Allies of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gathered Thursday to launch the Make America Healthy Again Institute, an organization aiming to outsource the Health and Human Services Department’s oversight and reform efforts. “The people in the bureaucracies like the status quo, and so Bobby Kennedy and all of the great people who are at the top of these organizations, they have behind them this movement, this mass of people who care deeply, who’ve been working for years,” MAHA Institute co-founder Mark Gorton said. “And so, the MAHA Institute has set itself as a goal to channel this energy, to channel this mass movement,” Gorton continued, “and to tactically try and connect all of those people with the people in the government.” Gorton and Tony Lyons co-chaired the American Values PAC to support Kennedy’s campaign for president. They rebranded the 501(c)(4) wing of American Values as the MAHA Institute. “We also have a situation now where we have amazing leadership at the federal health agencies, but the number of actual, true MAHA supporters at the top of these agencies is maybe 75 people across an HHS that has 60,000 employees,” Gorton said, “and their job is unbelievably daunting because these bureaucracies are highly resistant to change.” The MAHA Institute fills the need in D.C. for an organization that “represents the people and focuses on the good of the people and the health of the people.” “And so, our aspirations are huge,” Gorton said. “We think that we have the potential, over the next few decades, to be one of these anchor organizations in D.C. that has the potential to change policy, to bring about pressure, and to work to its goals for the good of the American people and to document more community interest of that help of the American people.” White House health adviser Calley Means said the new institute will help connect the MAHA and MAGA movements. While the MAGA movement is male-dominated, there is no gender gap in the MAHA movement, according to Means, who has been nominated by President Donald Trump to be U.S. surgeon general. “It is inspiring to see how deeply across government officials have taken the part of this mandate from MAHA moms to investigate the root causes,” Means said. Means’ assertion was represented in the attendees of the conference, which was about half female. Democrats have advocated against children’s health, Means said, with politicians like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren fighting for Big Pharma. But under Trump and Kennedy, the MAHA movement has a “generational opportunity” to meet the challenge of poor children’s health outcomes, Means said. HHS doesn’t need more money or more bureaucrats, but to address the root causes of chronic illness and obesity, according to Means. “It’s not just because of revolutionary new technology, but it’s also because of the vision of this administration,” Means said. “And so I want to thank the president, Secretary Kennedy, and Administrator [Mehmet] Oz for their vision. But I also want to thank the millions of MAHA members across this country who are planning to build not just a healthier America today, but a healthier tomorrow, and importantly, a healthier future for my generation and our descendants.” The MAHA movement has the potential to unify people across the political aisle over the issue of human health, former Democrat and Kennedy speechwriter Charles Eisenstein said. “What has happened is that Democratic Party has abandoned its traditional mission of defending the little guy against power and fraud,” Eisenstein said. “When the media wakes up to this, and when the Democratic Party wakes up to this, we have the potential for unifying popular movements.” The post RFK Jr. Allies Launch Make America Healthy Again Institute to Bolster HHS Overhaul appeared first on The Daily Signal.

