House Republicans are standing up to what they call a push by the United Nations and its World Health Organization to extinguish U.S. sovereignty and free speech. Reps. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., and Bob Good, R-Va., led a press conference with fellow GOP congressmen on the first day of Constitution Week to oppose ongoing initiatives of the U.N. and the WHO, one of its component organizations. Good said the Biden-Harris administration wants America to be subordinated to and governed by the U.N. World Health Assembly and the World Health Organization. “They seek to facilitate the evolution of the U.N. from an international cooperative body to an international governing body,” Good said at the Tuesday press conference. Good said he is shocked by the lack of attention to the issue in the news media. “This is the most important issue [but it’s] getting the least amount of attention relative to its importance and its impact on our country and on the American people,” the Virginia Republican said. This weekend, the United Nations will host a conference called “Summit of the Future” to discuss three proposed international agreements: the Pact for the Future, the Declaration on Future Generations, and the Global Digital Compact. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres produced a report in 2021 called “Our Common Agenda,” which used COVID-19 as justification for increasing the U.N.’s power to address world crises because it wasn’t feasible to rely on member nations to do the right thing. The Pact for the Future includes an “emergency platform” that would give Guterres the power as U.N. chief to address what the agreement calls “global shocks.” These global shocks, the agreement says, include large-scale climatic or environmental events that cause major socioeconomic disruptions and/or environmental degradation; future pandemics with cascading secondary impacts; high-impact events involving a biological agent (deliberate or accidental); events leading to disruptions to global flows of goods, people or finance; large-scale destructive and/or disruptive activity in cyberspace or disruptions to global digital connectivity; a major event in outer space that causes severe disruptions to one or several critical systems on Earth; [and] unforeseen risks (‘black swan’ events). “That’s enough examples and enough reasons for them to get involved pretty much whenever and wherever they want to,” Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., told reporters Tuesday. “I hope that this body and the Senate continues to reject, push back, and stop this agreement and this push by this administration to sell our sovereignty to globalists,” Crane said. The U.N.’s Declaration on Future Generations advocates a future free of inequality. The document says a prosperous future can be guaranteed “by eliminating the intergenerational transmission of poverty and hunger, inequality and injustice.” The Global Digital Compact declares the U.N.’s power to regulate technology, use AI to advance “social justice,” stop misinformation and disinformation, and create standards to which everyone must adhere. According to its Common Agenda document, the U.N. will introduce “accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content” and promote “regulation of artificial intelligence,” or AI. The global organization’s document states that with the internet comes the “ability to cause large-scale disinformation and undermine scientifically established facts [that] is an existential risk to humanity.” In bold text, the U.N. document says that in defending the right to freedom of expression, societies must develop a “consensus on the public good of facts, science and knowledge.” It isn’t clear how such a consensus would be reached without Americans handing over free speech rights to the U.N., the Republican lawmakers said. In 2005, the 194 member nations of the WHO, the U.S. included, adopted International Health Regulations. In 2022, after the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to enable WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to declare an “intermediate public health alert” in any member nation. This became known as the “pandemic agreement.” For several years now, the WHO—and Tedros in particular—has been criticized for not pressing China on its role in creating the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Since the WHO’s proposed pandemic agreement isn’t a formal treaty, the Biden-Harris administration’s ambassador to the world body, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, could vote to approve it without the pact’s first going through the U.S. Senate. Last week, however, the House passed a bill (HR 1425) that would require “any convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached by the World Health Assembly to be subject to Senate ratification.” The bill still has to pass the Senate. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, speaks about U.N. policies at GOP lawmakers’ Tuesday press conference. (Christina Lewis/The Daily Signal) Kristen Ullman, president of the conservative group Eagle Forum, said she is grateful for House Republicans who are doing their constitutional duty to decide what laws Americans will live under. “The United Nations and the WHO want to become the lawmaking body to tell us what to do,” Ullman said. America’s sovereignty is at stake, Norman told The Daily Signal. “It’s time for America to stand up for America and not cede our power that we rightfully have,” the South Carolina Republican said. “We’re the number one democracy in the world today, and we’ve got to protect our interests.” Ken McIntyre contributed to this report. The post UN Policies Would Surrender America’s Sovereignty to World Government, GOP Lawmakers Warn appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Five Republican US lawmakers from both the House and the Senate have written to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, a Democrat, arguing in favor of new rules that would deny, or revoke existing visas to foreign officials considered to be acting against free speech principles. The letter’s signatories have Brazil’s current authorities, and specifically, justice of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) Alexandre de Moraes in mind – as well as other members of this court considered as complicit in the anti-free speech behavior. We obtained a copy of the letter for you here. Alexandre de Moraes, the letter spells it out, is “acting as a totalitarian dictator.” Strong words, to say the least – yet the group of US lawmakers describe Moraes as having a history of curbing free speech – not least at home, in what the letter says are Brazil’s conservative figures and groups, including opposition politicians and journalists. But this is also yet another chapter in the Moraes vs. X saga. The letter states that X has been “unjustly targeted” when Moraes recently ordered it blocked in Brazil on what the US lawmakers see as questionable legal grounds. The letter makes a point of the global significance of Brazil – arguably Latin America’s most impactful country, and, “one of the world’s largest democracies.” Such actions, the letter’s authors argue, are ultimately a threat to the US national security, in terms of making sure that visitors (at least, high profile ones, it seems) to the US “do not actively seek to undermine democratic processes or institutions.” Such actions, they continue, have the effect of creating a dangerous precedent for the West as a whole. By introducing measures like visa denial and revoking against those believed to be compromising the democratic status of Brazil, the US lawmakers hope to “keep it that way.” One of the letter’s signatories, Congresswoman and Western Hemisphere Subcommittee Chairwoman Maria Elvira Salazar, just this week, along with Congressman Darrell Issa, introduced legislation that would prevent foreign officials whose policies and actions are found to be violating the First Amendment from entering the US. We obtained a copy of the bill for you here. Once again, Moraes is given as an example of why such measures (“No Censors on our Shores Act”) are necessary. “Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes is the vanguard of an international assault on freedom of speech against American citizens like Elon Musk,” Salazar stated on her website. Still – writing to the current White House, while introducing legislation called, “No Censors on our Shores” – may, at this point, look quite naive. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post US Lawmakers Call Out Brazil’s Free Speech Crackdown, Propose Denying VISAs to Free Speech Antagonists appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Alaskan Man Charged for Threats to Assassinate Supreme Court Justices (Update: He Wanted Trump Dead Too)

