Anti-Trump historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat is scheduled to lecture midshipmen on “authoritarianism” next week at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, an event that is part of the Bancroft Lecture series but, in a break with tradition, will not be public. We know of Ben-Ghiat’s scheduled Oct. 10 speech only because she announced the event, as well as a problematic partisan political agenda for her lecture, via a Substack post. “I will be speaking about what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule, touching on Fascist Italy, Pinochet’s Chile and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine,” Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history and Italian studies at New York University, writes in the Sept. 4 post. The historian abruptly transitions, writing “that brings us to today’s post, on why Donald Trump insults the military,” and drawing an explicit link between authoritarianism and Trump. “Why does he do it?” Ben-Ghiat writes of the former president. “His authoritarian character, desire to destroy democratic values and ideals, and loyalty to autocrats who see the powerful U.S. military as an obstacle to their geopolitical aims.” Many Americans would view these assertions as untethered to facts or experience, politically charged, and evidently calculated to fuel animosity toward one candidate in the Nov. 5 presidential election. In her 1,000-word post, Ben-Ghiat goes on to suggest that the Republican nominee engages in “ritual humiliation,” uses people as “props,” and mirrors “authoritarians … who see people as assets to exploit and plunder for their grandiose goals.” Toward the end, Ben-Ghiat explicitly lists several people, strategically influential to the military audience she means to reach, who “will be voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.” Many who have worked with Trump, not only when he was president but as a businessman and real estate developer, would of course push back against such assertions. Regarding Ben-Ghiat’s specific reference to Trump and his team’s showing disrespect for the military at Arlington National Cemetery, others who were there dispute the claim. It isn’t known what limitations the Naval Academy has put on Ben-Ghiat’s Oct. 10 lecture, if any. What is known from her own words is that she intends to speak on fascism linked to Trump’s candidacy, going so far as to suggest that the military audience vote a certain way. It looks highly probable that Ben-Ghiat’s lecture will fail to be politically neutral. Welcoming a passionate partisan such as Ben-Ghiat to make her assertions to the midshipmen about Trump represents a perilous politicization of the Naval Academy, especially with less than four weeks before an election. The danger derives from the necessary separation of the military and politics. midshipmen at the Naval Academy swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution,” pledging their allegiance to a set of ideals rather than to a person or political party. This is enforced by the Defense Department’s Directive 1344.10, which explicitly states that service members shall “not engage in partisan political activity.” The nature of Ben-Ghiat’s scheduled Bancroft Lecture casts doubt on whether the Naval Academy is in line with this Pentagon directive. It calls into question the nonpartisan nature of leadership at the academy and by extension the Department of the Navy. By allowing Ben-Ghiat’s lecture at this time, without offering opposing viewpoints, it appears that the Naval Academy is acting in a political fashion. Perhaps it would be a different story if the Naval Academy had welcomed speakers from both sides and not so close to an election to decide America’s next commander in chief. As it stands, the Naval Academy should retract the invitation to Ben-Ghiat to lecture midshipmen Oct. 10 or perhaps postpone the event until after the election. If, however, the event is rescheduled, it also would be prudent to invite another lecturer to argue that Kamala Harris’ past actions and policy proposals resemble those of Marxist and socialist leaders, posing a threat to our rights enshrined in the Constitution. Better to avoid this mess altogether. The Naval Academy can keep out of politics by taking a pass on this particular Bancroft Lecture. The post Naval Academy Allows Bancroft Lecture Series to Become Politicized appeared first on The Daily Signal.

