A 15-year-old girl from Bridgeport, West Virginia, is suing the Department of Education, claiming there were a series of incidents in which a boy who competed against her and other girls in track and field events made rape threats against her. According to the girl’s statement, she is currently a ninth-grade student at Bridgeport High School (BHS) who competes in discus, shot put, and the 4 x 100 relay. In sixth through eighth grade, she attended Bridgeport Middle School (BMS), where in seventh grade (the 2021–22 school year), she competed in the 100-meter dash, pole vault, shot put, and discus, and sometimes competed in the 200-meter dash and relay events. “To my surprise, another BMS student named B.P.J. joined the girls’ track and field team,” she noted. “B.P.J. is almost two years younger than me, and one year behind me in school. Because I know B.P.J.’s older brother from school, I knew at the beginning of the 2021–22 school year that B.P.J. is a male who identifies as a girl.” She recalled that initially, she was better than the boy in shot put and discus, but by the end of seventh grade, he threw about the same distance in shot put: around 18–20 feet. “In discus, I typically beat B.P.J.: I threw around 40 feet while B.P.J. threw closer to 30 feet. But in the last meet of the 2021–22 season, B.P.J. suddenly threw almost 20 feet farther: 49’ 7”,” she stated. “By the next school year (2022–23), I could tell that B.P.J. had grown a lot. B.P.J. got taller and threw farther. B.P.J. got a deeper and more masculine voice,” she wrote. In March 2023, B.P.J. finished ahead of the girl at the Connect Bridgeport Invitational in shot put and in discus. In April, B.P.J. beat her at the Pioneer MS Invitational in discus. Later in April, B.P.J. beat her at the Bobcat MS meet in shot put and discus. “B.P.J.’s athletic records show that B.P.J. beat over 50 different female athletes in the 2021–22 school year, displacing several of the female athletes more than once. These records show that B.P.J. beat over 100 different female athletes in the 2022–23 school year, displacing them almost 300 times. I also lost to B.P.J. on four separate occasions that school year,” the lawsuit states. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “B.P.J. made several offensive and inappropriate sexual comments to me,” she recalled. “At first, it did not occur often, and I tried my best to ignore it. But during my final year of middle school, B.P.J. made inappropriate sexual comments a lot more often; it increased throughout that year; and the comments became much more aggressive, vile, and disturbing. Sometimes B.P.J.’s comments were just annoying, like commenting that I have a ‘nice butt.’ But other times, I felt really embarrassed, and I didn’t want to repeat the gross things B.P.J. said to me. During the end of that year, about two to three times per week, B.P.J. would look at me and say ‘suck my d***.’ There were usually other girls around who heard this. I heard B.P.J. say the same thing to my other teammates, too.” “B.P.J. made other more explicit sexual statements that felt threatening to me,” she continued. “At times, B.P.J. told me quietly ‘I’m gonna stick my d*** into your p****.’ And B.P.J. sometimes added ‘and in your a**’ as well. … B.P.J. made these vulgar comments towards me in the locker room, on the track, and in the throwing pit for discus and shotput.” “Most of the time, B.P.J. made these sexual comments at girls’ track practice. Our team walked from Bridgeport Middle School to the High School for track practice, where we would train on the high school track,” she stated. “B.P.J. often popped up beside me as we walked and said these things. Other times, B.P.J. made comments as our team was sitting in the endzone waiting for coaches to get practice going. At least one time, it happened in the girls’ locker room.” “I reported B.P.J.’s sexual comments to my coach and middle school administrators. Initially, the administrators told me that they were investigating, but we never heard back, and nothing changed. From what I saw, B.P.J. got very little or no punishment for saying things that no other student would get away with,” she concluded. “I also worry about the little 6th grade girls who are on the same team as B.P.J. right now,” she wrote. “If I were in 6th grade and had to deal with sexual comments from a biological male two years older than me who was changing in the same locker room as me, I wouldn’t even play sports. It wouldn’t be worth it. My younger sister will be a freshman in high school when B.P.J is a senior. She is a good athlete, but she is very shy, and I can’t imagine how she would feel if B.P.J. said those sexual comments to her while they were competing in sports or changing in the locker room. I do not want that to happen.” Rachel Rouleau of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the girl, stated: The Biden administration’s radical redefinition of sex won’t just rewire our educational system. It means young girls will be forced to undress in front of boys in gym class, girls will share bedrooms with boys on overnight school trips, teachers and students will have to refrain from speaking truthfully about gender identity, and girls will lose their right to fair competition in sports. Our client A.C. has already suffered the humiliation and indignity of being harassed by a male student in the locker room and on her sports team. No one else should have to go through that. But the administration continues to ignore biological reality, science, and common sense. This court deserves to hear from those most severely impacted by the administration’s attempt to rewrite Title IX.

House Republicans, standing with their Senate GOP colleagues in their support of Israel, are reportedly preparing a bill similar to the Senate bill authored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) that would sanction the International Criminal Court if it issues arrest warrants against Israel officials over Israel’s war effort against Hamas. According to House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul (R-TX), the House is preparing a companion bill. The Biden administration revoked a Trump administration executive order that would have held the ICC accountable for such behavior. On April 29, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) released a statement in  which he said: It is disgraceful that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is reportedly planning to issue baseless and illegitimate arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials. Such a lawless action by the ICC would directly undermine U.S. national security interests. If unchallenged by the Biden administration, the ICC could create and assume unprecedented power to issue arrest warrants against American political leaders, American diplomats, and American military personnel, thereby endangering our country’s sovereign authority. Instead of wrongly targeting Israel, the ICC should pursue charges against Iran and its terror proxies, including Hamas, for engaging in horrific war crimes. The Biden Administration must immediately and unequivocally demand that the ICC stand down and the U.S. should use every available tool to prevent such an abomination. In early February, Cotton introduced a bill with Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) to sanction officials and associates of the International Criminal Court (ICC) who investigate or prosecute U.S. troops and officials and allies who do not recognize the authority of the ICC, such as Israel. On April 24, Cotton and 10 other GOP senators sent a letter to the ICC warning them that if they issued international arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, “We will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees and associates, and bar you and your families from the United States.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP The letter noted, “Issuing arrest warrants for the leaders of Israel would not only be unjustified, it would expose your organization’s hypocrisy and double standards. Your office has not issued arrest warrants for Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or any other Iranian official, Syrian President Bashar al Assad or any other Syrian official, or Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh or any other Hamas official. Nor have you issued an arrest warrant for the genocidal General Secretary of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, or any other Chinese official.”

