Upper class warrior. The post Schumer Blasts Republicans for “Slap” to “Middle Class Families” by Keeping SALT Deduction to $40K appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

We should bring back the Apartheid era sanctions on South Africa. The post South Africa President Starved Men to Death, Forced Them to Eat Each Other appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

The federal government should not be running local areas. The post All the DOJ’s Consent Decrees Must Go appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

The Magnolia Hotel in Seguin, Texas, has a long history dating back to 1840. Originally built as a two-room log cabin by James Campbell, a Texas Ranger and one of the town’s founders, the building was later expanded and converted into a hotel. Over the years, it served various purposes including a stagecoach stop, boarding […]

Mark Halperin spoke with former Acting DC prosecutor Ed Martin on his 2-Way show, and Martin told him that a Democrat high-level campaign worker said the three Autopen gatekeepers are: Ron Klain, Bob Bauer and Anita Dunn. Those three are very sketchy leftists. Martin subpoenaed them. The Autopen presidents, whoever they are, will get away […] The post Ed Martin Names President Autopen’s Gatekeepers appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

The Minnesota Supreme Court decided that women completely exposing their breasts in public is legally acceptable. The ruling in the case State of Minnesota v. Plancarte revolved around Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, who had exposed herself in a police officer’s presence by revealing her bare breasts. The state Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeals decision against Plancarte, who had been arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. Plancarte argued to the court that her breasts were not “private parts” and her actions were not “lewd.” A district court found her actions “legally obscene.” The state Supreme Court opinion recalled the facts of the case, writing: The facts in this case are short and undisputed: On July 28, 2021, the Rochester Police Department received a report that a woman was walking around a gas station parking lot with her breasts exposed. An officer responded to the call and saw Plancarte in the parking lot with her breasts exposed. The officer recognized Plancarte from two encounters earlier that week. During those encounters, the officer saw Plancarte exposing her underwear on one occasion, and her breasts and her underwear on another occasion. The officer stopped Plancarte and asked her why she kept exposing herself. Plancarte replied, “I think Catholic girls do it all the time.” Plancarte then worried about how she would get home and stated, “I dance at the biker club. I’m a stripper.” The officer said, “Well, you can’t strip in the middle of public.” Plancarte responded, “Yeah, but they should account for me at the club, shouldn’t they?”  The Minnesota Supreme Court stated: Because we conclude that the word “lewdly,” as used in section 617.23, subdivision 1(1), refers to conduct of a sexual nature, and because the record does not show that Plancarte engaged in such conduct, we reverse.  Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships Justice Karl Procaccini stated: If the State fails to present evidence sufficient to prove that the exposure was willful, lewd, and in a public place or a place where others are present, then the defendant’s conviction under the statute must be reversed. … Based on our independent review, we are persuaded that “lewdly” is ambiguous in the context of the indecent exposure statute. At least four common usages of “lewdly” are reasonable under the statute. Several dictionaries define “lewd” (the root of “lewdly”) to mean “obscene,” “indecent,” and “lustful,” as well as “[p]reoccupied with sex and sexual desire.” … Although “lewdly” in the indecent exposure statute has a broader meaning than “obscene,” defining “lewdly” as “indecently” or “lustfully” threatens to undermine due  process by failing to put the public on notice of the kinds of acts that are prohibited by the statute.  Although the  police reports establish that Plancarte was charged with indecent exposure three times in one week for exposing some combination of her breasts and underwear, none of these reports provide any insight into the nature of her exposure during those incidents. Moreover, the officer’s body-worn camera footage does not capture Plancarte engaging in any conduct of a sexual nature. Finally, Plancarte’s comment about being “a stripper” and her assertion that “Catholic girls [expose their breasts] all the time” are not evidence that her conduct in this instance was of a sexual nature. In a concurring opinion, Justice Sarah Hennesy wrote, “Interpreting ‘private parts’ to include female—and not male—breasts would lead to the continued stigmatization of female breasts as inherently sexual and reinforce the sexual objectification of women. As other courts have recognized, the idea that female breasts are primarily sexual is rooted in stereotypes.” “Activist judges like these appointed by Governor Walz  are accomplices in Walz’s war on our children,” Julie Quist of the Child Protection League wrote, adding: Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the ACLU of Minnesota, and the radical gender activists Gender Justice are appellants in the case. They are the same people legalizing gender mutilation on our children, releasing hardened criminals from prison, and making Minnesota a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. By ignoring the relevant part of state law, two judges have outrageously legalized exhibitionism. As this relates to children, allowing women to bare breasts on the beaches, on the streets, and at grocery stores erodes children’s natural sense of modesty that serves as a safe sexual boundary. This ruling is an overt attack on their innocence and their minds, making them far more vulnerable to sexual exploitation.

A deadlocked Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a decision blocking an Oklahoma Catholic school from participating in the state’s charter school program. The 4-4 decision upholds the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision to ban the Oklahoma City-based St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School from being eligible. It was unclear how the justices voted, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case. The case pitted the Catholic school against Oklahoma Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who sued the school after the state’s charter school board voted to approve St. Isidore’s participation. Drummond argued that allowing religious schools to take part in the program would force taxpayers to fund schools with religious beliefs they did not support. “The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of my position that we should not allow taxpayer funding of radical Islamic schools here in Oklahoma. I am proud to have fought against this potential cancer in our state, and I will continue upholding the law, protecting our Christian values and defending religious liberty,” Drummond posted on X after the decision from the court was released. Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the school and charter board argued that Oklahoma discriminated based on religion. “Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer,” ADF chief legal counsel Jim Campbell said. “While the Supreme Court’s order is disappointing for educational freedom, the 4-4 decision does not set precedent, allowing the court to revisit this issue in the future. The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that when the government creates programs and invites groups to participate, it can’t single out religious groups for exclusion, and we will continue our work to protect this vital freedom for parents and students.” A win for St. Isidore would have struck down a provision of the Oklahoma Charter School Act that expressly forbids religious charter schools and could open the door for more religious charter schools across the country. Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships In previous decisions, such as Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Carson v. Makin, the Supreme Court sided with religious organizations that had been locked out of state programs based on their religious nature. In Carson, the Supreme Court struck down a ban in Maine on vouchers from going toward religious schools. During oral arguments, several justices on the court’s conservative wing appeared to side with St. Isidore while the liberal wing signaled strong opposition. “You can’t treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second class in the United States,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, adding that excluding religious schools “seems like rank discrimination.”

'not the right decision for me and my family'