Iran Election Interference in Full Swing

A Republican congresswoman owned a crowd of screaming hamassholes with only one question this week. “Do you have your pagers with you?” Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) asked the swarm of rowdy terrorist supporters harassing her outside the Capitol building, yesterday. Her comeback came in response to the mob asking her if she thinks it’s “self defense what Israel did with the pagers.” They were demonstrating against a second day of defensive attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon, where hundreds of explosives were placed inside numerous pager devices terrorists used to communicate. Israel neither confirmed nor denied responsibility, but indicated its war against terrorism is “moving north.” “Yeah? You threatened us?” one butthurt member of the mob replied as she walked away. “You find it amusing though…huh? Joking about my devices exploding and injuring or killing me?” he continued.  It is mind boggling why he has anything to worry about… as long as he’s not a member of the terrorist organization, of course.  “I don’t think murder and death is a laughing matter ma’am,” this demonstrator continued. But his ilk of terror sympathizers found it quite funny when Hamas murdered nearly 1,200 men, women and children, raping many victims on October 7, 2023. Related: Online Mob Fails to 'Cancel' Movie Critic for Daring to Review Matt Walsh's 'Am I Racist?' Hageman’s response turned into a viral social media video posted by the barren women of Code Pink as an attempt to "cancel" her. But Hageman ignored their intimidation tactics and has not backed down. Follow MRCTV on X! “Do you have your pager on you?” — @RepHageman today in response to a constituent asking about Israel’s attacks on Lebanon which killed two children. pic.twitter.com/Anot5mCdeP — CODEPINK (@codepink) September 18, 2024