By inviting a speaker, history professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat of New York University, who has already said that she plans to attack presidential candidate Donald Trump in the annual Bancroft Lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy on Oct. 10, the academy is violating Defense Department directives prohibiting the military from engaging in partisan political activity. In addition to constituting a clear violation of a long-standing, mandatory policy, families whose sons and daughters are attending this august military institution should be outraged by the academy’s partisan indoctrination of future officers of the U.S. Navy. The Bancroft Lecture is held in October of each year and “was established by the Naval Academy’s History Department to honor the academy’s founder, George Bancroft.”  Bancroft was the secretary of the Navy during President James Polk’s administration in the 1840s and became a good friend of Republican President Abraham Lincoln. According to the academy, which was founded in 1845, the lecture is supposed to bring in historians to speak about “their research and the relevance of the historian’s craft to today’s world.”  But that’s a far cry from delivering a partisan screed attacking a major political candidate in the midst of a hotly contested presidential campaign, which is precisely what Ben-Ghiat has indicated she’s going to do next week. She claims that what motivates former President Trump is his “authoritarian character, desire to destroy democratic values and ideals, and loyalty to autocrats” such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping. Going further, she claims that Trump has an “attachment to America’s enemies.”  One can debate the hallucinations that apparently inhabit the mind of this so-called historian from New York University, but the more important point is that her venomous, partisan attack on a political candidate involves the Naval Academy, which is sponsoring her lecture in direct violation of Defense Department rules. Department of Defense Directive No. 1344.10 (Feb. 19, 2008) bans active members of the military, which includes the naval officers who are administrators and teachers at the academy, from engaging in “partisan political activities.”  20241002_DOD NonpoliticalDownload By putting the academy’s official imprimatur on this rancorous harangue, the academy is doing exactly what the directive says its shouldn’t do: “appear to imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement” of what is patently a partisan, political speech. In an op-ed about what she intends to say to the plebes at the Bancroft Lecture, Ben-Ghiat claims Trump has a “consistent habit” of “insulting and mocking the military.”  According to her, Trump’s “personal predilections and attitudes … mirror those of authoritarians more generally,” and that authoritarianism will be part of her lecture on “Fascist Italy, Pinochet’s Chile, and the Russian military.”  She claims that Trump’s supposed repeated “attacks” on the military show “what side he favors in the struggle between democracy and autocracy.” Even if you agree with Ben-Ghiat’s wild, unsupported claims, that isn’t the point.  The point is that the Naval Academy should not be inviting, sponsoring, or in any way endorsing lecturers who are at the academy to give what is clearly a political speech, whether it’s attacking or supporting Donald Trump, or attacking or supporting Kamala Harris. The mission of the Naval Academy, it says, is to “imbue” its midshipmen “with the highest ideals of duty, honor, and loyalty” so they will be able “assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship, and government.”  Whoever invited Ben-Ghiat to speak on campus used extremely poor judgment.  Our military service academies are publicly funded, government-run institutions, designed to train future warfighters to serve this country with honor and distinction, regardless of who is the commander in chief.  Graduates serve under presidents of both parties and focus on the defense of our country. That’s how it’s been—and should be. The academy should disinvite this speaker now.  The post Why Is the Naval Academy Engaging in Election Interference? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In the US, the Democrats continue with their sustained efforts to pressure major social media platforms, now about a month ahead of the presidential election. The Twitter Files give some idea about what may be happening behind closed doors (if previous campaigns/elections are any indication), but this is about public pressure. This time, Congressman Adam Schiff’s turn is to “demand action” from companies behind social media. Meta (Instagram separately), X, Google (and YouTube separately), TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, and Microsoft are the recipients of a letter Schiff signed along with seven fellow members of the House of Representatives (four of them, like Schiff, California Democrats). We obtained a copy of the letter for you here. The demand is this: disclose what plans these companies with the most influence and reach in the online space have to counter what the congressman and his colleagues consider to be the spread of mis- and dis- information – but also, “potential incitement of violence on their platforms in the lead-up to the 2024 elections.” Schiff’s letter doesn’t clarify if (repeated) attempts to assassinate a candidate count as “incitement of violence,” or really, what kind of violence he has in mind – but he does mention “attacks on our democracy.” Yet, the companies are supposed to let him know what they are doing to stop it. Along the way, the assertion is made that they have all “rolled back” their previous election policies. “This almost universal reversion on the issue of combating election mis- and disinformation is incredibly troubling,” the letter reads. Meta, Google, X, etc. are also asked, among other things, “Will your company commit to sharing data and metrics on the effectiveness of your enforcement systems in relation to US elections and political speech?” On the other side of this political maelstrom, Republicans – notably the House Judiciary Committee – continue trying to shed light on how the White House and government agencies pressured and then colluded with major social platforms during previous campaigns and elections, all in the name of supposedly combating “misinformation.” This has produced some visible, public results – like Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg writing to the committee to apologize for succumbing to that pressure on issues like Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop story suppression. The revelations that the government and Big Tech colluded to usher in unprecedented levels of censorship in the past continues to be tested in the courts as well. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Rep. Adam Schiff and Other Democrats Demand Social Media Companies Censor “Misinformation” and “Disinformation” This Month appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Focus Groups: Vance Won the Debate And a Few Converts. What About the Media?

