On this episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Victor Davis Hanson and Jack Fowler take aim at the six congressional Democrats who called on military members to defy “illegal” orders from the Commander-in-Chief. Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to VDH’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.  JACK FOWLER: These six Democrat congress members. One of the most interesting, odd examples of political performance art. They concocted this video encouraging, warning, urging members of the military not to follow illegal orders. Wow, Victor, it was just so weird. Your thoughts on it.  VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: So, we have 1.3 million soldiers on active duty, and there are representatives, six of them Congress people and senators, say on this video, and they all say, we have served, we’re veterans, and you don’t have to obey an unlawful order, OK? And it’s in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The idea is that Donald Trump is issuing unlawful orders. They don’t cite one, not one. So really the message then becomes, “Hey, you 1.3 million soldiers, you all are lawyers. So, when your commanding officer says, ‘Get in the helicopter, fly through the fog and look for the downed pilot’ you say that’s an unlawful order. I’m not going to.”  That is the message. If the message is, “Wink, nod, Donald Trump has been giving unlawful orders, but we don’t want to specify which ones,” there’s a reason why that. And we’ve heard that it’s unlawful to use military force abroad without a congressional authorization. False. Barack Obama killed dozens of people with Predator drones, including a U.S. citizen. He joked about it at the White House Correspondents Dinner when he said, “If you want to date my daughter, it’s called Predator, P-R-E-D-A-T-O-R.” OK.  George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Harry Truman, they’ve all used it. If it’s you can’t send federal troops into a city that’s under siege, [Secretary of State] Colin Powell begged to use 5,000 Marines for the Rodney King [riots], he did. And we’ve had, I think, seven instances where presidents have sent troops in: World War I veterans, Civil War draft, you name it.  So, they can’t list one thing. And then they say, Uniform Code of Military Justice. OK, Mr. Left-wing Representatives, go look at Article 90 and 92. And it does say you can obey, but then it has lawful and unlawful orders. And you go look at the instances when you can, it’s almost impossible. You have to be absolutely sure that you are being told what … if you read that thing, what an unlawful order is, it’s something like shoot the prisoner, something like that. It’s not what they’re imagining. And that is highly ironic because in the first term—we have Article 88, since they want to quote the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it says generals, admirals, high ranking officers shall not disparage, demean, basically smear the commander in chief, the vice president, cabinet people. And this applies, it says whether they’re active or retired and subject to recall. We had, I think it was eight or nine four-star admirals who said he was a liar, he was Mussolini, he acted as if he was Hitler, he was a comparable, I think that was General [Michael] Hayden who flashed pictures of Auschwitz, said that Trump was doing the same thing on the border. I could go on.  So they’re not being honest. But what’s even worse is—very quickly, and Sami and I talked to some others about it, this insurrectionary idea that Gen. [Mark] Milley, for example, because Trump is so evil, can diagnose him as unstable, then call his Chinese counterpart in the People’s Liberation Army and warn him that he will be contacted if he has any order, Milley, any order, or he can break the chain of command, which he’s not supposed to do, and interfere between theater commanders and the Department of Defense’s secretary, which he did. And he told them all to consult him first. Or you have Rosa Brooks 11 days after Donald Trump was inaugurated saying we’ve got to get rid of this guy. There’s three ways to do it. We either have the 25th amendment or we impeach him—too slow—or you can have a military coup. Military coup, she said. And then we had two lieutenant colonels, one was very decorated, Lt. Nagl and said, Gen. Milley, you’re gonna have to remove him. He won’t leave. And he has his little green men. And I tell you what, man, when the 82nd Airborne goes and confronts Trump. he’ll back down. So he’s basically calling for an OK Corral shootout between the Secret Service or somebody in the 82nd. So what I’m getting at, Jack, is this is not new.  