'We should do the opposite of whatever they want us to do'

Hurricane Melissa made its devastating landfall Tuesday afternoon

'I’m forever grateful'

Ohio State Rep. Gary Click not only aims to honor Charlie Kirk’s legacy but has a passion for ensuring students are taught American history. He’s found a way to do both by sponsoring the Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act. The Daily Signal met with Click to discuss the bill, during which the state representative’s passion was evident. This is Part Two of that conversation. A Recap Part One focused on the nature of the bill. The bill will “permit teachers in public schools and state institutions of higher education to provide instruction on the influence of Christianity on history and culture” for kindergarten through college. Teachers are already allowed to teach such Christian influence, though Click insists a bill is “necessary” to “unshackle” teachers. The state representative also focused on examples from American history to further illustrate its need. A Passion for American History Not only did Click speak of his concern how “the historic facts have been omitted” in our classrooms, he also corrected the record. That idea of “separation of church and state” is not only misunderstood because it’s really about protecting the church from the state, but when it comes to attribution. It was not originally Thomas Jefferson who came up with the concept, but Pastor Roger Williams. Williams drew from Isaiah 5, likening a vineyard to a church and wild grapes to the world and government. Where Jefferson does fit in, as Click explained, is how the third president received a letter while in office from the Danbury Baptist Association, expressing concerns about religious liberty. In his letter back to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson wrote that the Constitution had erected a “Wall of Separation between the church and state,” which Click points out borrowed Williams’ words. Although Kirk’s assassination prompted this legislation, Click mentioned he had been aware of issues in education “for a long time,” which he believes goes back to the idea of deconstruction. This, he described to The Daily Signal, is when “we stop teaching the truth,” which is “partially what this bill is aimed at.” That leads to a generation not knowing the truth, and there’s teaching of “things that are not true, and the future becomes untethered from the past.” Click called this “dangerous.” He provided examples, such as how a student believed the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Native Americans rather than to God. A teacher also wrote to him claiming the Pilgrims came to America for mercantilism rather than Christianity. And what about how Christianity is discussed? Click pointed out that “nobody’s afraid to teach the negative … only to teach the positive” about American history, which he linked to threats of lawsuits. He brought up examples of negative versus positive teaching of Christianity in religion as he emphasized “it was the Christians who led the abolitionist movement.” There were also the Salem witch trials, with justices “weaponizing religion against the people.” Click pointed out how Christians raised concerns with due process over the Salem witch trials. Twenty people died over a period of 18 months, Click referenced, also mentioning how in Europe, 500,000 people were put to death over the years. It was “the shining light of the Church,” Click offered, “that we put a stop to it” in America. The bill and its sponsor have garnered excitement from Ohio’s College Republicans. “Rep. Click is a great servant leader of his community and his Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act is a truly important piece of legislation. Charlie Kirk’s legacy will always be defined by his faith, and by empowering those Christian ideals to be taught voluntarily in public schools and colleges, we’d be upholding the ideas of Charlie as well as the interests of thousands of God-fearing students I represent across Ohio’s campuses in my role as OCRF chairman,” Chairman Gabe Guidarini of the Ohio College Republican Federation shared with The Daily Signal. How the Bill and Charlie Kirk Play a Further Role in Ohio Members of the Ohio House Education Committee need to hear proponent testimony, after having heard sponsor testimony and opponent testimony. Click shared that the chair, state Rep. Sarah Fowler Arthur, is supportive of the bill. Part One of this series focused heavily on the need for teachers to be “unshackled,” Click argued, from the fear of lawsuits, as schools and teachers “are risk-averse.” That fear may live on even if the bill becomes law. Click believes it’s more a matter of “when” than “if” opponents will sue, given how “we’re in a litigious society.” “The bill will probably be sued, to be honest,” he acknowledged, pointing out that another bill he sponsored, the SAFE Act, which protects minors from transgender “care,” was sued, though it remains in effect on appeal. “They want to sue against anything that’s godly or that touches on God, and so they oppose anything that’s right,” he pointed out about the bill’s opponents. “So yeah, they’ll sue,” Click said. He even “anticipate[s]” it. “At least this way we can go to bat,” Click continued, pointing out teachers will have support from Ohio state law if such a bill passes and is taken to court. “Teaching should not be illegal, and their problem is that [opponents] don’t want to … give that cover.” Ohioans are paying attention to Kirk in other ways. State Rep. Adam Mathews recently filed a resolution to remove Judge Ted Berry of Hamilton County. Berry made disparaging remarks on Kirk over social media and then refused to step down when called to do so. The post State Rep. Shares Passion for History With Bill Honoring Charlie Kirk 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. We’ve been witnessing, supposedly, millions of people nationwide have hit the streets under the banner of “No Kings.” I guess that means that President Donald Trump is a monarch, a hereditary leader of some sort. But who really are the kings and who are not the kings? And we could go through some definitions of “monarch” and see to whom it applies the best. Kings don’t have elections. They are just appointed by birth or a privy council, I don’t know, some kind of insider appoints this person or that person, if there’s not a royal heir in succession. Or that might apply to an autocrat, is true. Donald Trump ran for election three times. He won twice. The last time he won the popular vote, the Electoral College, he won all of his swing states. First Republican to win the popular vote since 2004. He had 70/30, 60/40 majorities on all of the issues. Joe Biden, in 2020, had lost the first three caucuses or primaries. He was going nowhere. And then a group of insiders, politicos, donors, the media panicked because they knew that to nominate a Elizabeth Warren, a Pete Buttigieg, especially a Bernie Sanders, would destroy the Democratic ticket. So, they cooked up this idea that Joe Biden from Scranton—even though they knew he was already