Removed once more for the final time

Upon arrest, officers discovered multiple gerbils inside the suspect's pants

'I think you do see some clear patterns'

'Can't even be bothered to show up to work'

The House is poised to vote Wednesday to ensure that only U.S. citizens may vote in federal elections, despite a veto threat from President Joe Biden.  Although it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, “there is no mechanism to ensure that only those registering or voting are actually citizens,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday in a press conference held on Zoom.  The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, would amend the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, known as the “motor voter law,” to require that states obtain documentary proof of citizenship from someone before he or she may register to vote. The legislation also would require states to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls. “We know President Biden has welcomed millions and millions of illegals, including sophisticated criminal syndicates and spies, [to] our borders,” Johnson said. “A growing number of localities are blurring the lines between citizens and noncitizens by allowing them currently to vote in local and municipal elections.”  Johnson noted that Virginia last year removed 1,500 registrants from the voter rolls who were noncitizens, and 22% had cast ballots. The states of Massachusetts and Ohio removed noncitizens from voter rolls in recent years. Georgia found that 1,600 noncitizens attempted to vote.  “Many of our elections are decided by very slim margins, very slim margins,” Johnson said on the call with reporters. “Only American citizens should decide American elections.” The White House announced Monday that Biden “strongly opposes” the House legislation.  “This bill would do nothing to safeguard our elections, but it would make it much harder for all eligible Americans to register to vote and increase the risk that eligible voters are purged from voter rolls,” the White House statement says. “The evidence is clear that the current laws to prevent noncitizen voting are working as intended—it is extraordinarily rare for noncitizens to break the law by voting in federal elections.” The House measure is sponsored by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who stressed that the bill won’t prevent any legal voters from casting a vote.  “They want to try to kill it because they don’t believe in it,” Roy said of Democrat opponents. “They don’t believe in American sovereignty. They don’t believe in securing the elections and ensuring that only citizens vote.”  The Texas Republican also sought to address any concerns that his fellow conservatives may have. “We will be criticized by some, even on the right, for whether or not this is something Congress should even be doing from a federalism standpoint. I understand that,” Roy said. “Understand that this bill fixes a problem where the federal government was the barrier to states’ being able to ensure that only citizens vote.” Roy also noted that Arizona verifies the citizenship of voters in state and local elections, but not for federal elections, because of existing federal law.  Cleta Mitchell, a senior legal fellow with the Conservative Partnership Institute, emceed the press conference over Zoom. Mitchell referred to recent support for the SAVE Act from entrepreneur Elon Musk, who posted on his social media platform, X, that opponents of the legislation are “traitors.”  Those who oppose this are traitors.All Caps: TRAITORSWhat is the penalty for traitors again? https://t.co/lyREyskPv4— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 5, 2024 The bill also would empower U.S. citizens to bring civil suits against election officials who don’t uphold proof of citizenship requirements for federal elections. It also allows for integrating existing databases at the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to expedite the requirement for states to remove noncitizens from voter rolls.  More than 10 million illegal immigrants and millions more paroled aliens have entered the country since Biden took office in January 2021. The Biden administration has released at least 4.6 million illegal aliens into the United States in addition to 1.8 million known “gotaways,” according to Roy’s office. The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project worked with the journalism site Muckraker to report that noncitizens at a North Carolina apartment complex admitted on camera to being registered to vote.  ? BREAKING: NONCITIZENS ADMIT TO BEING REGISTERED TO VOTE?Footage from @realmuckraker shows non-citizens admitting they are registered to voteA staggering 10% of the people surveyed admitted to thisIf this percentage holds, the 2024 election is in jeopardy pic.twitter.com/j8ux3ydwsH— Oversight Project (@OversightPR) July 4, 2024 They asked residents of the apartment complex: “Are you a U.S. citizen and are you registered to vote?” “Of the 40 people interviewed, four affirmatively admitted to both being a noncitizen and being registered to vote,” Mike Howell, executive director of the Oversight Project, said during the press conference.  “That sample size, if it holds at 10%, is a really troubling matter,” Howell said. “Also, we have proven that in New York, a nonprofit was fraudulently providing residency documents to illegal aliens for $10, with residency being obviously one of the conditions to vote in New York.” House Democrats’ leaders oppose the SAVE Act and claim it would impose “an extreme burden [on] countless Americans” who just want to vote, House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., told caucus members in a memo. Clark added that  “there has been zero evidence of the widespread fraud that this bill purports to target.” Several states make illegal aliens eligible for driver’s licenses and other benefits, providing ample opportunities to register to vote illegally in federal elections.  In 2017, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro Cortes resigned after the state admitted to registering illegal immigrants for several years.  