The Left tells a story about America. It goes something like this: Once upon a time, a group of brutal white colonial Christians arrived in North America from a far-off land. They brought with them disease, murder, and rape. They savaged the natives, enslaved people across the earth, and founded a country based on racism and sexism. That country’s founding document — the United States Constitution — was an ode to the propertied class, to sexism and racism, to slavery itself. America has never been able to escape those sins, and only the growth in power of the federal government controlled by people of the Left has been able to carve away at that dark legacy over time — but that legacy will never be erased, except by a complete reshaping of American society and politics. Conservatives tell a different story. European colonists arrived in America in order to establish a country founded on principles of liberty and religious toleration. America is guilty of many sins in its past — but the principles enshrined in the Constitution are eternal and good. The Constitution’s central natural law principles laid forth the notions of individual liberty and rights to one’s own labor — and over time, those rights would be perfected in the United States, not through centralized government, but through good people struggling to bring about change through blood and sacrifice and persuasion. The growth of an overreaching federal government now threatens those very liberties in the name of tearing away at the system upon which our freedoms and prosperity is based. There’s an enormous difference between these stories. It would be foolish not to acknowledge the sins of the past. But it would be far more foolish to throw away America’s glorious history in the name of wiping away the greatest system of government ever devised by man, and crippling the freest philosophy ever implemented in governmental form. Myth 1: The U.S. Constitution is no longer relevant. Fact: The U.S. Constitution is a timeless document. On June 24, 2016, Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals — an appointee of Ronald Reagan — announced that he no longer thought studying the Constitution was worthwhile. After lamenting the encomia for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Posner wrote, “I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21stcentury. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”1 This isn’t rare in the legal world of the Left. Leftists who speak of a “living Constitution” generally mean that the Constitution itself is irrelevant, dated, a vestige of a different time and place. The founders, they suggest, would never have structured our government the way it is if they had only known about iPhones and wireless internet. In 2001, then-State Senator Barack Obama told public radio that it was vital for Americans to “break free” of the Constitution in order to promote government-created “economic justice.” Obama explicitly stated, “We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” By this, Obama meant that the government was not empowered under the Constitution to do much beyond ensuring so-called negative rights: rights that exist because no one can violate them. He wanted so-called positive rights: rights to goods and services provided by others via the government.2 Leftists on the Supreme Court agree with Obama and Posner. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking to Egypt’s Al-Hayat TV, admitted that she didn’t find the United States Constitution particularly inspiring. “I would not look to the US Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said. “I might look at the Constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US Constitution.” The South African Constitution, like most constitutions composed by the political left, guarantees certain rights to other people’s property, services, and treatment. It vaguely guarantees a right to “inherent dignity,” whatever that means. It also guarantees a right to “access to adequate housing,” as provided by the state, and a right to “health care services, including reproductive health care,” among others. So, this should make South Africa a paradise, no? No, actually, the murder rate in South Africa is 32 per 100,000 residents (in the United States, the murder rate is 4.6 per 100,000, by way of contrast); per capita GDP is $5,691.70 (in the United States, it’s $53,041.98). A piece of paper can guarantee you the fruits of other people’s work, but if people aren’t willing to work, the paper isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. The chief reason for that: constitutions that guarantee positive rights demand labor from others. Involuntary servitude is the precondition to positive rights provided by the government. Wealth must be confiscated; property must be taken; services must be forced. And government force invariably ends in societal breakdown: lack of social capital and trust, lack of innovation and drive. The founders recognized that, which is why the Constitution of the United States is a timeless document. The Constitution was created to deal with flaws in human nature, not to cope with technological advancements: we may have better means of communication than we did in 1787, but we don’t have better people. People are the same as they ever were. The founders constructed the Constitution on the basis of three main realizations about human beings. First, they realized that human beings are imperfect, selfish, driven by self-interest. They will go to war with each other to assure the victory of that self-interest. The founders agreed with the central theory of Thomas Hobbes, that without government, man reverted to constant warfare: “No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” But they disagreed with Hobbes that the only way to solve this conundrum was a great and powerful ruler. They believed that such rulers were similarly capable of brutality in their own self-interest. They adopted this philosophy from John Locke, who wrote, “The end of government is the good of mankind; and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny, or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed, when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservation of the properties of their people?” In other words, if rulers invaded the rights of others, they ought to be curbed. So, how could society survive without an all-powerful ruler checking men? By a series of mutual checks and balances. As James Madison famously stated in Federalist #51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Checks and balances were designed to prevent government from overreaching its boundaries; only widespread agreement could overrule such checks and balances. The judiciary was therefore designed not to lord over the executive and legislative branches, but to interpret the law “under the Constitution”; it was checked by its requirement of funding from Congress and execution from the executive branch. The legislative branch was designed to pass laws in concurrence with the Constitution; the president was given the power to veto laws. Congress itself was checked by distribution of power between the House, chosen by population, and the Senate, chosen by state. The executive branch was checked by the legislature; the executive couldn’t create laws or self-fund, and the legislature could always impeach an incipient tyrant. The federal government as a whole was checked by state governments, all of which had their own checks and balances. The structural Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, is the essence of American government. And it has nothing to do with technological progress. It relies on the same vision of human nature held by the founders, and the same vision of human rights: that because you are a human being, you have inviolable rights that cannot be removed from you by majority vote. But the Left despises the Constitution because the Left believes that human nature can change, if only people are granted material wealth. If people are given positive rights by government, they transform, almost magically, into better human beings: less selfish, more giving, altruistic about their time and labor. Marx infamously stated that while animals generated only enough to survive, humans generated excess — and, said Marx, this