed an order rejecting an emergency application from the Palestinian authorities to stop a $656 million judgment in favor of Americans killed or wounded in Israel. The victims were injured or killed in attacks in Jerusalem in the early 2000s that killed 33 people and wounded hundreds.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority argued in court filings that making the payments to victims and their families would destabilize government services in the West Bank, The Associated Press reported. They also have argued that the cases shouldn’t be allowed in American courts.

The victims and their families have claimed Palestinian agents were either involved in the attacks or incited them.

The first judgment in favor of the victims was awarded in 2015, but it was reversed on appeal when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court initially rejected the plaintiffs’ appeal in 2018.

The plaintiffs then sued under the revised Anti-Terrorism Act, a 1992 law updated in 2019 to allow the victims of the Palestinian attacks to seek damages in federal courts.

This is a valid weapon against terrorism. As long as the Palestinian authority has the money to pay the families of terrorists killed in suicide attacks, the attacks will continue. Unfortunately, the culture of the Palestinian authority encourages those attacks by honoring the people who carry them out. However, sometimes bad things decrease when they begin costing the people who do them serious money.

Equality vs. Equity

Posted on by
  • Equality means providing the same resources or opportunities to everyone, regardless of their individual circumstances.
  • Equity involves recognizing individual differences and providing resources or opportunities based on specific needs to achieve fair outcomes.

As soon as you move the goalposts to “achieve fair outcomes” you are no long acting with equality. If I work 20 hours a week and my boss works 50 hours a week, should we both be paid the same amount to insure a “fair outcome”? But if I have children at home and can only work 20 hours a week, under equity, shouldn’t that be considered in providing a “fair outcome”? Should I have the same opportunity for promotion as the person who works 40 hours a week? So where am I going with this?

On Thursday, The Daily Signal posted an article about a new policy by te Education Department regarding school discipline.

The article reports:

The Department of Education is rescinding several regulations that justified racial quotas in school discipline, the Daily Signal can first report.

Disparate impact is an approach to civil rights enforcement that claims a neutral policy that does not discriminate on its face can still constitute illegal racial discrimination if it has a “disproportionate” statistical effect on different racial and ethnic groups. 

“We should be making decisions based on meritocracy,” Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey told the Daily Signal in an interview. “We should be making decisions based on qualifications. This is just one additional important step, where we are demonstrating that any inclusion of race in any decision that is made within a school has to stop.”

The Obama administration used disparate-impact policy to require schools to make race a factor when considering disciplinary actions. Under Democrat administrations, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights found schools guilty of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on race-neutral policies if data showed the school disciplined more minority students.

Thursday’s deregulatory action aims to ensure equal education opportunities and treatment for students, according to the Education Department. The move is in line with President Donald Trump’s executive order last April titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” which made it the policy of the United States to eliminate all uses of disparate-impact liability.

Quotas are racist, regardless of how they are supposed to be beneficial.

What Good Is The Constitution When Those In Power Ignore It?

Posted on by

The U.S. Constitution was written to limit the power of the government–not the rights of the people. It was written to protect the rights of the people–free speech, freedom from unwarranted searches, right to a fair trial, etc. But it really isn’t useful if it is ignored.

On Wednesday, The Daily Signal posted an article about the constitutional violations in the Jack Smith investigation of President Trump.

The article reports:

Former special counsel Jack Smith’s team in 2023 bypassed certain procedures to obtain and review text messages from 44 members of Congress in an investigation of President Donald Trump, according to Justice Department documents released by senators Tuesday.

The Justice Department must follow a filter review process when obtaining documents or communications related to members of Congress, under the principle of separation of powers and to prevent privileged materials from being swept up in a criminal prosecution. Communications from members of Congress about their official legislative duties are generally protected from criminal prosecution under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause.

A letter from Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis, stated that “the special counsel’s Investigative Team apparently bypassed the Filter Team and directly accessed these text messages.” The Justice Department attached documents to the letter outlining the Filter Team’s review process.

Grassley noted the matter Wednesday morning in his opening remarks at the confirmation hearing for Todd Blanche to be attorney general.

“Based on the information provided to the committee, Smith’s operation cut corners and blew through constitutional stop signs, instead of respecting them, and has been advised about the constitutional problems,” Grassley said during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

“Even if Smith’s team had been instructed to look for congressional or other privileged information, it wouldn’t matter. Because in this example, it appears the filter routine was entirely bypassed.”

The article notes:

Smith investigated Trump’s challenge to the outcome of his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, as well as Trump’s retention of government documents at his home in Mar-a-Lago. The text messages obtained by Smith’s team appear to be related to the election probe.

“This is yet another grotesque example of the Biden administration’s weaponization of the Justice Department,” Johnson said in a public statement Tuesday. “Jack Smith’s team acted with impunity as they disregarded their own protocols to obtain and access White House text messages, including messages to and from 44 members of Congress. At this point, no one should be shocked by Jack Smith’s recklessness and blatant abuse of power, but they should be outraged.”

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that Jack Smith will be held accountable for his actions other than possibly in the court of public opinion.