Heritage Action for America, the grassroots arm of The Heritage Foundation, noted that over 70% of Americans say they oppose proposals to allow noncitizens to vote and over 80% support proof of identity at the ballot box. The post House GOP Faces Down Biden Veto Threat on Halting Noncitizen Voting appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said Monday, the Left’s inflammatory attacks on Project 2025 show that it’s “right over the target.” President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign is so desperate to defeat Project 2025 that it spreads direct falsehoods about it, perhaps not expecting the American people to actually examine what the project comprises. The Biden campaign launched a special website dedicated to attacking Project 2025, and posted totally baseless claims about the initiative. “Project 2025 is the plan by Donald Trump’s MAGA Republican allies to give Trump more power over your daily life, gut democratic checks and balances, and consolidate power in the Oval Office if he wins,” the webpage claims. “Trump’s campaign advisors and close allies wrote it—and are doing everything they can to elect him so he can execute their playbook immediately.” As The Heritage Foundation’s Evan Maguire explained recently, Project 2025 developed independently of Trump’s reelection campaign. I wrote the exclusive story introducing Project 2025 to the world back in April 2023, before Trump entered the presidential race. So, What Is Project 2025? Before debunking Biden’s claims, it makes sense to first explain what Project 2025 is. The project would be unnecessary if the federal government operated the way the Constitution stipulates. Under the Constitution, Congress should make laws, the president should sign them, and the courts should resolve disputes about them. In Washington today, however, a vast bureaucracy of alphabet-soup agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and countless others—actually write the regulations that Americans must live by. Sure, Congress passed laws delegating part of its authority to those agencies and could defund them if it chose to do so, and sure, those agencies are technically under the president’s Article II powers to administer the laws, but in practice, these agencies act like a fourth branch of government. While the president heads up the executive branch, bureaucrats in the alphabet soup enjoy many protections that make it difficult for the president to fire them, even if they directly flout his policy objectives. The Trump presidency saw the rise of a hostile “deep state,” where bureaucrats slow-walked the president’s orders, undermined his policies, and leaked to the media, even bragging that they were restraining him from inside the executive branch. Project 2025 aims to prevent that going forward by equipping an incoming president with a comprehensive strategy. Key facets include pointers on how to structure the executive branch, drafts of executive orders to cut the red tape and allow presidents to fire hostile bureaucrats, and a database of commonsense Americans who won’t oppose a conservative president’s agenda. That strategy is designed to bolster the will of the people, as it allows the people’s elected representative—the president—to bring the fourth branch of government to heel and to implement the policy agenda that the American people voted for. Without further ado, here are the biggest whoppers the Biden campaign tells about Project 2025. 1. ‘Terminates the Constitution’ Ironically, the Biden campaign claims that Project 2025 “terminates the Constitution.” While the campaign backs up some of its claims on the website with drop-down menus and explanatory bullet points, it doesn’t even bother backing up this particular claim. Contrary to Biden campaign spin, Project 2025 actually represents an attempt to restore the Constitution, not terminate it. Bringing the administrative state more firmly under the control of the president, whose authority traces directly from the Constitution, could not be further from terminating this quintessential founding document. 2. Gives Trump ‘More Power Over Your Daily Life’ With no sense of irony, the Biden campaign claims Project 2025 aims to “give Trump more power over your daily life.” That’s completely false. Project 2025 aims to weaken the bureaucracy that churns out tens of thousands of pages of rules every year. A more restrained administrative state translates into less control over Americans’ daily lives, not more. 3. ’Guts Democratic Checks and Balances’ The Biden campaign claims Project 2025 “guts democratic checks and balances on presidential power,” but the fine print on the website makes a consequential admission about these checks on Article II powers. The website claims that the project will empower a president “to fire and replace independent civil servants across the government with extreme MAGA loyalists—turning independent government employees with specialized technical expertise, such as the people who keep our food safe, working for the American people into political creatures implementing his extremist agenda.” The campaign complains that “Project 2025 outlines a plan to reclassify thousands of federal workers so they can easily be fired by Trump for simply not doing his wishes.” In other words, it would allow Trump to fire bureaucrats who oppose the people’s elected president, in whose hands the Constitution places “the executive power.” Note: The Biden campaign mentions “democratic checks and balances,” but the actual checks on a president’s power that it aims to protect are technocratic, not democratic. Project 2025 would not undermine Congress’ authority—to pass bills, override vetoes of them, or impeach a president—nor the people’s authority to choose the electors who select a president. Those democratic checks on a president’s power remain, and Project 2025 supports them. Project 2025 aims to make the administrative state more democratic, more receptive to the people’s will expressed in a presidential election. The Biden campaign aims to insulate the administrative state from the people’s will. Its opposition to Project 2025 is anti-democratic. The Smaller Lies In addition to these big-ticket whoppers about Project 2025, the Biden campaign released graphics with claims about specific policy proposals in the “Mandate for Leadership,” the policy document for Project 2025. Among other things, the Biden campaign has falsely claims that Project 2025 would end no-fault divorce, ban abortion without exceptions, eliminate unions, cut Social Security, ban Muslims from entering the country, and completely eliminate the FDA and EPA. MYTHS VS. FACTS ABOUT PROJECT 2025We are not affiliated with former President Trump. We are a coalition of more than 110 conservative