cognitively challenged—could be a veneer, a wax effigy. And then they did not allow him to campaign because we know what happens when he campaigns, as we saw in 2024. He sat in the basement under the pretext of COVID-19. He outsourced his campaign like a royal monarch to his underlings in the media. They got him elected. And then he, more or less, abdicated while on the job and let the hard Left, in this quid pro quo arrangement, run the country. I should say, run the country into the ground by opening the border, 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens, a 9% inflation rate, humiliation in Afghanistan, etc., etc. Donald Trump began, went transparently and openly out to the voters to be elected. We also know that monarchs conduct lawfare. That is, they use their judges to go after political enemies. Donald Trump never went after his opponent, Hillary Clinton, even though she had a lot of criminal exposure with her email scandal. He never went after former President Barack Obama. No FBI raided the Obama home to look for classified documents, even though he had a well-publicized disagreement with the federal archivist about which documents he should take or hold. He never went after him. He never went after Joe Biden. He hasn’t gone after Joe Biden today. In contrast, Donald Trump had 91 indictments filed by federal, local, and state prosecutors in cahoots. We know that on Nov. 15, when he announced his campaign, a mere three days later, Jack Smith, a federal prosecutor, went after him on the Mar-a-Lago raid and also on Jan. 6. We know that that same day that Smith was appointed, suddenly, Nathan Wade from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ Georgia prosecution turned up talking to the Biden White House counsel. We know that same day, the third-ranking Justice Department attorney left, he came from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ prosecution of Trump, but he’d left that day, resigned from his prestigious position to go to work for whom? Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. That’s what monarchs do. We know that monarchs also snoop. They go after their enemies with, you know, espionage. That’s sort of like Barack Obama. He surveilled the phone records of AP journalists. His CIA director surveilled and lied about it—John Brennan—the staff computers of senators. We know that Joe Biden’s special counsel, Jack Smith, spied on eight senators’ phone records. He had the data of all of their phones—how long they talked to someone, when it was, to whom they did. Donald Trump hasn’t done that. He hasn’t gotten 51 intelligence authorities to lie that a laptop was authentic. He didn’t order the FBI to work with Facebook or the old Twitter to suppress the news. That’s what the Biden administration did. So, what is this “No Kings” about? They should be talking about the Obama and Biden administration. Kings ignore subpoenas. They just say, “The law doesn’t apply to me.” So, that’s what Eric Holder, the attorney general and so-called wingman of the Obama administration, did. He got a subpoena to talk to Congress and bring evidence about the Fast and Furious scandal. And what did he do? He said: I’m not going to obey a congressional subpoena. Attorney General Merrick Garland got one to come in and testify. He said: I don’t obey congressional subpoenas. Two high-ranking Trump supporters—not Cabinet members, but advisers in the White House for a long time, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, got congressional subpoenas about Jan. 6. And they said: This is overtly political. I’m not going to show up—in Eric Holder style or Merrick Garland style. And what happened to them? They were arrested, they were indicted, they were convicted, and they were imprisoned. That’s what kings do. Kings don’t obey parliaments, to the extent they have them. If they disagree with something, they shut them down. They just cease to exist. As we’re speaking, the government is shut down. And why is it shut down? Because the Democrats lost the 2024 election. They have no power in the House and they have no power in the Senate. All they have is a minority filibuster, veto on the Senate. And they decided, because they did not get their way, to shut down the entire federal government. It wasn’t Donald Trump that shut it down. It was the kingly act of the Left. And finally, monarchs nullify existing law when they don’t like it. They just say, “You know what? I’m not gonna follow it.” Donald Trump has been the subject of ridiculous lower district federal judge ritz. The whole purpose of them is to delay and hamper his executive orders. Everybody knows that the orders are legal, that they are either overturned at the next circuit court appellate level or by the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, these left-wing federal judges become iconic by stopping Donald Trump. Does he obey them? Yes. Does California Gov. Newsom or Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, or Mayor Brandon Johnson in Chicago, or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass—do they obey federal law? No. In kingly, queenly fashion, they said: Federal law does not apply to us on matters of immigration. We will oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We will not cooperate with ICE. In the case of Mayor Johnson, we will not have law enforcement come to their aid when they’re in danger. In the case of Portland, if thugs are attacking ICE and they wanna protect themselves and arrest these people, then they flee to the other side of the street and hide behind local police. In other words, in neo-Confederate style, the Left, maybe like kings, are nullifying federal law. They say that Article VI of the Constitution that specifies the enforcement of federal law by federal enforcement shall take authority over, shall enjoy authority over state, local, and county laws in matters of federal jurisdiction. In other words, if you have a federal law about immigration and you want to get a criminal or someone who’s facing a deportation order, it doesn’t matter what the city of Los Angeles or the county of Los Angeles or the state of California say. A federal law enforcement officer has the right to arrest somebody, if it’s legal and he’s in violation of either immigration law or federal codes. And they are. And yet, in nullification, neo-Confederate fashion, that law is being nullified, ignored, violated. In other words, if you’re gonna have a “No Kings” protest and argue that the current president is a monarch, a king, a dictator, an autocrat, then you better come with evidence. But presidents hold elections. They stand for reelection. They follow federal law. They follow court orders. They don’t snoop on people. They follow congressional subpoenas. And they don’t conduct lawfare. For those on the left who are worried about kings taking over the country or violating our freedom, look in the mirror. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Joe Biden Was the Real ‘King,’ Not Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As Starmer's Approval Circles the Drain, a Beloved Dogwalker Dies