No other organization was a bigger thorn in the side of former President Joe Biden’s administration than the Oversight Project. The group sued the Biden administration about 100 times on issues ranging from lawfare to illegal immigration during the former president’s tenure. Biden may be gone, but the Oversight Project continues to push for answers to this fundamental question of the Biden era: Who was really in charge? Recent revelations about the former president’s use of an auto-pen machine—brought to light by the Oversight Project—paired with Biden’s limited knowledge of the documents he signed, suggests the answer was not Joe Biden. Yet, some Republicans on Capitol Hill, because of their victory in the 2024 elections, are no longer as interested in that question and would rather act as if the last four years didn’t happen. Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, joined “The Signal Sitdown” to discuss how to hold Biden and his ilk accountable for the damage they’ve done to the country. “Going into the Trump administration [in 2016], the Left did tremendous amounts of damage to advancing policy in the first half of the Trump administration when he had unified control by just creating scandal, litigation, propaganda, everything,” Howell said, reflecting on the system that was weaponized against President Donald Trump.  “What Obama and his ilk were able to do to all sectors of government and society was really well thought out in an evil way,” Howell explained. “They basically took the 9/11-era tools that were supposed to be pointed at Islamic terrorists and pointed them at domestic enemies.” “There was this asymmetrical fight going on. The Left dominates here. The Right just thinks that they’re congressmen that send letters, they like their heroes and the calvary coming across the ridge, and that just wasn’t the case at all,” he continued. “The Left, through the Russia hoax and everything else, stopped President Trump’s first administration, when it had unified control of the House and Senate, from getting much done.” “That’s the power structure that Trump, in ‘16, was going against,” Howell told The Daily Signal. “They tried to take him out a million different ways before he even got there. And it happened through his first presidency.” Even worse, he added, “It’s still happening today. There’s people on the Right who are doing it to him, too.” Biden became the beneficiary of this power structure in 2020, and his administration put it to great use in an attempt to fundamentally change the country. Race, LGBTQ, feminism, all have roles to play in the scheme, but the biggest is unfettered illegal immigration.  “[The Left is] not reproducing, they’re not focusing on family,” Howell explained. “They’re not educating. So they’re importing instead, and they’re doing so illegally, and that was the fundamental idea behind the border crisis.” “This is a compounding problem that needs to be addressed,” he added. “The demographic change that Biden ushered in was for purely political purposes. It’s a new voter base.” For Democrats, “to do anything that could be perceived as anti-illegal would be a disaster for them with their base. They worship at the altar of the illegal alien,” Howell said. “They have a hierarchy of people they think are most important. It appears that the illegal alien male, particularly, is rising to the top.” “Republicans … they just don’t take it seriously enough,” Howell said. To undo the damage Biden did, Howell claimed annual deportations need to be in the millions, but the current deportation system “doesn’t have the capacity for mass deportations.” “There’s no way that I believe they’re going to do this stuff,” Howell said of Republicans on Capitol Hill tasked with providing the resources to increase deportations and investigations into left-wing corruption of the American system. “Stop putting your faith in Congress,” he concluded. The post The Man Who Helped Prove Biden Wasn’t Actually Running the Country appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., dropped his ill-fated effort to force the House to vote on his impeachment resolution against President Donald Trump following widespread pressure from fellow Democrats to stand down. Thanedar, an embattled two-term lawmaker facing a primary challenge from the Left, filed a privileged resolution Tuesday that would have forced House Democrats to vote on seven articles of impeachment brought against the president. Thanedar’s decision to cave to House Democratic leadership and not trigger a vote Wednesday comes as Democrats viewed his impeachment effort as a distraction from the conference’s united opposition against the president’s “one big, beautiful [budget] bill.” “[A]fter talking with many colleagues, I have decided not to force a vote on impeachment today,” Thanedar wrote on X Wednesday afternoon. “Instead, I will add to my articles of impeachment and continue to rally the support of both Democrats and Republicans to defend the Constitution with me.” In the fifteen days since I filed seven articles of impeachment against President Trump, he has committed more impeachable offenses, most dangerously, accepting a $400 million private jet from Qatar, which even Republican Members of Congress have called wrong.So, after talking…— Congressman Shri Thanedar (@RepShriThanedar) May 14, 2025 Thanedar said earlier Wednesday he had no misgivings about making his colleagues, even Democrat lawmakers representing battleground districts Trump won in November, vote on his impeachment resolution. Thanedar says has NO misgivings about making the 13 House Dems whose congressional districts Trump won in November take this vote.