groups advocating policy and personnel recommendations.1. End no fault divorce: FALSEDivorce is not mentioned in our policy handbook,… https://t.co/syj1HnCxhP— Project 2025 (@Prjct2025) July 9, 2024 The Biden campaign’s lies come across as a desperate attempt to distract Americans from the president’s horrific debate performance last month and from the many ways that the Left has twisted the administrative state to its purposes. Biden is so insistent on defending the status quo because the Left has already done what he claims Trump is trying to do—leverage the “expertise” of the administrative state to shove its agenda down Americans’ throats without a single vote. Contrary to his spin, reversing this is both democratic and constitutional, not to mention in the best interests of the American people. The post PANTS ON FIRE: 3 Major Biden Whoppers About Project 2025 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Oh My: Jon Stewart's Fed Up With Biden's 'Blatant Bull****'

President Biden’s campaign suffered a massive blow after his disastrous CNN Presidential Debate performance — and now one of his “advisers” has a new attack plan. While this “adviser” isn’t really an adviser, his idea as to how Biden can secure the 2024 presidential election is absolutely golden. “I’ve been working in campaigns like this for quite some time,” the “adviser” whose stage name is Wilfred tells Glenn while wheezing. “I watched the debate on the television set.” Wilfred calls the debate a “catastrophe” and says it reminded him of when he “tried to make a move on Ethel at the prom.” “She seemed to be into it, but she had so many layers of pantaloons, and I was unable to get to the conclusion of the evening, and the sun came up, I was still trying to remove layers,” Wilfred says as Glenn laughs. “All right, so Wilfred, we’re really looking towards the future here on whether he is going to drop out from the campaign, or I mean, what has been decided?” Glenn asks the “adviser.” “The first thing that was decided was that his entire campaign would now be sponsored by Prevagen,” Wilfred explains. “Really if we fill him up to make his internal digestive systems approximately 80% Prevagen, we believe multiple sentences will come out really together.” The idea itself is bulletproof, but that’s not all Wilfred has up his sleeve. “He also beat Medicare,” he tells Glenn proudly, though he has one concern. “I’m concerned that Joe Biden may come off as too youthful for the American people. I don’t know if you’ve noticed lately, but the American people love old candidates. They don’t want people who are coherent,” he explains. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares (R) and 15 other attorneys general have filed an amicus brief on behalf of their respective states asking that the U.S. Supreme Court take up a case regarding schools' covert efforts to transition children into sexually-confused transvestites behind their parents' backs. "Parents have the right to be involved in major decisions affecting their children's lives. This case presents an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to provide much-needed clarity and reaffirm that government officials cannot override parents' fundamental rights simply because they believe they know better," Miyares said in a statement. Background A group of parents in Wisconsin sued the Eau Claire Area School District in 2022 over the guidance it provided to schools and employees regarding how to handle students suffering from delusions about their gender. The guidance, which was confirmed by a district spokesperson at the time, noted that some "transgender, non-binary, and/or gender-nonconforming students are not 'open' at home for reasons that may include safety concerns or lack of acceptance." Accordingly, school personnel were instructed to first discuss the matter with the student before considering discussing the matter with the student's parents. The parents' complaint claimed that the policy "mandates that schools and teachers hide critical information regarding a child's health from his or her parents and to take action specifically designed to alter the child's mental and physical well-being. Specifically, the Policy allows and requires District staff to treat a child as if he or she is the opposite sex, by changing the child's name, pronouns, and intimate facility use, all without the parents' knowledge or consent." Teachers were apparently further instructed that "parents are not entitled to know their kids' identities" and that such "knowledge must be earned." Educators in the district evidently took the guidance to heart, in one case textually informing students, "If your parents aren't accepting of your identity, I'm your mom now." "The obvious purpose of such secrecy is to prevent parents from making critical decisions for their own minor children, from interfering with the school's ideologically-driven activities, from caring for their children, or from freely practicing their religion," read the parents' complaint. "The insidious invasion of parental rights at issue in this case cannot be tolerated by a free people who value liberty." The plaintiffs, represented by the firms America First Legal and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, claimed the district had violated their fundamental parental rights both under the 14th Amendment and under Article 1, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, along with their constitutionally-protected religious freedom. Stephen Miller, president of America First Legal, stressed at the outset "Eau Claire schools have adopted a monstrous plan to secretly 'change' the genders of children as young as 5 — without parental consent — effectively subjecting them to unnatural ideological experiments contrary to their health and biology." Setback The case, Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District, was kicked up through the courts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court ruled on March 7 that the district court was right to dismiss the parents' complaint "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." The court wrote that "Parents Protecting is clear that their members harbor genuine concerns about possible applications of the School District's policy. Unless that policy operates to impose an injury or to create an imminent risk of injury, however — a worry that may never come to pass — the association's concerns do not establish standing to sue and thus do not create a Case or Controversy. The district court had no choice but to dismiss the challenge for lack of Article III subject matter jurisdiction." To the high court Last month, the AFL and WILL filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, stressing that the plaintiff and petitioner in the case — an association of parents who have children in the district — are both subject to the offending policy and directly harmed by it, contrary the conclusion reached by the district and appellate courts. The petition posed the following question: "When a school district adopts an explicit policy to usurp parental decision- making authority over a major health-related decision — and to conceal this from the parents — do parents who are subject to such a policy have standing to challenge it?" 