A British-made documentary exploring the U.K.’s descent into Orwellian language-policing is itself being censored on X. British outlet “spiked” produced a documentary focused on rising censorship in the U.K. “Think Before You Post” explains how the U.K. has become a country where “at least 30 people a day are now arrested in England and Wales for social-media posts.” Ironically, the documentary is being censored.  The British outlet reported that the censorship is likely a result of a 2023 U.K. law that included age verification rules, which have recently taken effect. When spiked posted the documentary on its X account, the post was censored, requiring users to log into an age-verified account in order to view it.    [The story continues on MRCFreeSpeechAmerica.org]

New York City voters may be on a different page than the rest of the state.Despite Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani maintaining a significant advantage in the polls ahead of the NYC mayoral election, one Republican is looking to flip the state red next year.For example, 60% of registered voters in New York ... either strongly support or somewhat support returning to the pre-2019 bail laws.RealClearPolitics has Mamdani boasting a 15-point lead average across the last six polls in October. With around 46 points, Mamdani's lead has only widened since July.In new numbers from the Manhattan Institute, the Democratic socialist and alleged communist maintains that lead over former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a former Democrat now representing the Fight and Deliver Party.Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa is third, 24 points behind Mamdani and nine points behind Cuomo.At the same time, however, pollsters asked respondents how they would vote if the 2026 N.Y. gubernatorial election were held today.Shockingly, Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) held a slim margin over Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul. Stefanik's lead was just one point, 43% to 42%, while "someone else" had 9% support, and "not sure" was at 7%.RELATED: LGBTQ champion Zohran Mamdani faces backlash over photo with 'anti-homosexuality' Ugandan lawmaker Photo by Andres Kudacki/Getty Images Stefanik's team responded to the news:"In a heavily Democrat-leaning state, an independent poll that is heavily weighted toward registered Democrat voters shows Republican Elise Stefanik leading Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul in a head-to-head matchup," Stefanik's spokesperson Bernadette Breslin said in a press release.Breslin said it was the first time in decades that any Republican candidate for governor of New York has polled ahead of a Democrat incumbent.The remarks continued, "In a decision that she will come to regret, Kathy Hochul lives up to her title as the worst governor in America when she chose to bend the knee and put New Yorkers LAST by desperately endorsing the defund the police, tax-hiking, raging anti-Semite socialist Zohran Mamdani who will destroy New York."Though rumors have swirled for months that Stefanik intends to run for governor, she has not formally announced her candidacy. Reports indicate that she will announce sometime after the November 4 election.RELATED: Cuomo narrows gap in new poll Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images While Mamdani maintains a strong lead in the city, some of his progressive policy positions range from somewhat unpopular to widely unpopular in updated polling.For example, 60% of registered voters in New York, including 49% of Democrats, either strongly support or somewhat support returning to the pre-2019 bail laws. This pertains to allowing individuals to be "released until trial rather than being held."Mamdani has said he wants to reduce the jail population, specifically at Rikers Island.One of Mamdani's biggest promises, free bus services, saw 58% of New York City respondents oppose the idea. This figure included 48% of Democrats. Meanwhile, 42% of Democrats agreed with the idea that eliminating fares would make public transit more affordable and efficient for working New Yorkers while reducing conflicts between riders and operators.Other topics — like New York's gifted and talented programs, corporate taxation, and fare evasion — were covered in polling conducted with 600 likely voters in the NYC mayoral election and 300 registered voters across New York state between October 22 and 26. The poll was weighted to reflect the electorate.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican August Pfluger Suggests Democrats Staged the Schumer Shutdown to Campaign for Zohran Mamdani

Gov. Gavin Newsom Desperately Wants to Be Invited on Joe Rogan’s Podcast