It's Been a Bad News Week for Lithium Ion Batteries

Media Research Center founder and president Brent Bozell appeared for a post-debate segment on Varney & Co. on the Fox Business Network on Wednesday morning. Varney began by displaying the most recent NewsBusters study showing that the CBS Evening News was 89 percent positive for Democrat Tim Walz and 89 percent negative for Republican J.D. Vance.  He asked Bozell if moderators Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan were fair. Bozell replied "shocker," they were not. He offered the MRC count of the moderator questions. There were 19 CBS questions from the left-wing agenda and only two from the right (on restraining deficits). There were 15 challenging questions to Vance, and only seven to Walz. CBS forced follow-ups on Vance on ten occasions, but Walz only drew two. "That tells the story," Varney said.  Varney also asked about reports that Donald Trump refused an interview request from 60 Minutes, showing video of CBS reporter Lesley Stahl in 2020 that you couldn't prove anything was corrupt in the Hunter Biden laptop documents. Bozell said Trump should refuse to do interviews with CBS.  Also on Wednesday morning, Bozell shared the MRC research with Larry O'Connor on WMAL radio in Washington.   

Google didn’t get the memo. At the Tuesday night debate, J.D. Vance said that the real  “threat to democracy is censorship, but an MRC Free Speech America study performed this morning found that Google’s priority is promoting 100 percent leftist news, not preserving American freedoms. The morning after the debate, MRC Free Speech America conducted a search in the Google News tab for “jd vance.” MRC analysis revealed that 100 percent of the results came from outlets with a leftist political bias. Google News tab did not display a single article from an outlet that did not have a predominantly leftist political bias This overt leftist bias is especially concerning considering that according to a November 2023 Pew Research survey, a rising number of American adults receive their news from search. The study found that 15 percent of U.S. adults prefer to get their news from search engines which is up from 13 percent in 2022 and 11 percent in 2021. The leftist news outlets Google News tab provided in its results for “jd vance,” included articles from the likes of The New York Times, BBC, CNN, TODAY, CBS News, USA Today, NBC News, The Hill, The Washington Post and Politico. One of the most slanted headlines was: “The Moment When Vance Dodged a Question but Said Plenty” published by The Times. The Post also piled on with an opinion piece headlined “At debate, Vance whines: You weren’t supposed to fact check me!” In a follow-up search for “tim walz,” Google wasn’t much better. MRC analysis found that 90 percent of the results came from leftist outlets. Just one of the results came from America’s third most-viewed online news site, according to Statista, Fox News Digital. The Google News tab results for “tim walz” included articles from The Guardian, BBC, CNN, The Post, Fox News, USA Today, NPR, CBS News, Slate and The Times. The NPR article was actually about Vance; The Times piece finally acknowledged that Walz was not in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre; but the majority of outlets took a piecemeal approach, asking who won the debate and ignoring what even numerous leftist reports have declared was a clear victory for J.D. Vance. Slate even went to the pain of framing a piece on why Walz lost instead of how Vance won in an article with the headline: “The Brutal Tim Walz Tactical Error that Cost him the Debate.” When MRC researchers conducted the same Google News tab searches hours prior to the debate, Google produced similarly biased results. MRC analysis revealed 90 percent of the search results in both searches were from left-leaning news outlets. Each set of results included only one article from Fox News Digital. Although Fox News pieces appeared first and fourth in the Google News tab results, it was the only news outlet that the platform produced that does not consistently demonstrate a leftist political bias. The continued bias from anti-free speech Google comes after the search giant dismissed an MRC study further uncovering the search engine’s bias favoring the left in searches for “donald trump presidential race 2024” and “kamala harris presidential race 2024.” Researchers caught the company promoting an avalanche of left-leaning news above the two presidential candidate’s websites. Google told Fox News that MRC’s study was based on a “single rare search term on a single day several weeks ago.” The Big Tech company also insisted in comments to CNBC that it “absolutely” does not manipulate results to favor candidates. By now it should be clear, this is not an isolated incident. This is the 21st election-related Google study MRC has conducted, and each study has yielded similar results. For example, an October 1 study showed that when MRC Free Speech America researchers searched for “kamala harris presidential race 2024,” no U.S.