It is a fact that under the governorship of Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, Minnesota removed a requirement that babies that survived abortions be given life-saving care. However, PolitiFact still slapped a “false” label on the claim on Wednesday. The unfortunate victim of PolitiFact’s censorship was Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, who sought to debunk ABC debate moderator Linsey Davis on Facebook, “In three more states children born alive after an abortion had legal rights that governors—like Tim Walz—repealed. Medical personnel have testified of babies being left to die or gruesomely killed after being born alive following a failed abortion.” Sara Swann notes that prior to 2023, Minnesota law required, “All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant." The new language “was updated to instead say medical personnel must care for the infant who is born alive.’" The absence of “preserve the life” should affirm Perkins’s claim, but Swann tries to avoid that conclusion by arguing, “The law’s updated version, however, kept the provision that said, ‘An infant who is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.’" That doesn’t disprove anything. It allows for doctors to claim comfort care is the same as life-saving care because they assume the baby will die anyway. Swann then introduced readers to law professor Laura Hermer, who claimed the repealed law “made it sound as if multiple infants were being born alive following attempted abortions." Hermer is also quoted as saying, “Post-viability abortions are very uncommon in Minnesota, as elsewhere, though they do occasionally occur. Abortions resulting in live births, while hypothetically possible, are vanishingly rare." Swann notes that Hermer’s source is the Minnesota Department of Health, but the law repealed reporting requirements for such births. Additionally, the old law had a clear definition of what it meant to be born alive, whereas the new one does not. Additionally, Swann cites State Sen. Erin Maye Quade, who claimed critics are falsely describing some scenarios, such as when babies are born with lethal fetal anomalies, as failed abortions, “In those circumstances, the children, the babies that are born are meant to be alive because their parents want to hold them before they die. That is not a failed abortion. Childbirth was the method of abortion in that circumstance." Swann then summarizes, “This update to the law means infants who are ‘born alive’ receive appropriate medical care dependent on the pregnancy’s circumstances, Maye Quade said.” Maye Quade basically admits it: the law did remove the requirement that babies be given life-saving care, she just thinks that’s a good thing because some of them had no hope anyway. Pro-lifers, who are familiar with miracle stories, reject such notions. That aside, partnering with Facebook to censor such claims against Walz is problematic because another Facebook fact-checking partner, The Dispatch, wrote, in another fact-check, “In 2023, Walz signed legislation that repealed most of a statute designed to protect infants born alive after an abortion attempt.” Will linking to one Facebook fact-checking partner result in you getting censored by a second? Maybe that highlights the problem with the idea that some people should have the power to censor others.