perverted them into lesser beings. Communism, by confiscating labor and providing for needs, would transform capitalistic people into better people. The state would solve man’s spiritual ills. The American Constitution rejects this materialist notion. And so for well over a century, the Left has attempted to destroy the Constitution in the name of action. Myth 2: America was founded on slavery. Fact: The Northern Founders wanted to abolish slavery. One of the most-uttered myths regarding the United States is that it was “founded on slavery.” This statement is used to justify everything from affirmative action to federal transfer payments to low-income minorities; it’s used as a scapegoat for elevated levels of black crime and for black educational underperformance. It’s also a wild overstatement. Slavery was a grave moral evil. It was also common at the time of the founding. The United States did indeed tolerate slavery, and the southern states fought for the continuation of slavery during the Civil War. But virtually all countries in human history also supported slavery during that time, including African countries shipping Africans to the Americas in chains. The first European country to ban import of slaves to its colonies was Denmark in 1803; Britain only outlawed the Atlantic slave trade in 1807; the United States passed legislation banning the new importation of slaves beginning in 1808. Britain only passed gradual abolition of slavery in 1833; Denmark only abolished slavery in 1846, France in 1848, Brazil in 1851; and the United States in 1862. To pretend that the United States was unique in regard to its history with slavery would be historically ignorant.3 That does not justify American slavery (nothing does), but it does provide vital historical context. From its founding, the United States attempted to come to grips with slavery and phase it out. The state of Vermont was the first sovereign state to abolish slavery, in 1777. During the debate over the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wanted to include a provision that would have condemned King George III for “wag[ing] cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation hither.” Southern states demanded that this provision be removed in return for joining the revolution. Having no choice, Jefferson removed the clause. The Constitution of the United States is frequently seen as enshrining slavery, but the so-called three-fifths clause was an attempt to do the opposite. The whole question of popular apportionment rested on whether to count slaves as full people for purposes of representation. To do so would have put the slaveholding south at a significant advantage: they would have counted slaves in their population, not allowed them to vote, then used their increased representation in order to re-enshrine slavery. As James Madison noted, the delegates from South Carolina fought for blacks to be counted as whole people so as to include them “in the rule of representation, equally with the Whites.” The three-fifths compromise was designed to curb the South’s expansionist tendencies with regard to slavery by preventing them from stacking the electoral deck. The Constitution also allowed slave importation to continue until 1808 — but Congress moved in 1807 to end it there. Then, of course, the United States fought a great and massive Civil War to free the slaves, in which over 620,000 Americans died, nearly half the total number of Americans to die in all wars combined. The economy of the United States was not built on slavery — in fact, the South’s economic power was dismal compared to that of the north, which is why the north was able to overcome the south during the Civil War. Myth 3: Segregation was imposed socially. Fact: Segregation was imposed governmentally. The Left constantly repeats that government is necessary in order to stop discrimination between private parties. Government does intervene to stop uses of force between private parties, of course. But you have no right to my services and I have no right to your services. This argument leads leftists to say that if we don’t allow government to intervene in order to force me to serve you, widespread, rampant discrimination will break out. They often cite Jim Crow in defense of this notion. That’s nonsense. Segregation was governmentally imposed, not socially imposed. The whole reason that government was necessary was so that those who would not abide by social racism were forced to do so. As black economist Walter Williams states, “whenever there is a law on the books, one’s immediate suspicion should be that the law is there because not everyone would behave according to the law’s specifications.” He continues by talking specifically about Jim Crow: From the 1880s into the 1960s, the majority of American states enforced some form of segregation through what were known as Jim Crow laws. . . . The bottom line is that racists cannot trust free markets to racially discriminate… Racists need the force of government to have success.4 Two famous examples show how true this is. In February 1960, four black students in Greensboro, North Carolina, sat down at the counter at Woolworth’s. This was four years before the Civil Rights Act. By July 1960, Woolworth’s lunch counter desegregated itself, after losing $200,000. The market worked. Then there’s the Montgomery bus boycott. In 1955, city ordinances required segregation on buses. Rosa Parks and the NAACP organized a massive boycott that resulted in 40,000 black people refusing to take the buses the day after Parks’ famous refusal to move to the back of the bus. The only reason that the bus company refused to abide by the demands of the boycotters is that they were in negotiations with the city, and the city ordinances prevented them from doing so.5 This isn’t to claim that there aren’t racists who would resist tolerance. But it is to say that the market is better at uprooting such discrimination than the government is without invading the rights of private business owners to choose their clientele. Myth 4: Hoover was a conservative. Fact: Hoover pursued the same policies FDR did. One of the great myths of American economic history is that Republican President Herbert Hoover stymied a recovery from the Great Depression by pursuing conservative economic policies. That simply isn’t true. Hoover actually pursued substantially the same policies FDR did after Hoover lost the 1932 election — FDR just doubled down on them. In 1930, Hoover imposed the so-called Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which crippled global trade; global trade dropped to a small fraction of what it had been when Hoover took office thanks to his protectionist policies, which were designed to boost agricultural prices. He also blew out the federal budget — in 1929, the federal budget was $3.1 billion; by 1932, he had increased it to $4.6 billion, a nearly 50 percent increase. In real dollars, Hoover actually doubled the federal budget, since the Great Depression came along with deflation; his deficits actually ran higher than FDR’s until World War II. Hoover also participated in subsidies to agriculture on a massive scale, tried to pressure firms not to cut workers and wages, and forced the government to pay above-market wages for federal projects. Hoover also pursued government-sponsored loans to states and banks. Hoover also pressed enormous tax increases. Here’s Hoover on his own agenda in 1932: “We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and the Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counter attack ever evolved in the history of the Republic.” And here’s a member of FDR’s own brain trust, according to Steven Horwitz: “When we all burst into Washington . . . we found every essential idea [of the New Deal] enacted in the 100-day Congress in the Hoover administration itself.”6 Myth 5: FDR saved the American economy. Fact: FDR made the Depression great. FDR is on the dime and was elected to four terms as president supposedly thanks to his legacy of single-handedly saving the American economy from the throes of the Great Depression. This is utter hogwash. In fact, FDR’s policies greatly lengthened the Depression and made it far worse than it otherwise had to be. FDR’s own economic ignorance is legendary. According to historian Amity Shlaes, FDR