And when you add this to the 600 sanctuary cities where they’re defying federal law, it’s like Fort Sumter. Or you have Nancy Pelosi saying, we’re going to arrest any ICE officer in our state that we think breaks one of our laws. They don’t know what the Constitution says; that the superiority lies with the federal government when it is enforcing federal law anywhere in the 50 states. And yet they keep doing it. And they don’t even believe it, what they’re saying. Because when Jan Brewer was the governor of Arizona, and Obama would not, would not, would not do his federal responsibility and close the border, she tried to. And they sued her. And our liberal judges then said, no, Gov. Brewer. That’s state’s rights. You can’t interfere. And she said, well, he’s not doing his job. It doesn’t matter. Immigration is federal. Those same judges are now saying, yes, we can interfere because before the federal government could not be challenged by the state because it didn’t want to enforce the law. It was derelict and that was wonderful. Now when the federal government is dutiful and wants to enforce the law, yes, you can interfere.  I don’t know who their heroes are. Jefferson Davis, John Calhoun, George Wallace, Gen. Scott, [played by] Burt Lancaster in “Seven Days in May.” I don’t know. But it’s one of those. They’re insurrectionists. And we’re going to get a situation—Mark my words. We’re going to get a situation next year as the midterms and everything heats up when some crazy blue state governor or mayor is going to tell his local police force to stop an ICE officer. Whether the ICE officer is in the process of arresting somebody or chasing somebody through the woods as we saw in that tape. And you’re going to have a confrontation. And then we’re going to be Bleeding Kansas 1853 or 1854.  And I don’t know how it’s going to end, but this is really dangerous. And the Left keeps pushing the insurrection button. And these people who are telling soldiers to disobey commands if they feel and they’re considered opinion that they can is really bizarre, but it has a precedent. If the chairman of the Joint Chief says that as Dr. Mark Milley with my sophisticated background in psychiatry, I telediagnosed our commander in chief is unstable, then that gives me a right to disobey any order that he gives and beyond that to contact the Communist Party in China and warn them that we might attack them. And I give them advanced warning. And that theory is the same thing.  You soldiers can diagnose your commanding officer as crazy, and he gave you a wrong order. So just disobey it. And then they cloak that in patriotism and their service. I’m a veteran. I’m getting really tired of that too. I really like veterans. I grew up in a family of veterans and I think it’s a wonderful thing to serve. Everybody I met in the military is wonderful. But when these people say that they’re going to hide behind being a veteran. That’d be like me saying you can’t talk about food policy, Mr. Senator. Have you ever been on a 285 Massey for 12 hours? Have you? Have you ever sprayed dimethoate for six hours in a field? You don’t know anything about farming. You have no right to talk about food policy.  Everybody has a right to talk about military policy, especially when the military veterans set themselves up to be advocating civil disobedience, which is what they’re doing. They really are, or actually military disobedience.  FOWLER: I’m glad you mentioned “Seven Days in May,” Victor. I saw it recently. It is a terrific movie, even though it’s a liberal movie. No question it was made from a liberal perspective. But you wait 60 years, and it’s an indictment of the current liberal sense.  HANSON: It is, it is, it is. Everybody, I want to be very clear: The Left is not principled. They don’t have a position on states’ rights or federal superiority in a constitutional sense. They don’t have a position on sanctuary cities. That is just for the moment because it’s conducive to their larger agenda of acquiring and expanding their power.  And I’ve said this before, but if you’re some guy and you’re a developer, let’s say in Salt Lake City, and you want to build a condo and you see a three-winged blackbird and you say, that blank-blank blackbird nest is right in the way of my bulldozers. And then somebody says, “Well, you know, it’s on the endangered species list.” “I don’t care. The federal government has no jurisdiction here in Utah.”  Or you’re in Wyoming, you get your cowboy boots stereotype you go in and they say, “We can’t sell you that .45.” “Well, I don’t follow the federal gun laws. This is the state of Wyoming. It’s a sanctuary gun city.” They would go ballistic, ballistic. “This is insurrection. You have to follow federal law.” They just pick and choose because they have no principle. Everybody needs to know that. When they get up, like Gavin Newsom, we’re going to do this, we’re going to do this about sanctuary cities, if you’re here illegally.  And then you have Karen Bass and Los Angeles officials deliberately creating apps and trying to work with illegal aliens to resist the rule of law as practiced by federal ICE agents. But believe me, sometimes a federal government is good when the protester is conservative, and that’s very rarely that happens.  