'Government officials cannot interfere with this right — 'perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by' this Court — just because the government officials believe that they know better.' According to the petition, parents are injured in multiple ways, including by the loss of their exclusive decision-making authority over whether a sex-change transition is in their kid's best interest; by their inability to obtain information to which they are entitled, which is a "cognizable 'injury in fact' for purposes of Article III standing"; and by the strain placed on the parent-child relationship introduced by the policy's student-facing invitation to keep secrets from their parents. It indicates also that the "policy facially deprives Petitioner's members of their statutory rights, which presently harms them by making it impossible for them to withhold consent from the application of the Gender Support Plan process to their children. The denial of this right to information, protected by the Constitution and by statute, constitutes concrete harm under Spokeo, Public Citizen, and Akins." The amicus brief The attorneys general for Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and a dozen other states filed an amicus brief in support of the parents in the case, stressing they too have a "compelling interest in protecting parents' fundamental right to make decisions about 'the care, custody, and control of their children.'" "This case presents the opportunity for this Court to reiterate that government officials cannot interfere with this right — 'perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by' this Court — just because the government officials believe that they know better," said the brief. The brief noted that Article III's standing requirement comes down to answering the basic question, "What's it to you?" and that the "answer in this case is plain": Parents have an interest in making decisions about their children and the interference by school officials clearly amounts to injury. It further emphasized that "[s]chool districts have no interest, compelling or otherwise, in wholesale concealment of children's gender transitions from parents, absent any evidence of abuse or neglect. 'Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state.'" Virginia AG Miyares added in a statement, "It is essential that schools work with parents, not against them, to support a child's wellbeing." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The House Judiciary Committee recently released a report obtained by Fox News Digital claiming that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan "violated" former President Donald Trump's "constitutional and legal rights" in the New York criminal trial.In May, a Manhattan jury found the former president guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records, charges filed by Bragg. 'Never had a real shot at a fair trial.'Before the guilty verdict, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland questioning Bragg's appointment of former Department of Justice senior official Matthew Colangelo as one of the lead prosecutors in the case. Jordan claimed that it gave "the perception that the Justice Department is assisting in" the "politicized prosecution" of the former president.While the House Judiciary Committee's investigation into the New York case against Trump is still ongoing, it released a Tuesday report, "Lawfare: How the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and a New York State Judge Violated the Constitutional and Legal Rights of President Donald J. Trump," which examined the "lawfare tactics" and the "two-tiered justice system.""Bragg's prosecution of President Trump was politically motivated, unethically and likely unlawfully focused solely on one person, and 'opened the door for future prosecutions of a former president—or current candidate—that would be widely perceived as politically motivated,'" the report stated.In June, the committee listened to testimony demonstrating that Bragg's case was "riddled with defects," both legal and procedural, the report read."A fundamental principle of the American system of justice is that no individual is above the law. But just as important is the precept that prosecutors prosecute conduct, not individuals. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, however, ran for office on a platform of investigating and prosecuting President Trump, bragging about his extensive experience suing President Trump," the report continued. "Although Bragg was initially hesitant to bring charges once he became district attorney, he faced intense political pressure to do so, including a leaked resignation letter from a special assistant district attorney who attacked Bragg for being too timid." The committee accused Bragg of using an "unconstitutional and unprecedented Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminal liability, in which the jury never had to reach unanimity beyond a reasonable doubt as to each element of the criminal offenses."They further claimed that Trump "never had a real shot at a fair trial in Manhattan," adding that the area is "anything but a neutral jurisdiction.""The Committee's and Select Subcommittee's oversight work is not done, but this interim report presents the facts about how the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and a Manhattan judge worked together to deprive President Donald J. Trump of his constitutional and legal rights," the report added.The case's many defects, the committee stated, "should prompt the New York appellate courts to reverse the verdict."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!