used to tinker with the price of gold arbitrarily. At one point, he raised the price of gold by 21 cents because he said it was a “lucky number, because it’s three times seven.” Henry Morgenthau, part of FDR’s brain trust, said later, “If anybody knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened.” The true reason Democrats think of FDR as a hero is because he was a brutal class warrior who jabbered about “heedless self-interest.”7 But in reality, according to Professors Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian of UCLA’s Department of Economics, FDR’s policies prolonged the depression by at least seven years. Cole explained: President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services. So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies. Not surprisingly, wages were 25 percent above market level, but unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been. Demand stalled because of artificial boosts in prices. Ohanian explains, “By artificially inflating both [prices and wages], the New Deal policies short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.”8 Myth 6: The Great Society made life better for black people. Fact: The Great Society significantly slowed economic progress for black Americans. While the Left likes to blame the stagnant rates of increase in black prosperity on slavery and Jim Crow, the truth is that government involvement is far more to blame. The Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson, touted as a sort of reparations-lite by Johnson allies, actually harmed the black community in significant ways that continue to play out today. According to former Air Force One steward Ronald MacMillan, LBJ pushed the Great Society programs and civil rights bill out of desire to win black votes: “I’ll have them n*****s voting Democratic for two hundred years” he reportedly said.9 In essence, the Great Society drove impoverished black people into dependency. In 1960, 22 percent of black children were born out of wedlock; today, that number is over 70 percent. The single greatest indicator of intergenerational poverty is single motherhood. As Thomas Sowell writes, “What about ghetto riots, crimes in general and murder in particular? What about low levels of labor force participation and high levels of welfare dependency? None of those things was as bad in the first 100 years after slavery as they became in the wake of the policies and notions of the 1960s.”10 According to the left-leaning Brookings Institute, “From 1940 to 1970, black men cut the income gap [with white men] by about a third, and by 1970 they were earning (on average) roughly 60 percent of what white men took in.” Such growth slowed after the implementation of the Great Society. According to economists John J. Donahue III and James Heckman, black men saw “virtually no improvement” in wages relative to white men outside the south from 1963 to 1987 — and those gains in the south weren’t due to the Great Society, but to civil rights legislation.11 Here’s Sowell again: Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the Civil Rights laws and “War on Poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began. Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black “leaders.”12 As for the Great Society itself, poverty rates in the United States have remained largely unchanged: the government spends $9,000 per welfare recipient per year in the United States, and yet Americans had the same poverty rate in 2013 as they did in 1963. Living standards have improved, but dependency has not decreased — except when Republicans attempt to decrease it with acts like welfare reform.13 Myth 7: The Republican Party switched into the racist party. Fact: The Democratic Party remained the racist party. One of the favorite refrains of the Democratic Party, attempting to escape its history of racism, slavery, and segregation, is that in the 1960s, the Republican Party hijacked racism and the Democratic Party abandoned it. Citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as the turning point, Democrats point out that the formerly solid Democratic south moved gradually into the Republican camp, while the Republican north turned more Democratic over time. This, they say, was clearly the result of racism coming to the fore in the GOP. There is little evidence to support this contention. First, according to Professors Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin, “the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth.” The movement toward Republicanism in the south began in the 1950s as the south industrialized. Working-class whites and blacks remained Democrat until the 1990s. Here’s The New York Times reporting: To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t.14 Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics agrees: he says that the GOP gradually increased its support in the south from 1928 to 2010. As Dan McLaughlin summarizes, “As late as 2010, there were still states like Alabama and North Carolina that were voting in their first Republican legislative majorities since Reconstruction — something that would have happened overnight in the late 60s if the partisan realignment had been driven by lockstep white voting loyalties on racial lines.” Second, it was southern Democrats fighting against the Civil Rights movement for the most part. In 1948 and 1968, insurgent Democrats launched anti-civil rights presidential campaigns. Civil rights bills required more Republican than Democratic support.15 Finally, the myth of the southern strategy also suggests that today’s southerners vote for Republicans because they’re more racist than northerners. There’s no evidence to that effect, either. According to Gallup, “Southern Americans’ ratings of race relations are currently about average when compared with those in other parts of the country.” The most segregated areas of the south are in major metropolitan areas — which tend to vote more heavily Democratic than their surrounding areas.16 Myth 8: Americans lost the Vietnam War. Fact: Politicians lost the Vietnam War. In Vietnam, the United States beat the Viet Cong soundly militarily. Then, at the Paris Peace Accords, the Nixon administration determined that it no longer wished to participate in the war, and decided to pull troops. They pledged further military assistance in terms of hardware for the South Vietnamese. Nixon triumphantly announced, in terms rather reminiscent of President Obama’s triumphant Iraq withdrawal announcement 38 years later, “Now that we have achieved an honorable agreement, let us be proud that America did not settle for a peace that would have betrayed our allies, that would have abandoned our prisoners of war, or that would have ended the war for us, but would have continued the war for the 50 million people of Indochina.”17 Upon their election to a Congressional majority in 1974, leftist Democrats promptly decided it would be more palatable to destroy funding for the war than to guarantee the safety of our allies. In 1974, President Richard Nixon requested $1.45 billion in aid to South Vietnam. Instead, Congress spent $700 million. When Gerald Ford requested $300 million, Congress cut him off completely.18 South Vietnam promptly disappeared, with Communists taking over the entire country as well as Cambodia and slaughtering their opponents by the hundreds of thousands, leaving tens of thousands of freedom-loving Vietnamese drifting out to sea to escape the regime. Myth 9: The economy is better because of Democratic presidents. Fact: It’s difficult to credit particular politicians with economic benefits. Democrats and leftists routinely state that they have a better record on the economy than Republicans. In 2016, Hillary Clinton declared that “the economy always does better when there’s a Democrat in the White House.” She has claimed before that Republican presidents are responsible for more recessions, and her husband claimed that since 1961, Democratic presidents have produced 42 million jobs, to just 24 million under Republicans. There’s some truth to these numbers, but they miss the central point: presidents do not create jobs. The private sector creates jobs. The government’s impact on the private sector extends far beyond the executive branch — Congress played a major role, for example, in the fact