-based news outlet rated “lean right” or “right” by media ratings firm AllSides appeared until Google placed Fox News as the fifth result on the 13th page of results. Similarly, in a search for “donald trump presidential campaign websites” Google buried the first U.S.-based “lean right” result, a New York Post article, as the third result on the 14th page. Last week, when MRC Free Speech America researchers conducted the same two searches, again not a single “right” or “right-leaning” outlet appeared on the first page of Google’s search results. Researchers saw this same pattern the day after the second Trump assassination attempt, and during the 2024 National March for Life. MRC even compiled an expose on the 41 times Google or its executives helped push their favored Democrat candidates across the finish line. This meta-analysis included studies conducted by MRC as well as studies by research psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein and many others who have come to a similar conclusion–that Google uses search results to interfere in elections, and has been doing so for years  Methodology: For this report, MRC Free Speech America analyzed the Oct. 1 and Oct. 2 Google News results of the innocuous words “jd vance” and “tim walz.”  MRC Free Speech America created an algorithm to automate this process in a clean environment. A “clean environment” allows for organic search to populate results without the influence of prior search history and tracking cookies. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz appeared to use the Bible on Tuesday to support Democrats' agenda on the border crisis.While discussing the immigration crisis, Walz repeatedly asserted that the immigration bill Democrats sought to pass earlier this year — but twice failed to pass — would solve immigration problems. There is, of course, no evidence to support that, and President Joe Biden doesn't need, and never needed, new laws to enforce existing immigration law.Where Walz seemed enthusiastic to interject his faith into a discussion about immigration policy, any citation of that faith was noticeably absent when Walz defended radical pro-abortion policiesAfter claiming that bill adheres to "American principles," Walz interjected a line about his faith."I don't talk about my faith a lot, but Matthew 25:40 talks about, 'To the least amongst us, you do unto me.' I think that's true of most Americans. They simply want order to it. This bill does it. It's funded, it's supported by the people who do it, and it lets us keep our dignity about how we treat other people," he said.It appears, then, that Walz was suggesting that Americans — and especially Christians — have a religious, moral, and ethical duty to pass legislation that Democrats want.The only Christ-like solution, Walz seemed to suggest, is the one Democrats demand.But there are two significant issues with Walz's biblical argument.First, the passage from which Walz cited — Matthew 25:31-46 — has nothing to do with the moral or ethical implications of a nation-state's immigration policy. Rather, Matthew 25:31-46 tells an apocalyptic vision of Christ's final judgment, containing a teaching with significant moral and ethical implications for Christians.As New Testament scholar R.T. France wrote in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew: For the striking feature of this judgement scene is that both sheep and goats claim that they did not know that their actions were directed toward Jesus. Each is as surprised as the other to find their actions interpreted in that light. They have helped, or failed to help, not a Jesus recognized in his representatives, but a Jesus incognito.It is dishonest, therefore, to invoke Jesus' teaching to imply that Americans are bound by a Christian obligation to pass legislation that Democrats want. Christians, indeed, have a duty to serve the poor and downtrodden, and they're doing that. Christians are responsible for creating and operating most of the charitable infrastructure invented over the last 2,000 years. Christian organizations, moreover, help provide for the needs of immigrants every day. But that duty to love and serve is not a duty to pass Democrats' bills.Second, where Walz seemed enthusiastic to interject his faith into a discussion about immigration policy, any citation of that faith was noticeably absent when Walz defended radical pro-abortion policies. The question, then, is this: Are unborn children among the "least" of us? Perhaps Jesus answered that question for us when he declared, according to Matthew 18:5, that "whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Former President Donald Trump is in a tight battle against abortion extremist Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race. While Trump is responsible for the end of Roe v. Wade, some of his recent statements about abortion have given many pro-lifers pause about supporting his candidacy this time around. I write to urge my fellow pro-lifers to take a step back, assess America's view of abortion as it truly stands