And so that’s what’s really scary about these people. They’re French Revolutionary Jacobins. They’ll do anything and say anything at any time. And I was really angry about that video. I thought, wow.  You hide behind your service and then you, for cheap political purposes, you get up there and you send this message to over a million soldiers that there’s going to come an occasion where they’re going to get an illegal order, and they’re going to have the constitutional right to resist it when you don’t tell people, “This is how many orders were resisted in the military the last five years per year, and this is what happens to people who resisted that order.”  Why don’t they give that information out?  FOWLER:  Resist and you’ll be a hero but don’t have a vaccine and we’ll can you. It’s amazing. HANSON: 8,500 people. FOWLER: Hey Victor, we’re gonna come back and talk about Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jasmine Crockett we’re gonna do that right after these important messages.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Victor Davis Hanson: The ‘French Revolutionary Jacobins’ Urging the Defying of Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Because Democrat senators have refused to confirm many of President Donald Trump’s preferred picks to serve as U.S. attorneys around the country, his administration has instead been forced to rely on the arcane, convoluted, confusing mechanisms available to temporarily fill those positions.    Given the unprecedented nature of this Democrat obstruction and the conflicting case law in this area, those seeking to avoid criminal charges have, of course, challenged many of these appointments.  And earlier today, a Clinton-appointed South Carolina judge, Cameron McGowan Currie, sitting by special designation in the Eastern District of Virginia, held that Lindsey Halligan had been improperly appointed to serve as the U.S. attorney for that district.  Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, the attorney general can appoint an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days, after which a successor is typically appointed by the district court until the vacancy is filled by a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney. In this case, following the resignation of the Biden-appointed U.S. attorney, Erik Seibert was appointed as interim U.S. attorney in that district. On May 9, less than two weeks before the 120-day period lapsed on May 21, the district court appointed Seibert to continue in that role.  In early September, Seibert announced that he was resigning from the position. Following Seibert’s departure, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney. Shortly thereafter, grand juries returned indictments against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former-FBI Director James Comey.  Significantly, Halligan was the only person claiming to represent the government who presented the charges to the grand jury.  Both James and Comey moved to dismiss the indictments that had been returned against them, arguing that Halligan had not been properly appointed at the time she made her grand jury appearances. They argued, and the judge agreed, that the best reading of the statute is that Bondi’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney expired on May 21. The government, of course, disagrees with that interpretation. But the judge rejected the government’s argument that the statute allowed Bondi to make a series of interim appointments, restarting the 120-day clock with each appointment. Because the judge concluded Halligan was essentially a private citizen when she appeared before the grand jury, the indictments that were returned were invalid.   As a result, he dismissed—without prejudice—the indictments she secured against both James and Comey.  Where things go from here becomes somewhat murky—though the cases likely will continue.  Ordinarily, James and Comey could simply be re-indicted because the judge dismissed their cases “without prejudice.” Here, though, James and Comey are both asserting vindictive prosecution and other defenses to their indictments. And Comey, in particular, is asserting a statute-of-limitations defense to his re-indictment.  Essentially, he’s saying that any indictment had to be brought by Sept. 30, 2025, and that because the government brought no valid indictment by that date, the case must be dismissed.  As other commentators have pointed out, however, 18 U.S.C. § 3288 may provide an avenue to re-indict Comey. It provides:  “Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, … which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of limitations.”  While this provision does contain exceptions, it’s not clear that any of those would apply.  Moreover, Bondi may be able to validly appoint Halligan to oversee the prosecutions. Bondi can appoint Halligan to serve as the first assistant U.S. attorney (chief deputy) in the Eastern District of Virginia, which in turn, means that she would become the “acting” U.S. attorney (instead of the “interim” U.S. attorney) because that office would be vacant. Bondi recently did something similar for the U.S. attorney’s office overseeing Los Angeles.  