that President Clinton’s budgets were far more fiscally responsible than his predecessors’ — and international conditions matter a great deal. So, too, do economic policies put in place before Democratic presidents take office — again, to use the Clinton example, the economy had been expanding under George H.W. Bush for 22 months before Bill Clinton even arrived in office. Pretending that the economy can be boiled down to the occupant of the White House is dictatorial thinking at odds with reality. According to Princeton economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, factors outside the control of the president have far more weight on economic matters than presidential policy. The claim that Democrat presidents are good for the economy is a simplistic talking point.19 And if Democrats disagree, ask them why President Trump’s job creation record was so good in his first year. Will they give him credit, or rightly say that the economy is a bit more complicated than that? Myth 10: George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. Fact: Intelligence agencies gave Bush flawed information. The common wisdom now suggests that President George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This silliness has been parroted by members of the Left (Michael Moore) and the Right (Donald Trump). The reality is more complicated: The entire international intelligence community was convinced that Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; Hussein himself telegraphed such intentions; there’s even evidence that WMD were smuggled out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks leading up to war. First off, such a lie would presuppose a motive for the lie. If you wanted to invade a country with a serious record of human rights abuses and foreign invasions, would you really rely on shoddy arguments to do so, knowing they would immediately be debunked upon conquering that country? Those who scream “war for oil” never seem to acknowledge that the United States didn’t get any oil out of the deal, or that Bush could have come up with a far more plausible reason to invade than phantom WMD. Second, everybody — everybody — agreed about WMD in Iraq. Here’s Bill Clinton in February 1998: “The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.” Here’s Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in 1998: “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Here’s a letter to Clinton signed by Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and 25 others in October 1998: “We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” In 2004, a Senate Intelligence Committee report openly stated, “The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so.”20 Third, weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Here’s The New York Times in October 2014: From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule. In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.21 Fourth, Hussein acted as though he was developing weapons for years. According to former FBI Agent George Piro, who interviewed Hussein after his capture, Hussein wanted Iran to believe he had WMD so they wouldn’t attack him; he believed that he had to deceive the West about WMD in order to deceive Iran.22 Finally, there is credible evidence to suggest that Hussein smuggled certain WMD materials across the border into Syria. David Kay, former head of the Iraqi Survey Group, said, “There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war — satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don’t know what was moved.”23 That assessment was supported by Lt. Gen. James Clapper, later to be the Director of National Intelligence under President Obama.24 Myth 11: Barack Obama presided over a massive economic recovery. Fact: Obama presided over the weakest economic recovery in modern history. Advocates for President Obama say that he inherited a rotten economy from George W. Bush, proceeded to save it, and then ushered in a massive boom in growth and prosperity. And while it is true that George W. Bush left Obama with a mess, the main driver in alleviating that mess — for good or ill — was not Obama’s stimulus package or auto bailouts, but the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) pushed by Bush into law in October 2008. There is a good case to be made that TARP never should have been attempted by the feds, and that other institutions should have been allowed to buy up the assets destroyed by the recession. But there’s no question that TARP was the key move made during the period of the crash. By the time Obama took office, the economy was already bottoming out. By the second quarter of 2009, the economy was already on the rebound, and moved into positive territory in terms of GDP growth by Q3 of 2009. Obama then proceeded to place heavy restrictions on banks and other financial institutions, raise taxes, increase spending, and create a wildly unpredictable regulatory climate. The result: the weakest peacetime recovery in modern American history. From 2009 to July 2016, the economy grew at a mere 2.1 percent annual rate, the worst since 1949.25Before Obama, the average growth rate during a recovery was 4.3 percent. Americans dropped out of the work force at record rates, dumping the labor participation rate to a 40-year low. Obama acolytes said that his economy created 15 million jobs — but the working age population grew by 15.8 million during that same period. Entrepreneurial activity has tanked, dropping 14 percent in 2014 and 12 percent in 2015. Real household family income dropped from $57,000 in 2007 to $53,700 in 2014; homeownership also dropped. By the end of his presidency,over 43 million Americans were on food stamps.26 Obama did oversee a massive stock market increase, but that’s largely because companies socked away their profits in savings rather than hiring, which drives up stock prices; they’d rather save or buy back stock than expend thanks to Obama’s regulatory climate. As The Atlantic reported, “Over the past decade, the companies that make up the S&P 500 have spent an astounding 54 percent of profits on stock buybacks. Last year alone, U.S. corporations spent about $700 billion, or roughly 4 percent of GDP, to prop up their share prices by repurchasing their own stock.”27 *** Notes Richard A. Posner, “Supreme Court Breakfast Table,” Slate.com, June 24, 2016 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/su-preme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/law_school_professors_need_more_practi-cal_experience.html Paul Roderick Gregory, “Why the Fuss? Obama Has Long Been On Record In Favor Of Redistribution,” Forbes.com, September 23, 2012 http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/09/23/why-the-fuss-obama-has-long-been-on-record-in-favor-of-redistribution/#2aa890225db6 “CHRONOLOGY – Who banned slavery when?,” Reuters.com, March 22, 2007 http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-slavery-idUSL1561464920070322 Walter E. Williams, “Discrimination and Segregation,” Creators.com, October 5, 2016 https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/10/16/discrimination-and-segregation Mills Thorton III, Dividing Lines: Municipal Politics and the Struggle for Civil Rights in Montgomery, Birmingham, and Selma (University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa: 2002), 68. Steven Horwitz, “Hoover’s Economic Policies,” The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HooversEconomicPolicies.html Ben Shapiro, “The Big Lie About The Great Depression,” Creators.com, June 26, 2007 https://www.creators.com/read/ben-shapiro/06/07/the-big-lie-about-the-great-depression Meg Sullivan, “FDR’s policies prolonged the Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate,” UCLA.edu, August 10, 2004 http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409 Kenneth T. Walsh, Air Force One (Hyperion Books, 2003) Thomas Sowell, “The Scapegoat for Strife in the Black Community,” NationalReview.com, July 7, 2015 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420807/slavery-didnt-cause-todays-black-problems-welfare-did Abigail Thernstrom and Stephan Thernstrom, “Black Progress: how far we’ve come, and how far we have to go,” Brookings.edu, March 1, 1998 https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-progress-how-far-weve-come-and-how-far-we-have-to-go/ Thomas Sowell, “A Legacy of Liberalism,” NationalReview.com, November 18, 2014 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392842/legacy-liberalism-thomas-sowell Robert Rector, “The War on Poverty: 50 years of failure,” Heritage.org, September 23, 2014 http://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/the-war-poverty-50-years-failure Clay Risen, “The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy,’” NYTimes.com, December 10, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html Dan McLaughlin, “The Southern Strategy Myth And The Lost Majority,” RedState.com, July 11, 2012 http://www.redstate.com/diary/Dan_McLaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern-strategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/ “US Race Relations by Region: The South,” Gallup.com, November 19, 2002 http://www.gallup.com/poll/7234/us-race-relations-region-south.aspx Larry Berman, “No Peace, No Honor: Nixon, Kissinger, and Betrayal in Vietnam,” WashingtonPost.com, July 27, 2001 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/nopeacenohonor.htm “Ken Hughes: The Myth That Congress Cut Off Funding For South Vietnam,” HistoryNewsNetwork.org, April 28, 2010 http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126150 Anthony Cave, “Does the economy always do better under Democratic presidents?,” PolitiFact.com, April 6, 2016 http://www.PolitiFact.com/arizona/statements/2016/apr/06/hillary-clinton/does-economy-always-do-better-under-democratic-pre/ James Agresti, “Did Bush Lie About Weapons of Mass Destruction?,” CNSNews.com, February 18, 2016 http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/james-agresti/did-bush-lie-about-weapons-mass-destruction J. Chivers, “The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons,” The New York Times, October 14, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html Ronald Kessler, “Saddam Hussein Admitted He Planned on Nuclear Weapons,” Newsmax.com, September 7, 2010 http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/saddamhusseiniraqwmd/2010/09/07/id/369348/ “Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs,” CNN.com, January 26, 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/ Bill Gertz, “Syria Storing Iraq’s WMDs,” FrontPageMag.com, October 29, 2003 < http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262694/archives-syria-storing-iraqs-wmds-bill-gertz> Eric Morath, “Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era,” Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2016 http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/ Aaron Bandler, “7 Facts That Show Obama’s Economic Recovery Has Been AWFUL,” DailyWire.com, August 1, 2016 http://www.dailywire.com/news/7970/7-facts-show-obamas-economic-recovery-has-been-aaron-bandler Nick Hanauer, “Stock Buybacks Are Killing the American Economy,” TheAtlantic.com, February 8, 2015 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/kill-stock-buyback-to-save-the-american-economy/385259/

The man who was caught on livestream allegedly attempting to gun down a pastor in Pennsylvania on Sunday was charged with the fatal shooting of his cousin, which authorities believe took place hours before he pointed his firearm at the pastor of Jesus Dwelling Place Church. Authorities charged 26-year-old Bernard Polite with homicide on Tuesday after the body of 56-year-old Derek Polite, Bernard’s cousin, was found in his home on Sunday night, The New York Post reported. Police said that Derek Polite’s relatives went to his home to check on him after they saw the video of Bernard Polite allegedly attempting to shoot Pastor Glenn Germany. “Through witness interviews, detectives learned Bernard Polite was seen pacing outside the residence the morning of May 5, and later a neighbor reported hearing a noise which could have been a gunshot at approximately 10:00 am,” Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, authorities said. A bullet found inside Derek Polite’s home matched the firearm taken from his cousin after police apprehended him at the church, according to authorities. There were around 25 people in the church when Bernard Polite calmly walked toward Germany and pointed his handgun at him. Germany said Polite’s gun “clicked” as the pastor dove behind the pulpit. “He pulled the gun; it clicked,” Germany said, according to WPXI. “You heard him shoot it. God jammed the gun so the bullet didn’t come out.” Man tries to shoot pastor but gun miraculously jams, God is so great. pic.twitter.com/ZTrgnvjBjU — Keimos (@keimos_) May 7, 2024 After Polite’s gun seemingly failed to fire, Deacon Clarence McCallister was seen on video tackling Polite to the ground before Germany got back up and helped McCallister keep the gunman pinned while wrestling his gun away from him. Germany said that Polite told him, “The spirits were in my mind. They got in my mind and told me to shoot the pastor.” “He actually apologized to me,” Germany added. “I told him that ‘I forgive you and want you to know I love you,’ but yes, I definitely forgave him.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Polite has also been charged with aggravated assault and attempted homicide for his actions at the church, the Post reported. He is being held in the Allegheny County Jail.

Boy Scouts of America announced on Tuesday that it will undergo a rebrand to be more “inclusive.”  The national scouting organization underwent a major change in 2018 when it started allowing girls to join the Cub Scouts, which is for children aged 7 to 10. The following year, the Boy Scouts program for older kids ages 11 to 17 began admitting young women. The new name will reflect these changes as the group, which formerly switched to “Scouts BSA” will now rebrand as “Scouting America,” effective February 8, 2025, the 115th anniversary of the organization. BSA President and CEO Roger A. Krone said the name change was made in part to encourage girls to join the program since it will no longer have the name “boy” in it.  “While this may be a surprise to some of you, for us this is a straightforward evolution and the next natural step in ensuring all American youth feel welcomed and recognized in an organization that is meant to serve all Americans,” Krone said in a press release about the name change, per CNN.  The CEO added that the change will not alter the organization’s mission of preparing “young people over their lives to make ethical and moral choices by instilling the scout oath, and the scout law. America’s values are scouting values.” The change to allow girls into Boy Scouts has been mired in controversy. Besides the backlash from leaders and participants, Girl Scouts filed a federal lawsuit claiming they were entitled to the sole use of the term “scout” when referencing leadership opportunities for girls after BSA started using the word “scout” more generally. The courts ruled in favor of BSA, saying they did not violate the Girls Scouts’ trademark. “The benefit of the single-gender environment has been well-documented by educators, scholars, and other girl- and youth-serving organizations,” Girl Scouts said in a press release at the time, per Forbes. More than 1 million children are enrolled in Boys Scouts of America, with 176,234 girls and young women represented in that number. BSA said in a news release that more than 6,000 young women earned the prestigious Eagle Scout rank, CNN reported. Bob Brady, a scout leader in New Jersey, explained his decision to form an all-girls BSA troop.  “Five and a half years after we started, you see people in town who see us marching a parade, doing a service project saying ‘Girls can be Scouts? It’s called Boy Scouts,’” Brady said during a news conference. “It takes some explaining to do… so I think this is gonna be great to help with recruiting and let everyone know the inclusive program that we’ve become over the last decade.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “Young girls, young boys, there’s nothing about the Scout oath or a law that is inherently masculine or inherently feminine and applies across the board. Young girls in 2024 like to go camping, they like to go hiking,” he continued. “You know what, I’ve had more moms and women tell me over the last five or six years, I wish I had the opportunity to be in scouts when I was a kid.”