today, and resolve to vote for Trump in 2024 — not in spite of their convictions but because of them. Otherwise, we risk further radicalization of American abortion laws, resulting in even more dead babies. The stakes couldn't be higher. An unseen divide I hesitate to speak for all pro-lifers, but I suspect many view the abortion issue as I do: Once sperm and egg join, a new person made in the image and likeness of God has been created, and that person is endowed with every natural right — especially the right to life. Like all vulnerable children, these tiny beings developing in their mother's wombs are also entitled to protection from harm. If there is any ambiguity on whether this entity is indeed a person, then state and federal law should err on the side of preserving it, not killing it. 'And then she heads for the clinic, and she gets some static walkin' through the door. They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore!' If there is even the slightest chance that the being is a baby, why would we ever think of killing it? That's how most pro-lifers see the issue. Others, to borrow a metaphor from Scott Adams, are watching the same screen but an entirely different movie. While most people don't necessarily want to kill a human embryo, a vast majority of average Americans, including many on the right, do want to keep the option of killing it available. In fact, many of these same people consider pro-lifers and our view of valuing life from conception until natural death to be "extreme." On a September 2 episode of the podcast "What Are the Odds?" with attorney Robert Barnes, independent pollster Richard Baris gave a frank characterization of the overall American consensus regarding abortion and the pro-life moment. As a pro-lifer with sincere beliefs, I found his assessment difficult to hear. Baris described some pro-lifers as "zealots" more obsessed with abortion "purity" tests than saving lives. "You're not viewed very particularly favorably," he explained. "You're viewed as judgmental, self-righteous snobs who look down your nose at everyone and don't have the understanding of a woman who may be struggling with economic concerns." In effect, Baris believes pro-lifers embody the horrific caricature of us in the 1998 hit Everlast song "What It's Like." "And then she heads for the clinic, and she gets some static walkin' through the door. They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore!" Dismissing or denying this mischaracterization of us will do us pro-lifers no good. Perception is reality, and if this is how we are perceived, no wonder so few people listen to what we have to say. More to the point, this general distaste for pro-lifers and our values has been reflected at the ballot box. All state-level referenda about abortion since the fall of Roe attest that we are losing the battle of public opinion. Even traditionally red states like Kansas and Kentucky voted overwhelmingly in 2022 against proposals to ban abortion. Last year, Ohioans voted in favor of enshrining the so-called right to abortion in their state constitution. Voters in Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Montana, and South Dakota, among others, may follow suit and vote in November to keep abortion legal to some degree in their respective states. Though many of these 2024 referenda would still restrict abortion in certain cases, especially after fetal viability, some, such as Amendment 4 in Florida, are carefully crafted to include exceptions for a woman's physical and mental "health," thereby effectively permitting abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. The true abortion extremists Which brings us to Trump, who has disappointed many supporters with his recent rhetoric about abortion. In public speeches, he has repeatedly advocated the usual exceptions of "rape, incest, and the life of the mother." Late last month, he also expressed support for abortion beyond six weeks. "I’m going to be voting that we need more than six weeks," he said about Amendment 4. He then angered many of us when he borrowed the language of abortion supporters and promised that his next "administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights." While his apparent tolerance for some level of abortion is disheartening, Trump has also demonstrated that he cares about pro-lifers and is willing to make concessions to secure their vote. For instance, after severe backlash from pro-lifers on social media, he later clarified that he would vote against Amendment 4. 