“Well, look, we got to stand. We got to take a stand. Look, in Congress, as a member of Congress we take hard votes every day. Every day there is a…— Adam Pack (@packreports) May 14, 2025 “We’ve got to take a stand,” Thanedar told the Daily Caller News Foundation at a press conference Wednesday morning. “As a member of Congress, we take hard votes every day. Every day, there is a hard vote to take.” “They [Democrats representing swing districts] just need to look into not what plays well politically, not what the polls are saying. We got to do the right thing. That’s what you [voters] sent us here to do,” the congressman added. House Democratic Conference Chairman Pete Aguilar, the No. 3 House Democrat, publicly criticized Thanedar’s impeachment effort at his weekly news conference Wednesday. Many House Democrats privately torched Thanedar to reporters, with one lawmaker telling Axios under the protection of anonymity, “This is the dumbest f—ing thing. Utterly selfish behavior.” Another House Democrat told the outlet the anticipated impeachment vote was “a waste of f—ing time.” “Our focus is on health care being stripped away from the American people,” Aguilar said. “That is the most urgent and dire thing that we could be talking about this week. Everything else is a distraction.” Thanedar did not rule out forcing a vote on his impeachment resolution in the future. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Embattled House Dem Drops Trump Impeachment Effort Amid Backlash From His Own Party appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday on whether nationwide injunctions violate the Constitution, after lower courts have issued 40 nationwide injunctions against the second Trump administration. “Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III which exist only to address the injury to the complaining party,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued. The case, Trump v. CASA, concerns nationwide injunctions that lower court judges have ordered, pausing President Donald Trump’s order interpreting the 14th Amendment as not guaranteeing what is known as “birthright citizenship,” the idea that if someone is born in the U.S. to alien parents (who are not foreign diplomats or enemies in a hostile occupation), they are immediately a citizen. Critics of birthright citizenship note that the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” Emphasis added. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” did not apply to aliens who enter the U.S. and then give birth in America, they say, because non-Americans are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries. Supporters of birthright citizenship note that the U.S. has extended citizenship to children of aliens born in the U.S. for more than 100 years. The Supreme Court arguments did not focus on the birthright citizenship issue, but rather the legality of lower courts issuing injunctions that apply to the entire country. Many of the groups filing the lawsuits that result in the injunctions had a great deal of influence in the Biden administration, as noted in my book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.” New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum argued in favor of the legality of universal injunctions, claiming that an injunction that only applied to New Jersey would not address the issues in the case. Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University, represented immigration groups. Sauer’s Argument Against Universal Injunctions While judges have the authority to issue temporary injunctions to protect one of the parties in a case from harm while the court considers the case, the Trump administration claims the judges have abused this power, claiming to protect people across the country who aren’t parties to the suit. Sauer noted that courts have issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts. He argued that these injunctions “prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions” through the normal legal process. He also argued that “they encourage forum shopping,” that is, parties filing lawsuits in certain areas, seeking friendly judges who will issue injunctions on their behalf. He further argued that they circumvent Rule 23, the process by which plaintiffs apply for class action. “They create what [Supreme Court] Justice [William] Powell describes as repeated and essentially head-on confrontations between the life-tenured and representative branches of government,” Sauer added, referring to a justice who served from 1972 to 1987. ??JUDICIAL INSURRECTIONSolicitor General John Sauer explains the judicial insurrection, noting that courts have issued forty nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration so far. He explains why these injunctions are an abuse of the judicial power."Universal… pic.twitter.com/VXigYnlXLM— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 15, 2025 The History of Universal Injunctions Justice Clarence Thomas asked Sauer about the history of universal injunctions, and the solicitor general pointed to 1963 as the first example. “We survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?” Thomas asked. “Correct,” Sauer responded. “Those were rare in the 1960s. It exploded in 2007. The Ninth Circuit started doing this with a bunch of cases involving environmental claims.” The solicitor general noted that “the court consistently said you have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in your court.” Important point at the Supreme Court today??"So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?" Justice