A House hearing that was set to feature D.C. Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser testifying about the response to an anti-Israel protest encampment at George Washington University has been canceled after police made dozens of arrests at the site on Wednesday. “Following the Metropolitan Police Department finally clearing out the unlawful encampment on GW’s campus, I am very pleased to announce that the hearing with Mayor Bowser has been canceled,” House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) announced just hours before the event had been scheduled to take place on Capitol Hill. “I had a good conversation with Mayor Bowser. I thanked her for finally clearing the trespassers off the GW Campus. It was unfortunate the situation at GW forced the Oversight Committee to act; however it was apparent that the DC police force was not going to do their job,” Comer added. Comer and other House Republicans visited George Washington University last week and called on Bowser and the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to clear out the encampment of protesters after D.C. police rejected a request from university officials to crack down on the demonstration. The hearing on Wednesday was meant to conduct oversight on the city’s response to “unlawful activity and anti-Semitism,” but plans changed when police moved in on the encampment in the early morning and made at least 33 arrests — with authorities citing a “gradual escalation in the volatility of the protest” on campus. “After meeting with GW leadership and touring the encampment, we decided to hold a public hearing to get answers as to why the Mayor would not uphold the law,” Comer said. “I am pleased that the potential Oversight hearing led to swift action by Mayor Bowser and MPD Chief [Pamela] Smith. We will continue to hold D.C. officials accountable to ensure our nation’s capital is safe for all.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP The GOP-led House has engaged in a multi-committee effort to combat anti-Semitism on university campuses after protests in response to the Israel-Hamas war sprung up at colleges across the country. Last week, the chamber passed an anti-Semitism definition bill meant to guide enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws for educational programs. In response to the hearing on the GW protest encampment being cancelled, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) declared on X, “It shouldn’t have taken the threat of a Congressional hearing for DC Mayor Bowser to finally allow DC Police to respond to George Washington University’s call for them to clear the anti-Semitic and unlawful encampments. It should’ve been done on Day 1.”

Pro-Hamas activists at the George Washington University Encampment, who had previously defaced the George Washington statue on the campus with a keffiyeh and a Palestinian flag, projected flames onto the American flag with incendiary messages condemning the United States. Those messages included, “Gaza lights the spark that will set the empire ablaze,” “Long live the Student Intifada,” “Down with the Settler-State,” “Glory to the Martyrs of Palestine,” and one that quoted the notorious Gaza Health Ministry’s claims about the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza: “Stained with the Blood of 44,000 Palestinians.” Other messages included "Long live the Student Intifada" "Down with the Settler-State" "Glory to the Martyrs of Palestine" "Stained with the Blood of 44,000 Palestinians" pic.twitter.com/MMUD2RJTiv — Stu (@thestustustudio) May 8, 2024 “For days, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and the Metropolitan Police Department had resisted pressure to clear the demonstration and said peaceful protests were allowed,” NBC Washington noted. Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser finally ordered the D.C. police to clear the encampment — which had been initiated as far back as April 25 — early Wednesday morning after she had been asked to speak at a congressional hearing. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise noted, “It shouldn’t have taken the threat of a Congressional hearing for DC Mayor Bowser to finally allow DC Police to respond to George Washington University’s call for them to clear the anti-Semitic and unlawful encampments. It should’ve been done on Day 1.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP It shouldn’t have taken the threat of a Congressional hearing for DC Mayor Bowser to finally allow DC Police to respond to George Washington University’s call for them to clear the anti-Semitic and unlawful encampments. It should’ve been done on Day 1. https://t.co/2J5LzR58wr — Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) May 8, 2024 House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-KY) stated, “Following the Metropolitan Police Department finally clearing out the unlawful encampment on GW’s campus, I am very pleased to announce that the hearing with Mayor Bowser has been canceled. I had a good conversation with Mayor Bowser: I thanked her for finally clearing the trespassers off the GW Campus. It was unfortunate the situation at GW forced the Oversight Committee to act; however it was apparent that the DC police force was not going to do their job. Therefore, after meeting with GW leadership and touring the encampment, we decided to hold a public hearing to get answers as to why the Mayor would not uphold the law. I am pleased that the potential Oversight hearing led to swift action by Mayor Bowser and action by Mayor Bowser and MPD Chief Smith. We will continue to hold D.C. officials accountable to ensure our nation’s capital is safe for all.” ?Following the Metropolitan Police Department finally clearing out the unlawful encampment on GW’s campus, I am very pleased to announce that the hearing with DC Mayor Bowser has been canceled.@GOPoversight will continue to hold DC officials accountable. Statement below.? pic.twitter.com/IVkgdktwwr — Rep. James Comer (@RepJamesComer) May 8, 2024

NFL star Travis Kelce is working on another entertainment project.  The 34-year-old Kansas City Chiefs tight end just signed on for a role in the new Ryan Murphy horror series for FX, Grotesquerie. According to Deadline, not many details are available yet, except that Niecy Nash-Betts, Courtney B. Vance, and Lesley Manville will also star in it. Murphy is working on “Grotesquerie” alongside frequent collaborators Jon Robin Baitz and Joe Baken. The showrunner released an all-text teaser in February which included audio of Nash-Betts’ character speaking.    View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Ryan Murphy Productions (@ryanmurphyproductions) “I don’t know when it started, I can’t put my finger on it, but it’s different now. There’s been a shift, like something’s opening up in the world — a kind of hole that descends into a nothingness,” she can be heard saying.  “You say, ‘Well, hon, evil has always existed.’ You cite some statistic about how the world is getting better. Less murder. Less global horror. ‘Never been a better time to be alive.’ It’s not getting better! Something’s happening around us, and nobody sees it but me,” the teaser concludes. Murphy is best known for popular projects including “American Horror Story,” “Nip/Tuck,” “Glee,” “American Crime Story,” “Pose,” “9-1-1,” and “Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story.” Kelce has been expanding his repertoire beyond football, including participating in his reality dating series “Catching Kelce,” which ran for one season in 2016. The athlete also just signed on to host Amazon’s “Are You Smarter Than a Celebrity?” game show. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Kelce recently worked as an executive producer on the indie film “My Dead Friend Zoe,” which premiered at SXSW this spring. He will also serve as producer of the upcoming documentary “King Pleasure,” which is a documentary about artist Jean-Michel Basquiat, the outlet noted. Kelce hosted “Saturday Night Live” in March 2023. He also hosts a podcast, “New Heights” with his brother, retired Philadelphia Eagles player Jason Kelce. Kelce has been making headlines most frequently thanks to his high-profile relationship with Taylor Swift. The two have been spotted being affectionate in public on multiple occasions, which is a departure from how Swift usually behaves with the men she dates. 