'The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired.' Democrats like Kamala Harris, on the other hand, are so tightly enmeshed in abortion and the abortion industry that they will never bother to consider pro-lifers or their opinions. In fact, Kamala Harris has made abortion on demand a central campaign issue. Using euphemisms about " trust[ing] women to make decisions about their own bodies," Harris has repeatedly dodged questions about whether she would support any limitations on abortion, insisting only that, as president, she would restore Roe-like protections of abortion at the federal level. At the presidential debate last month, she even refused to say whether she thought abortion should be legal in "the eighth month, ninth month, seventh month." Her vagueness about late-term abortions reveals that she knows how unpopular they are with everyday Americans. As Trump noted during the debate, though, several states have no restrictions on abortion, effectively permitting doctors to "execute" babies after they are born. Liberal outlets almost immediately reported that his assertion was "false," and ABC News moderator Linsey Davis quickly attempted to fact-check Trump, claiming that "there is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born." If only that were true. Nine states — including Minnesota, where Harris' running mate, Tim Walz, is governor — have no abortion restrictions "based on gestational duration," according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion advocacy group. In theory, these states could permit a practice that former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, once blithely illustrated despite the gruesome details. "If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," Northam said on radio station WTOP in 2019. "The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother." Between Harris' refusal to set abortion limits and Northam's suggestion that an infant born alive might be "resuscitated" only "if that's what the mother and the family desired," Democrats have confirmed what the Trump campaign has long argued: "Harris-Walz [and the] Democrats are the real abortion extremists." Indeed they are. Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, has such a strong relationship with Democrats that a Planned Parenthood affiliate posted a pop-up clinic offering "FREE ... medication abortion" near the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August. Though advertisements for the clinic did not directly refer to the DNC, Dr. Colleen McNicholas, the chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, did say that her facility offered the mobile clinic because of the number of "people traveling to Chicago from all over the country." While Democrats have embraced Planned Parenthood and others who butcher babies, they have at the same time villainized peaceful pro-lifers, treating them as a threat to public safety. The Justice Department under the Biden-Harris administration has even prosecuted some pro-lifers for exercising their First Amendment rights near abortion clinics. On the Biden-Harris watch, pro-lifers have been intimidated by federal agents and even arrested at gunpoint. While some defendants have thankfully been acquitted, others have been convicted and sentenced to years in prison. Even Catholic nuns are not safe from bullying and harassment under Harris and Biden. Under a Harris-Walz administration, this persecution would almost certainly continue and perhaps even intensify. Pro-lifers can help these defendants first by electing Trump and Vance, a Catholic, and then pressuring them to undo this travesty of justice. Pro-lifers’ best hope in 2024 In an ideal world, abortion would not be a political football because no one would even consider legalizing the effort to kill unborn babies. In reality, we are fortunate that it is such a prominent political issue because it gives us some means of control over it. In November, we can use that control and that power to elect Trump, a populist Republican who has taken steps to protect life, over Harris, a bloodthirsty, pro-abortion Democrat. Trump is more than just the proverbial lesser of two evils. While many Republican candidates paid lip service to pro-lifers and made empty promises about ending Roe, Trump took decisive action in the cause of life and nominated the justices who made it happen. With that, he has saved perhaps thousands of babies from the fate of death by abortion. And since 14 states reportedly no longer have an abortion clinic, that trend is likely to continue. The disastrous political results of the post- Roe fallout at the state level are not Trump's fault. While Republican state legislators and the major players of the pro-life movement shoulder much of the blame for not better preparing for the end of Roe, that is a topic for another day — after the 2024 election is over. For now, pro-lifers — myself as much as anybody else — have to admit that we have failed to influence either the culture or American politics in any appreciable way. As Vance said during the vice presidential debate this week, the American people simply do not "trust" us on abortion. Trump, a professed Christian even if he is an abortion moderate, has offered us an alternative path forward. To wit, Trump wants the citizens of the individual states to decide the matter for themselves. This idea may be difficult for some of us to accept since it ignores the inherent moral evil of abortion — the intentional killing of a human being — and instead treats abortion like just another social ill like weed or gambling. It