For its part, the Justice Department has contended that all of this legal wrangling is unnecessary since higher-ranking validly appointed DOJ officials retroactively ratified Halligan’s actions. The Justice Department can appeal this judge’s decisions to dismiss these indictments, or it might simply choose to re-indict James and Comey.  Regardless of which path it chooses, it’s clear that these cases are far from over despite the judge’s ruling dismissing the indictments.  The post Judge Dismisses Letitia James and James Comey Cases. What Next? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I’m tired of the Epstein files, as you are. Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted pedophile, died over six years ago, in 2019. Yet, his ghost seems to haunt the political atmosphere today. So, what are these so-called Epstein files? Well, there’s no manila envelope that says or manila folder that says, “Epstein.” Rather, that term loosely refers to a corpus of hundreds, if not thousands, of text messages, emails, phone records between Jeffrey Epstein and hundreds of people. And because he was a spider-like person that had a web of entrapment and gave lavishly—I would just say at the outset, 90% of the monies that Jeffrey Epstein gave that had a political affiliation were Democratic and Left, not Republican. Get that straight right now. So, he was everywhere, trying to buy influence. And one of the ways he bought influence was, apparently, in his various domains, he had underaged, attractive girls that he trafficked and manipulated. And his modus operandi was to get powerful figures to come in, under the auspices of discussing statecraft, politics, great donations he would go to, and then they would succumb to these temptations of pedophilia, supposedly, unlawfully so. And he would have cameras and document that. And then, the subtext was they would be bribed. And he would offer to manage their financial affairs, or for a small donation to him, then he would keep that secret. And he used that to gain influence and money. And at his death, he was probably worth half a billion dollars. And so, now, people want to find out who was included in those communications. But here’s the problem. Everybody says, “Donald Trump. Donald Trump. We’re gonna get Donald Trump. He doesn’t wanna release it. He doesn’t wanna release it.” But it doesn’t quite make sense because the “trove” was under the jurisdiction of the Joe Biden Department of Justice, under Attorney General Merrick Garland. They had them for four years. Do you really believe that if they had something on Donald Trump, who admittedly knew Jeffrey Epstein, as a 1980s, 1990s celebrity in Manhattan—everybody seemed to know him—but if they had something incriminating—they leaked almost everything about Donald Trump. Remember, they raided his home. To get what? Just a few classified documents, 102 out of 14,000 papers. They raided an ex-president. Twenty-five states tried to get him off the ballot. He was the object of 91 felony charges in five different jurisdictions, civil and criminal. You think if they’re going to go to the—impeached twice during the first term—if they’re gonna go to that effort and they had incriminating evidence in this trial, they wouldn’t have leaked it? So, they kept it quiet. And then when Donald Trump became president, he had it under lock and key. And there were rumors that Attorney General Pam Bondi or FBI Director Kash Patel were gonna release it. And he didn’t. And there’s two schools of thought, why he didn’t. The first is that he thought that it was a distraction from his economic—and it is. I mean, he had a better economic record than former President Joe Biden. He didn’t have 5.2%, on average, every single year. But people were talking about the Epstein files. And so, he just wanted to get it outta mind and not visit it. It had the opposite effect. By suppressing it, people became more curious. And of course, there was the charge from the Left that he suppressed it because he would be incriminated, there would be a direct reference that he was involved. But we have just the opposite. What files or communications that have leaked out suggest that even some of the young girls knew that Donald Trump was not engaging in the type of activity that others were. So, what was the other reason? Why didn’t he release it then? He was innocent? If it wasn’t a matter of distracting from his economic—was there another reason? Probably. Maybe the same reason that Joe Biden didn’t leak it, that there were prominent donors or officials that were either Republican or Democrat who just didn’t wanna be embarrassed. How would that function? Somebody might call up President Trump: “This is Mr. Smith. Jeffrey Epstein came over to my home twice. I visited his home. We were discussing a large gift I was going to give to Harvard University. But