by Cristina Laila, The Gateway Pundit: In July, an investigation into the Epstein prison video released by the Department of Justice revealed several discrepancies. Recall, The Gateway Pundit first reported on the missing minute in the video that was released to the public. CBS News’ investigative report revealed that video forensic analysis revealed several major irregularities in the DOJ’s […]

from Stephen Gardner: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

For years, Tim Tebow has been working with state and federal officials to raise awareness to help get laws passed to end human trafficking and child pornography. It’s a cause that is super commendable–for sure. And he’s on the verge of success. Just last month, legislation meant to strengthen investigations of sexually abusive images of children, called the Renewed Hope Act of 2026, that Tebow has collaborated on with Republican Florida Rep. Laurel Lee, was reintroduced and voted out of the Judiciary Committee and is now slated for a floor House vote. The big problem, however, is that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., has been made a prominent cosponsor of this measure. On the surface this may seem like something we should celebrate, but it’s not. The reason is simple: Wasserman Schultz is a hypocrite and a far-left politician who has worked to advance a progressive agenda that is nothing short of being anti-parent and anti-family. That ideology is the culprit behind the rise of online child predators. In fact, if America is ever going to truly abolish online child pornography, then lawmakers like Wasserman-Schultz need to get the boot and be voted out of office. Instead, Tebow, has released a press release that hails Wasserman Schultz as a cosponsor; something she can brag about in her reelection bid.   What’s more is that Wasserman Shultz hasn’t been mousey about her radical left positions. She has held top key leadership positions in the Democrat Party and has been at the forefront in using her leverage to oppose parental rights, support abortion, and further transgenderism. Take for instance that in this current Congress she is a lead cosponsor of the so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act.” This legislation aims to advance abortion access that would in essence make Roe v. Wade the law of the land. But perhaps most relevant to the issue at hand is that Wasserman Schultz not so long ago voted to prevent a parent’s right to review the curriculum of their child’s school and other materials available in the school library. When the House of Representatives took up the Parents Bill of Rights Act in 2023, Wasserman Schultz joined with all Democrat members of Congress to oppose this bill which merely stated that the “right of parents to educate their children is a pre-political natural right that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized as ‘beyond debate’ and rooted in the ‘history and culture of Western civilization.” The measure also included a requirement that elementary and secondary schools for grades 5 to 8 would be forced to obtain permission from parents before marking their child’s “gender” as “transgender” — something that anyone who believes in protecting children should unequivocally support.   In other words, Wasserman Schultz is on the side that is fighting against parental rights. She’s doing that even though parents are the key protectors for everywhere a child goes and everything they do, whether in or out of school or online. Going a step further: the reason that children are being sexually targeted at school and online like never before in our nation’s history is one hundred percent a result of the far left policies that Wasserman Schultz supports.   Not only did Wasserman Schultz vote in Congress against parents’ rights, but in her own home state of Florida she evidently took a stance to oppose Gov. Ron DeSantis’ leadership to have pornographic and sexually explicit material removed from school libraries. She also headlined for a gig called “My Hollywood Pride street festival event” which included a drag queen story hour. There’s no doubt that Tebow is a Godly man who has the best of intentions. And it’s a pretty good guess that behind the scenes he was convinced by typical Washington establishment types to believe that adding Wasserman Schultz’s name in support of the Renewed Hope for Act will help ensure its passage. But that’s not true. House Republicans control the majority, and therefore, Wasserman Schultz is not needed to pass this legislation. Just the opposite. She’s the one who needs to add her name to this measure to help her in her congressional reelection bid to balance out her radical pro-transgender policy record. In other words, by allowing Wasserman Schultz to take credit for adding her name as a cosponsor, Tebow and Republicans are throwing Wasserman Schultz a lifeline so that she can continue to support policies hostile to the family. So even if Wasserman Schultz was a cosponsor in a previous Congress–and maybe even before Tim Tebow got involved–he still could have insisted that this time around her name not be added as condition for his endorsement. It’s worth noting that another consequence of Wasserman Schultz being made a lead cosponsor is that she will be granted the ability to have influence over how this measure gets implemented should it become law–a very real possibility. That means that on one of the core functions of this measure to create a taskforce to work with the Department of Homeland Security on investigations, Wasserman Schultz will have a voice in picking the names of those individuals who will no doubt align with her leftist ideology. It’s great that Tebow is using his celebrity status to fight for the protection of children. But this is an example of what happens all too often with conservatives: the miscalculation in thinking that the only way to get anything accomplished is to make bedfellows with the other side. Time and time again it comes back to bite us. Tebow should use his leverage to only elevate lawmakers who support parental rights, the very cure for the cause he is fighting for.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Tim Tebow Should Have Pulled Strings to Keep Debbie Wasserman Schultz off Anti-Child Porn Bill He’s Endorsing appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Watch this short clip about Stephen Miller’s stunning prediction in 2003 when he was a Freshman at Duke. Miller was a student at Duke from 2003 to 2007. While talking to a retired professor, Hines Goemans, PhD, a radio host at WXXinews in Rochester, NY, finds out that Miller was his former student, who told […] The post Stephen Miller’s Amazing Prediction in 2003 appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