The trial of Richard Allen, who is accused of killing two Delphi, Indiana, teenagers back in 2017, has been pushed back to October. Jury selection was scheduled to begin next week, but on Tuesday, Special Judge Fran Gull accepted a defense attorney’s request to waive Allen’s right to a speedy trial, WTHR reported. Allen’s defense attorneys had asked for 15 days to present the case and said if Gull wouldn’t allow that in May, the trial could be moved to a later date. “If you can’t try this case in one month, there’s something wrong,” Gull told Allen’s attorneys at the hearing, according to WTHR. “You don’t know anything about this case,” Allen’s attorney, Brad Rozzi, responded. The exchange highlighted a contentious relationship between the judge and Allen’s defense attorneys. Gull had previously forced Rozzi and Allen’s other attorney, Andrew Baldwin, to withdraw from the case by threatening to embarrass them in open court. The attorneys took the case to the Indiana Supreme Court and were reinstated, but their request to remove Gull as judge was denied. At the hearing on Tuesday, Baldwin also introduced a motion again requesting that Gull be removed from the case. Rozzi argued that it was not practical for the trial to start so soon, with issues like whether the jury will hear Allen’s jailhouse confessions – which the defense contends came under duress – still pending. He suggested that no end date be set for the trial. “We’re not saying we’re not ready – we’re just saying we don’t want you to bookend this,” Rozzi said multiple times during the hearing. The new trial will run from October 15 to November 15, Fox 59 reported, and three days of pretrial evidence hearings will take place between May 21 and May 23. The hearing came just a week after Gull declined to hold Baldwin and Rozzi in contempt but called them “incompetent.” Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland had accused defense attorneys Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi of contempt of court due to an evidence leak and allegations they violated a gag order, Fox 59 reported. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Gull said in her ruling that McLeland “proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defense counsel was sloppy, negligent and incompetent in their handling of discovery material.” However, she added that the prosecutor failed to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the attorneys were “willful and intentional” in their actions. Gull also agreed with the defense attorneys that they didn’t violate the gag order because it was put in place after they made the remarks McLeland claimed violated it. Allen was charged in October 2022 with two counts of murder while committing or attempting to commit the kidnapping of 13-year-old Abby Williams and 14-year-old Libby German on a hiking trail in 2017. In late January, McLeland filed a request to amend the charges to include two additional counts of murder and two counts of kidnapping, WTHR reported.

President Joe Biden’s Small Business Administration (SBA) was subpoenaed by the House Committee on Small Business on Tuesday over alleged efforts to “register Democrat voters” in Michigan, a vital battleground state in the 2024 election. House Republican leaders on the Small Business Committee said they issued two subpoenas for SBA officials after “they failed to comply with an investigation into potential electioneering activities” allegedly carried out by the agency. SBA Special Advisor Tyler Robinson and Chief of Staff Arthur Plews were subpoenaed after they didn’t appear for transcribed interviews with the committee, Fox News reported. The Biden administration officials are also accused of failing to hand over documents related to an alleged effort to divert “resources away from assisting Main Street so it can register Democrat voters.” “The fact that we are having to issue subpoenas to speak with SBA officials is extremely disappointing,” said House Small Business Committee Chairman Roger Williams (R-TX) said it’s “unfortunate” that the subpoenas had to be issued, but added, “The American people deserve answers and transparency on the electioneering activities of the SBA and how they have or plan to insert themselves in the upcoming federal elections.” “The SBA’s sole mission is to help Main Street thrive and grow, and they have repeatedly strayed from that mission to pursue outside political objectives,” Williams added. “It’s unfortunate that we have arrived at this point, but this Committee is determined to get answers on behalf of the American people.” The House committee said it was the first time in history that it had subpoenaed the SBA, according to Fox News. Republicans on the Small Business Committee believe that a recent memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Michigan Department of State announced by the SBA could be unconstitutional. The MOU was labeled a “first-of-its-kind collaboration” intended to “promote civic engagement and voter registration in Michigan.” The voter registration collaboration between the SBA and the Michigan state government is supposed to run through the end of 2035. A March press release from the Michigan Department of State announced its agreement with the SBA and said it would “create a unique URL for the SBA to use to drive online visitors to register to vote.” “The SBA’s Michigan field office may also allow MDOS officials to conduct in-person voter registration at the SBA’s small business outreach events. Michigan boasts a thriving small business community, with more than 900,000 small businesses that employ 1.9 million Michiganders,” the press release added. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Michigan’s collaboration with the SBA stems from an executive order issued by President Biden shortly after he took office, requiring federal agencies to “consider ways to expand citizens’ opportunities to register to vote and to obtain information about, and participate in, the electoral process.” Michigan could play a major role in deciding who wins a second term in the White House in November. Currently, former President Donald Trump leads Biden in the polling in Michigan by just over one point, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. Biden faces on-the-ground problems in the battleground state as Michigan’s large population of Muslim voters, who typically vote Democrat, have opposed the president’s handling of the war between Israel and Hamas. The president won the state by more than 154,000 votes in 2020, but in this year’s Democratic primary, more than 100,000 people voted “uncommitted,” raising alarms within the party. “The Biden Admin is spending taxpayer dollars to help him win a battleground state,” said Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA), who chairs the Economic Growth, Tax, and Capital Access Subcommittee. “@SBAgov engaging in voter registration efforts in Dem cities is a complete abuse of taxpayer dollars. @HouseSmallBiz is fighting to end these blatantly political acts.”