my name came up. And without context, if my name is released, I will be incriminated because he is toxic.” That could happen. So, there’s all sorts of explanation. There is even a fourth- or fifth-dimensional chess explanation. And I’ll throw it out there. In other words, Donald Trump knew that he was not in those files. But he had heard, before he became president for a second time, during his first term, or he had seen in the first months of his office, that 90% of the references of fundraising and money and associates, to the degree they were political, involved Democrats. He also knew that, unlike himself, who had ostracized Jeffrey Epstein before he was convicted of trafficking and sexual crimes—that is, before he was a de facto pedophile—he had distanced himself, and others had not. So, in this kind of strange explanation or exegesis, Donald Trump, then just let this sit, like hot water on a kettle, and simmer and simmer and simmer. So then, the Democrats would overreach and say, “Get it out. Get it out. Get it out.” And he thought: Ah, they didn’t get it out because they are incriminated. And now they’ve leaked all they can about me. And unlike me, a lot of these people were involved after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of a sexual crime. And I’m just gonna let them demand and clamor, until an opportune moment, I will release it. I’m not sure I believe this exegesis. But that is what has been commonly alleged, more recently. And lo and behold, they’re starting to release the Epstein files. And Democratic luminaries like Larry Summers, former secretary of the treasury, former president of Harvard, you can’t get much more elite and renowned than that, has already distanced himself from his Harvard former employer and Democratic grandees because he is mentioned in the Epstein files as asking for advice, how to, I guess you would call it, he says, “get horizontal,” or bed a young woman—I don’t know of what age. So, in this case, they are going to release the files. And there is going to be Democratic names in those files and liberal names in those files. And their names will occur in context, not before private citizen Epstein was charged with anything, but after they had to know that he was a convicted sex criminal. And after he was convicted of that, they continued these relations of some sort of nefarious activity, as alleged. And we’re gonna watch this. If that were to be true, then Donald Trump put a big noose out there. The Democrats unwisely put their head in it and screamed and yelled that Donald Trump was guilty. And then he pulled the lever, so to speak. And they’ve hung themselves. We’ll see. But it’s a sorted business all the way around. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Epstein’s Ghost Comes Back to Haunt the Democrats appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL — Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is urging his colleagues in the Senate GOP to hold the line on pro-life and prevent federal funds from going to abortions. In a letter sent to his Republican colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday, the Texas Senator urged his fellow appropriators to protect the Hyde Amendment in any potential conference agreement or appropriations package. “As negotiations with your Democratic counterparts continue, I urge you to maintain all provisions that protect against federal funding of elective abortions in any potential conference agreement or appropriations package,” Cornyn wrote in the document addressed to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., the chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.  In the One Big Beautiful Bill, which was signed into law in July, congressional Republicans stripped Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides the most amount of abortions in the country. In the past, Planned Parenthood has received more than one-third of its overall funding from grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements provided by the American government. “By halting taxpayer funding of abortion through the Medicaid program, Republicans showed that even in the wake of the historic Dobbs decision, our fight is not over, and we reasserted our commitment to protecting the most vulnerable in our communities,” Cornyn explained in the letter. “The ongoing legal fight over this provision highlights the continued threat of the big abortion industry and the need for pro-life lawmakers to remain vigilant,” the Texas senator continued. Since the advent of the Hyde Amendment in the 1970s, pro-life legislators have attempted to curb direct and indirect federal funding for elective abortions. Cornyn estimates in his letter that approximately 2,646,000 lives have been saved as a result following that congressional decision. Cornyn noted the hardball tactics employed by the Democrats to get Big Abortion back on the federal funding circuit. “Democrats shut down the government for 43 days in an unsuccessful attempt to