I’m not sure what to make of this clip below. It’s almost impossible to find anything about this online. According to the speaker, the New York State Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) just okayed the massive Mill Pond Solar development. ORES allegedly approved it with unanimous opposition from the community. The plan is to […] The post Massive Solar Farm Approved in the Middle of Amish Country in New York appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

The following is an edited transcript excerpt from The Michael Knowles Show. * * * There is an interesting development in the Epstein case and it comes from CBS News. The official accounts about who did or did not enter Epstein’s jail cell on the night of his death have been contradicted a myriad of times. If you’ll recall, we were first told there were cameras on Epstein’s jail cell and on his floor, but that they weren’t working, so there was no footage to release. Later, officials released closed-circuit footage from the night of his death and claimed it was uninterrupted. Shortly afterward, we were told that a minute of the video was missing. That missing minute was eventually restored, and we were assured the footage was original — despite clear signs it had been edited using video software. So what’s the latest? Well, newly released video logs appear to contradict official accounts. This is from CBS News: Newly released Department of Justice documents show that investigators reviewing surveillance footage from the night of Jeffrey Epstein’s death observed an orange-colored shape moving up a staircase toward the isolated, locked tier where his cell was located at approximately 10:39 p.m. on Aug. 9, 2019. Credit: CBS Mornings/YouTube.com I love the way they’re describing it: “An orange-colored shape.” So some people, probably on the Left, are imagining that this is just Trump himself. Yes, a vaguely mango-colored, you know, blond-haired, had a very nice Brioni suit on with a slightly too-long red tie. Or no, that would be the live version of what we on the Right all imagine. What is probably meant is that the person is wearing an orange jumpsuit, or maybe carrying something orange. This isn’t particularly new information. I was covering Epstein months and months ago when some of this footage came out, and we noticed the strange figures that were moving around. Okay, now we can zoom in, and we see this weird orange figure.  CBS goes on: Thomas told investigators he discovered Epstein in his cell shortly after 6:30 a.m. on Aug.10 and that he “ripped” Epstein down from the hanging position. Investigators asked what happened to the noose.  “I don’t recall taking the noose off. I really don’t,” he replied. “I don’t recall taking the thing from around his neck.” That’s a little weird, right? I guess what you could say is it’s always shocking to see a dead body, but it was especially shocking here. This is one of the most wanted, talked-about criminals in all of America, in all of the world and you find him dead in his cell, and maybe, who knows, your hormones are spiking. You have a surge of adrenaline, you’re shocked, you’re sick, and you forget. Maybe he just forgot. It gets weirder. Noel, who remained standing at the cell entrance, told investigators she saw Thomas lower Epstein to the floor but did not see a noose around his neck. Hold on.  So now it’s not just the guy who discovers Epstein and takes him down. It’s also the observer standing a little bit further back.  The noose Epstein allegedly used has never been definitively identified. According to the inspector general’s report, a noose collected at the scene was later determined not to be the ligature used in Epstein’s death. The guy who took him down never saw the noose. The lady watching him take him down never saw a noose. And investigators never even found the noose. Add on at least one medical examiner saying that the breaks in his neck were more consistent with strangulation than with hanging. WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show Everyone is focusing on the aspects of his life — Epstein had a connection to Russia; he had a connection to Israel; he had a connection to the CIA, and so on. Some of the accounts actually contradict each other. Was he a super spy? Was he just a sex-freak rich guy? Was he really trafficking women? Was he really trading secrets? Was he really dealing with the Arabs and the Israelis, or was it the Russians or the Americans, or was it the British? You’ve got to put that aside for a second. We now have every theory covered. Yes, we’ve connected him to every country on earth, every intelligence agency, every vice. And that’s not getting us anywhere. If you want to get to the heart of the Epstein story, the first thing you have to ascertain is the end of the story, not how the story begins. Not a lot of people want to focus on how a guy who dropped out of college ended up becoming a math teacher, who was hired by Bill Barr’s father at The Dalton School, but then became some kind of trader at Bear Stearns? How? He then went on to become the money manager for Les Wexner, where he said he would only have clients who were investing over $1 billion. And then he worked with intelligence agencies. And then he helped this sheikh in Arabia. And then he — Don’t look at the beginning of the story. That is going to lead you down a billion different trails, especially with a guy who seemed to be connected to every powerful person on earth. I think you have to start at the end of the story. And curious, isn’t it, that the shadiest part, the part that has been most covered up, that has been most contradicted, is not found at the beginning of the story. No one is asking, “Did Epstein work at Bear Stearns?” “Did Epstein know Ghislaine Maxwell?” “Did Epstein pal around with Bill?” It’s none of that. The part that has been most assiduously covered up is the end of the story. How did he die? Who killed him? Why don’t we have the noose? That’s it. I don’t think we’re going to get an answer on it. And that’s been my consistent position from the beginning. Either Epstein is who they say he is, in which case we know everything about him, or he’s something more, in which case we know everything we’re ever going to know, because they’re not going to let it out.  But if we could ascertain who killed him, that would help us to answer: why was he killed? That would help us to answer what purpose he primarily served in world politics. That would help us to answer who, chiefly, he was working for. That would help us to answer what the Epstein operation was really about. But the only way you’re going to get those big answers is by going backward. You’re not going to get it by going forward. Now we’re getting some little, little tasty hints — but nothing definitive. And if you want me to put some money on the table, I don’t think we’re going to get much more than that.