Clarence Thomas asks."Correct. Those were rare in the 1960s," John Sauer responds. "It exploded in 2007."https://t.co/QhpJ0kFFg2 pic.twitter.com/Izh1DLyUFJ— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 15, 2025 In response to questions from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Sauer brought up the history of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, where “there were passionate challenges to nationwide policies,” but when judges held New Deal policies illegal, they issued “hundreds of injunctions protecting individual plaintiffs.” Solicitor General John Sauer compares the Trump administration to the New Deal?Even when judges held New Deal policies illegal, they issued "hundreds of injunctions protecting individual plaintiffs," rather than nationwide injunctions, he says. pic.twitter.com/Qti8QdyXeI— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 15, 2025 New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum cited the English common law practice of a “bill of peace,” which judges used to settle multiple related claims against a defendant in a single lawsuit. The practice allowed the court to bind all members of a “multitude” with the outcome, even if they didn’t directly participate in the lawsuit. Sauer argued that a “bill of peace” most resembles class-action lawsuits, not universal injunctions. Feigenbaum also cited cases from before the 1960s, which Sauer claimed do not represent universal injunctions. Corkran argued that if the court ruled in Trump’s favor, it would reject “the status quo all three branches of government have ratified and operated under for over a century,” warning that “catastrophic consequences would result for the plaintiffs and our country” if the government can “execute an unconstitutional citizenship-stripping scheme simply because the court challenges take time.” Here's Kelsi Corkran's opening statement. She claims that restoring the 14th Amendment to its original meaning represents an "unconstitutional citizenship-stripping scheme."? pic.twitter.com/JkV26U8hlg— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 15, 2025 Alternatives to Universal Injunctions Sauer argued that judges have alternatives to universal injunctions, such as class-action lawsuits. Feigenbaum noted many practical considerations that would make unworkable an injunction that only applied to New Jersey. He noted that if children of illegal aliens don’t have U.S. citizenship in other states but do gain it when they move to New Jersey, that introduces serious problems with New Jersey’s legal obligations to provide benefits, such as Medicaid, to citizens. “They did not get Social Security numbers because they would not have been eligible for the enumeration at birth,” Feigenbaum said. “They are going to arrive and seek benefits that we administer. Federal law requires that they have Social Security numbers for the administration of these benefits.” New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum argues that an injunction that only applies to New Jersey would be unworkable. pic.twitter.com/BkTyqrZzPI— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 15, 2025 Elena Kagan Taunts Sauer Justice Elena Kagan taunted Sauer, noting that many judges have ruled against the Trump administration. “This is not a hypothetical. This is happening. Every court ruled against you,” she said. Sauer argued, however, that nationwide injunctions encourage “forum shopping,” so the success of nationwide injunctions in courts that plaintiffs target because judges are more likely to side with them may illustrate bias, as well as legal concerns. Justice Kagan taunts Sauer:"This is not a hypothetical. This is happening. Every court ruled against you."Well, that's because leftist groups are judge-shopping, suing in jurisdictions where they're most likely to get a friendly judge. https://t.co/QhpJ0kFFg2 pic.twitter.com/DyBjREvjvA— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 15, 2025 Good for the System? Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden’s appointee, suggested that universal injunctions might be healthy for the judicial system. “It seems to me that when the government is completely enjoined from doing the thing it wants to do, it moves quickly to appeal that,” bringing the case to the Supreme Court. Sauer responded that the courts are supposed to work more slowly, methodically considering cases and not rushing them through emergency dockets to the Supreme Court. The “percolation” of cases through lower courts up to the Supreme Court is “a merit of our system, not a bad feature of our system,” he responded. Are universal injunctions good for the system??Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggests it's helpful for the government to have an incentive to appeal for emergency relief to the Supreme Court over and over again.Solicitor General John Sauer defends the normal process against… pic.twitter.com/JpBwWkuQI4— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 15, 2025 The post 5 Takeaways From Oral Arguments on Universal Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Case at the Supreme Court appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Biden Aides Amazed That Trump Can Get Things Done

NEW: SCOTUS Tackles Nationwide Injunction Jurisdiction -- Skeptically

Media Still Missing the Big Story - Who Ran The Country For Four Years?

The effect describes the odd way we'd see objects like a spacecraft traveling near the speed of light.

Mutation? Err, I think you mean meow-tation.

From prescription pills to plant extracts, are nootropics the answer to enhancing our brain power?