undue the work Republicans accomplished in OBBBA, including the progress we made to stop forced taxpayer funding of abortion,” Cornyn wrote. “Now is not the time to give an inch on our pro-life values.” The Texas senator is currently facing two major challengers, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt, for his Senate seat in 2026 GOP primary that will be held in March. Some recent polling shows a close three-way race. The post EXCLUSIVE: Cornyn Urges Senate GOP to Keep Tax Dollars Out of Big Abortion Pockets appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A church in Bryan, Ohio recently notched a win that religious liberty advocates believe will set a new precedent after the city attempted to shut down the church using fire codes. Last Friday, Ohio’s Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed an injunction against the church, called Dad’s Place, and its pastor, Chris Avell, from being able to carry out religious ministry to the homeless and providing them with temporary shelter. The legal questions in the case centered around the relationship between religious liberty and municipal codes, with an eye to ensuring religious organizations are not unnecessarily burdened. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, told The Daily Signal that the law requires “the least restrictive test possible,” when dealing with religious organizations. “You have to infringe on religious liberty with as light a touch as possible. And that’s the test that the court says applies here, and that’s why it sent the case back down to the trial court to correctly apply that… test.” Gardner claimed, also referring to sentiments shared by Attorney General Dave Yost, that, in this case, Bryan, Ohio was seeking to use “petty tools of government to shut down a disfavored ministry” in the form of fire codes. The Daily Signal also reached out to Yost’s office for further comment on the case. A report from WTOL Toledo highlighted how the trial court must reconsider the case based not on the rational basis standard that had been used, but rather the strict scrutiny standard according to the Ohio Constitution Conscience Clause. Also relevant is the Ohio Supreme Court case of Humphrey v. Lane, a 2000 decision to do with grooming policies at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, which violated the practices of a Native American officer. The First Liberty Institute press release cited the opinion and its instructions for the lower court. “Because the trial court erred in failing to address [Dad’s Place’s] arguments under the Ohio Conscience Clause we must remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court is directed to consider [Dad’s Place’s] claim under the Ohio Constitution and to reconsider [Dad’s Place’s] free exercise claim under the U.S. Constitution using a strict scrutiny analysis,” it read. A press release from First Liberty detailed how Bryan, Ohio has gone after Dad’s Place and Avell, using “multiple criminal and civil proceedings, including 18 criminal zoning charges, middle-of-the-night fire inspections, and both criminal and civil fire code prosecutions.” The press release also noted that this is “while city officials demand the church install an expensive fire suppression system, the city does not require any of its motels, most of its apartment complexes, and even a senior living facility to install fire suppression systems in their buildings.” Fire codes have been so onerous that many buildings have been grandfathered in, Gardner explained to The Daily Signal. These codes are often burdensome for-profit organizations, Gardner added, and Dad’s Place would not have been able to comply with the fire code restrictions. Gardner stressed that “vast discretion” is used to enforce fire codes, which, along with laws such as zoning codes and nuisance laws, are “highly discretionary” and can be used against organizations that may be deemed disfavored compared to others. The court’s holding, therefore, is “monumental for religious ministries” not merely in Ohio but “across the country,” Gardner explained. Gardner further applied this test to churches being more burdened than secular places during COVID-19 lockdowns, as well as recent U.S. Supreme Court cases. With Fulton v. Philadelphia, the Court in 2021 unanimously found that the City of Philadelphia violated a Catholic foster agency by refusing to renew a contract unless same-sex couples were allowed to be certified as foster parents. The Daily Signal reached out to the City of Bryan for comment on the case. Friday’s court win is not the end of the road, however. Pastor Chris Avell’s appeal of a criminal conviction against him is still pending. Nevertheless, Gardner sees such a victory as “a turning point in the case,” and one that means “the turkey is going to taste a little better” given how close the victory came to Thanksgiving. The post Ohio Church Secures a Win Against ‘Petty Tools of Government’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.