The Chicago White Sox will likely finish the 2024 season with the worst record in modern MLB history.The MLB ranks its teams by winning percentage, and with a current record of 36-117 — a winning percentage of .235 — they are tied for the worst season since the 1916 Philadelphia Athletics.The team has been mired in disappointment all season long, whether hitting its own players in the face with the ball or losing the game by forgetting how many outs there were.A video uploaded to X claimed the White Sox had a combined 98 fans in attendance for a doubleheader in April. Whether that is true or not, the White Sox actually have the fourth-lowest average attendance in the league despite being the worst team by far.While that accolade may be the lone bright spot for the team this season, the dark cloud has hovered over the franchise so long that even the team's official X account seems to be depressed."FINAL: the other team scored more runs than us," the team sadly wrote on X. — (@) As mentioned, if the season stopped today, the White Sox would tie the 1916 Athletics for the fewest wins with 36 and worst winning percentage at .235.Many who are reporting that the White Sox could have the worst record of all time are measuring the modern era as post-WWII, meaning the 1960 New York Mets are the marker for disaster. They finished with a 40-120 record, a .250 winning percentage.With nine games remaining, the White Sox would need to win six of those to beat out the Mets at 41-121 and squeak past them with a .253 percentage.With that near-impossible scenario, the White Sox can likely consider themselves the worst modern team already and strive for more historical records. Photo by Nuccio DiNuzzo/Getty ImagesIf they win just two more games and finish 38-124, the White Sox can have the fewest wins in a season since the 1935 Boston Braves. With just one more win and 37 total victories, the White Sox would have the fewest wins since 1919 and, at a .228 winning percentage, become the worst team to play after 1901.However, true glory could be achieved if the White Sox lose all their remaining nine games and finish 36-126. Yes, they would finish with the fewest wins since 1901, but this abysmal record would result in a .222 winning percentage, putting them as the fifth-worst team of all time even when including the 1886-1900 era.A White Sox team of such caliber would fall just after the 1897 St. Louis Browns, who finished 29-102, a .221 winning percentage.A look at the Browns' roster and player names gives perspective on truly how long ago this era was.Leading the team in average was catcher Klondike Douglass. Other stars included Tuck Turner in the outfield and shortstop Montford Montgomery Cross.Pitchers included Cornelius Lucid, Red Donahue, and Kid Carsey. Klondike Douglass in 1903 at West Side Grounds, ChicagoPhoto by Chicago Sun-Times/Chicago Daily News collection/Chicago History Museum/Getty ImagesCatch the final historic games of the Chicago White Sox, which include three against the San Diego Padres, three against the Los Angeles Angels, and a final three against the Detroit Tigers.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

On Wednesday, more than 150 Democratic lawmakers voted against a House bill that would deport illegal aliens convicted of sexual crimes or conspiracy to commit such offenses.The legislation, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, was introduced by Representative Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina) and aimed to amend the current Immigration and Nationality Act to establish that "domestic violence crimes and sex offenses shall be grounds for making a non-U.S. national ... inadmissible and deportable," according to the bill's summary.'If you vote against it, you're sexist against women.'"The bill applies to any non-U.S. national who has admitted to or is convicted of acts constituting the essential elements of a crime of domestic violence or a sex offense, and includes conspiracy to commit a sex offense," it added.The legislation gathered a number of Republican co-sponsors, including Representatives Andy Biggs from Arizona, Lauren Boebert from Colorado, Andy Harris from Maryland, Laurel M. Lee from Florida, Troy E. Nehls from Texas, and Scott Perry from Pennsylvania. The bill ultimately passed the House on Wednesday, with all present Republicans voting in support of the legislation and 51 Democrats doing the same. However, 158 Democratic lawmakers voted against the bill.Ahead of the vote, Mace told Fox News Digital that she "100%" expected some Democratic colleagues to vote against her legislation.Mace remarked, "If you vote against it, you're sexist against women.""I mean, truly, because we're talking about illegals who are here who are committing domestic violence, rape, and murder on women and children – they've gotta go. They shouldn't be allowed into our country," she added.Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), one of the Democrats who voted against the legislation, claimed that it would somehow hurt domestic violence survivors."Here we are again, debating another partisan bill that fearmongers about immigrants, instead of working together to fix the immigration system," she stated. "I probably shouldn't be too surprised. Scapegoating immigrants and attempting to weaponize the crime of domestic violence is appearing to be a time-honored tradition for Republicans."In a post on X after the vote, Mace wrote, "158 Dems care more about an open border than protecting women."Representative Byron Donalds (R-Florida) claimed Democrats "voted against common sense" and the American public's "safety.""And we all deserve better," he added. "Remember this." On Thursday, Mace wrote on social media, "Good morning to everyone except the 158 members on the Left who voted to keep illegal immigrant murderers and r*pists on the streets." — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

It's SO On! RFK Jr. Breaks Out Puppets and Crayons to SCHOOL Tim Walz on Free Speech and the Constitution

Wyo. Rep. Harriet 'WHOOPED Liz Cheney' Hageman's Reaction to Code Pink SCREECHING About Pagers Is LEGEND