On Thursday, President Trump returned to the National Prayer Breakfast and proceeded to give a speech that was reasonably religious in overtones. Something fascinating about the president is that he’s been able to do things that a lot of Christian conservatives and religious Jews appreciate while maintaining a largely secular coalition. What would appear to be a marginal increase in non-Christian affiliation inside the Republican Party is not marginal because the overall loss in the traditional religious constituency in the Republican Party is reflective of an overall loss of religiosity in the American public more generally. Today, the majority of Republicans are religious, but an increasing percentage are not particularly religious, and it is pretty religiously diverse. That does not mean that the Republican Party should somehow abandon the moral issues that make the Republican Party the Republican Party. That’s not my case. My case is that making the Republican Party non-ecumenical as opposed to ecumenical is a mistake. We’ve seen this sort of move being made on behalf of some parts of the sort of the trad-Catholic Right, some of the quasi-integralists on the Right, who seem to be making a move to break up the Republican coalition by suggesting that there is a vast religious revival that is happening in the country that is going to drive Republicans to victory. Those numbers do not exist. I wish there were; I wish there were a vast religious revival in the country and that the Republican Party was closer to its biblical moral values. I wish that were the case. But that is not supported by the data, which is why Trump is the right president for this moment, and it’s why Republicans have to watch out for coalition building and how not to break it up. When you talk about the increasing irreligiosity of the body politic, that is correct. That doesn’t mean that Republicans should abandon social issues. They absolutely should not. But it does mean that the more overt you are about marginal social issues, the more you are likely to lose the Trump coalition. Trump is winning outsized shares of Christian evangelicals, Catholics, and religious people because the Left is crazy, not because he is campaigning as some sort of religious figure. If you wish for Republicans to win, then presenting good policy with a moderate face — even if you have outsized rhetoric like President Trump — is a better path to victory than embracing the fringe positions taken by so many on X and elsewhere. President Trump can go to the National Prayer Breakfast and give what are, at best, sort of vague religious statements. And that’s fine with people. President Trump literally joked about making it to heaven at the National Prayer Breakfast, saying: I said, “I’m never going to make it to heaven. I just don’t think I qualify.” I don’t think there’s a thing I can do, but all of these good things I’m doing, including for religion — you know, religion’s back now hotter than ever before — but I said, “Even though I did that, and so many other things” —  I named things. I said, “I won’t qualify. I’m not going to make it to heaven.” And the New York Times did a front-page story that Donald Trump is questioning his life and the meaning of his life. No, I was just having fun. I really think I probably should make it; I mean, I’m not a perfect candidate, but I did a hell of a lot of good for perfect people. That last line, that he’s done a lot of things for people, is the reason he’s been elected president twice.  President Trump says, listen, you have to believe in something. You have to have a religion in general.  This is the American position. The American position is that Biblical values are good and that we like religious practice in this country. Freedom of religion and freedom from government intervention in religion are in the same amendment for a reason. That broad ecumenism is a winning approach for the Republicans. And pointing out theanti-religious secularism of the Left is a winning approach for Republicans. President Trump has the pulse of the American people on the vast majority of issues, which is why he usually takes the 80% on 80/20 issues. Republicans need to continue to do that.