may also sound like we pro-lifers must compromise our sacred beliefs and accept the unacceptable. The bad news is we already do that. Every day since 1973, Americans have tolerated the atrocious deaths of unborn babies via abortion. So this political strategy — and that's what it is, a political strategy, not a moral philosophy or religious doctrine — likely will not impact our daily lives. As Richard Baris explained, we have "been righteously losing while half a billion babies get terminated every year." In America, the number is actually much closer to a million, but his point still stands. The good news is that we could actually start winning if we stopped aiming for a total ban on abortion and instead followed Trump's lead and accepted pro-life victories where and when they come. By digging in our heels and brooking no exceptions in the abortion debate, we have squandered valuable opportunities to find common ground with the majority of the electorate and save at least some unborn babies. 'We must be ready to accept what we can get.' We could begin by supporting state-level legislation that would end third-trimester abortions or that would require parental consent before minors can undergo abortion. Such measures enjoy a strong level of support across the country. Other laws requiring a 24-hour waiting period or for women to view an ultrasound before consenting to an abortion have proven to be effective in reducing the number of abortions without implementing an outright ban. Even Archbishop Thomas Wenski of the Archdiocese of Miami recently acknowledged that "we must be ready to accept what we can get through the legislative process" even as we keep our sights on "our ultimate goal" of eradicating abortion entirely. As noted by the Center for Public Health Law Research at Temple University, our laws have a powerful impact on culture. So much so that "over time, the legal rule becomes a behavioral norm" that in turn affects “what people know or believe to be true, and shapes what people value.” We need incremental legislative pro-life victories if we ever hope to convince Americans that abortion is a morally abhorrent violation of human rights that no civilized society should countenance, and those legislative victories begin by electing people to office who are at least sympathetic to our cause. Trump has already made overtures to pro-lifers and shown a willingness to listen to our concerns. Democrats like Harris most certainly will not listen to us and will instead likely treat us like domestic enemies. Let us protect ourselves from such maltreatment if we can help it. Furthermore, let us not sacrifice more unborn babies for the sake of moral purity. Our principles are worthless if they cannot accept that 90 aborted babies, while reprehensible, are still better than 100. For the sake of the unborn children who can reasonably be saved in the immediate future, we must vote for Trump and forestall a truly deadly Harris presidency. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Astronauts stranded on the International Space Station since June were relieved to welcome rescuers from a SpaceX capsule on Sunday.The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket fired off Saturday carrying NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Alexander Gorbunov of the Russian Space Agency on the rescue mission to help Butch Wilmore and Sunita Williams get home. 'As much as I’ve laughed and cried in the last 10 minutes, I know it’s going to be an amazing expedition.' The two have been stranded since a Boeing Starliner capsule experienced thruster failures and helium leaks, leading NASA to seek the SpaceX alternative out of safety concerns. It was the first Starliner test flight with a crew, but it returned to Earth empty. The Dragon capsule docked with the space station 265 miles above Botswana.The SpaceX visitors were greeted by nine astronauts in the space station, which is normally manned by only seven people. Four of them can now return to Earth in the Dragon space capsule. Wilmore and Williams will have to wait until February to return. They were originally meant to be on the space station for only a week's length.“I just want to say welcome to our new compadres,” said Williams. “Coming through the hatch and seeing all the smiles, and as much as I’ve laughed and cried in the last 10 minutes, I know it’s going to be an amazing expedition,” said Hague. The seven people at the space station apart from Willmore and Williams have been on the station since March because of the Boeing debacle in June. Boeing released a brief statement after NASA announced in August that SpaceX would take on the rescue mission. "We continue to focus, first and foremost, on the safety of the crew and spacecraft. We are executing the mission as determined by NASA, and we are preparing the spacecraft for a safe and successful uncrewed return," the company said on the X platform. Critics have called on lawmakers to reconsider the very expensive NASA missions. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!