I cannot overstate how serious it is that Democrats and two Republicans lied and covered up the fact that Donald Trump requested 10,000 National Guard for January 6. There is verifiable proof. Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and the Democrats on the J6 panel knew the truth and lied. This information comes straight from the report, […] The post WOW! Proof of Shocking Lies by Cheney & the J6 Panel appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Oklahoma has removed more than 450,000 voter registrations from its rolls since 2021, a move aimed at maintaining election integrity ahead of the 2024 presidential election. The purge, announced by Governor Kevin Stitt and state officials in September 2024, is part of an ongoing voter list maintenance program. The removals include deceased individuals, duplicate registrations, convicted felons, people who have moved out of state, and inactive voters who failed to respond to address confirmation notices. The breakdown of the purge includes 97,065 deceased voters, 14,993 duplicate registrations, 5,607 felons, 143,682 people who moved out of state, and 194,962 inactive voters who did not update their information during the state’s address verification process. This voter roll audit has reduced Oklahoma’s registered voters to just over 2 million, with Republicans making up about half, followed by over 534,000 registered Democrats and roughly 363,000 Independents. Oklahoma— HUGE More than 463,000+ Ineligible Voters Have been Removed from the Voter Rolls 97,000+ DEAD People15,000+ Duplicate voters143,000+ people that have moved5,600+ Felons It truly makes you wonder about how many of these blue states are actually blue.… pic.twitter.com/yKGa8zvTqP — DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) September 19, 2024 Governor Stitt emphasized the importance of accurate voter rolls to ensure that "every Oklahoman's vote is securely cast and properly counted," a sentiment echoed by state officials such as Secretary of State Josh Cockroft. Cockroft noted that this effort reflects Oklahoma’s broader election security measures, including collaboration with the state’s Cyber Command to protect voting systems from technological threats, including artificial intelligence. Oklahoma removed 453k ineligible voters, requires paper ballots, and ID before voting. If only all states did this. Great job @GovStitt pic.twitter.com/9TQn27vGCf — Sheepdog (@sheepdog_AF) September 20, 2024 The state’s proactive approach to election integrity also includes strict voter ID laws, banning practices like ballot harvesting, and using hand-marked paper ballots counted by electronic scanners. These scanners are not connected to the internet, further safeguarding the process. Additionally, post-election audits and recounts have consistently validated the accuracy of the state's voting system​. While Republican officials praise these efforts, some Democrats have voiced concerns that the aggressive purging of voter rolls could inadvertently disenfranchise eligible voters. State Representative Mauree Turner, a Democrat from Oklahoma City, expressed fears that some Oklahomans may not realize they've been removed from the rolls and could be caught off guard on Election Day. Voters who were removed in error have until October 11, 2024, to re-register before the November general election. Oklahoma law requires residents to be at least 18 years old, U.S. citizens, and legal residents of the state to register. The state's election board encourages residents to verify their registration status online to avoid any surprises when they head to the polls​. This major voter roll update is part of a broader trend across the U.S., where states are taking steps to tighten their election processes in the aftermath of the contentious 2020 presidential election. Oklahoma’s measures, particularly the large-scale removal of inactive and ineligible voters, reflect an increased focus on preventing potential voter fraud and ensuring that only eligible citizens participate in elections​. The post Oklahoma Removes Over 450,000 Ineligible Voters from Rolls Amid Push for Election Integrity appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Former President Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis are at odds again, this time over a proposed ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana in their home state. As Florida voters prepare to decide on Amendment 3 in November 2024, Trump has voiced strong support for the measure, contrasting sharply with DeSantis’ opposition. Trump’s endorsement came through a post on Truth Social, where he announced he would vote “yes” on the amendment, which would legalize the possession and use of marijuana for adults aged 21 and older. Trump argued that “needless arrests and incarcerations” over small amounts of marijuana should end, and emphasized the need for smart regulations to ensure safe access to cannabis products. It’s a FACT: Marijuana is safer than alcohol.Let’s end the prohibition this November #YesOn3 pic.twitter.com/MEy3tYuU4m — Smart & Safe Florida (@SmartandSafeFl) September 18, 2024 Amendment 3, if passed, would allow adults to possess up to three ounces of marijuana and permit state-licensed companies to grow and sell cannabis. The measure has gained traction, with polls showing it on track to surpass the 60% voter approval required for it to become law. In a state where Republicans outnumber Democrats by 1 million registered voters, Trump’s backing could sway conservative voters who have historically opposed legalization​. DeSantis, however, has positioned himself as a staunch opponent of the initiative. He argues that the measure is designed to benefit what he calls a “weed cartel,” referring to large companies like Trulieve, the state's biggest medical marijuana operator, which has been a significant financial backer of the campaign. DeSantis has raised concerns about public safety, claiming the amendment would lead to widespread public marijuana use and diminish the state’s ability to regulate the industry​. Florida will legalize cannabis aka marijuana, by voting yes on amendment 3. A rejection of unfounded smears, and a return to policies that are consistent with 161 years of U.S. history. pic.twitter.com/0gWWgP16Xh — EightOne Nine1 (@EightOne91) September 20, 2024 The battle over marijuana legalization has further deepened the political rift between Trump and DeSantis, who were already at odds during the 2024 Republican presidential primaries. While DeSantis has the backing of most state Republicans, Trump’s support for Amendment 3 has left some conservative lawmakers and voters in a difficult position. State Sen. Joe Gruters, a former chair of the Florida Republican Party and a Trump ally, is one of the few GOP legislators openly backing the measure​. The marijuana debate in Florida is part of a broader national conversation, as cannabis legalization continues to gain popularity across the U.S. A recent Gallup poll found that 70% of Americans support legalization, reflecting the shifting views on the issue. Trump’s endorsement of the Florida measure is also consistent with his federal stance, where he has called for marijuana to be reclassified from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug, easing restrictions on medical research without fully legalizing it nationwide. For DeSantis, the stakes are high. His opposition to Amendment 3 aligns with his broader political strategy of maintaining a tough stance on law and order, which he believes resonates with his base. DeSantis has repeatedly warned that legalizing marijuana would harm Florida’s communities, comparing the potential outcomes to what he describes as the failed policies of states like California and Colorado. Ultimately, Amendment 3 will be decided by Florida voters in November. With Trump’s endorsement providing a significant boost to the pro-legalization campaign, and DeSantis doubling down on his opposition, the marijuana measure has become a key battleground in Florida politics. Whether Trump’s influence can shift enough conservative voters remains to be seen, but the outcome could have national implications, further shaping the future of marijuana policy in the U.S. The post Trump Backs Florida Marijuana Legalization, Sparking Clash with DeSantis appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

'He’s remade the party'

'Blood of many innocent people'

The median age in the United States in 2023 was 39.1 years, according to the Census Bureau. That means that approximately half the people in this country were born in 1984 or later. What was happening four decades ago when about half America’s current population started coming into the world? In 1984, then-President Ronald Reagan was reelected. At that time, this nation’s greatest foreign policy concern was the ongoing Cold War with the Soviet Union. On June 12, 1987, Reagan visited West Berlin, which was surrounded by Soviet-controlled East Germany and separated by a wall from Soviet-controlled East Berlin. Reagan famously gave a speech that day in front of where that wall blocked access to an 18th-century structure known as the Brandenburg Gate. “We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it’s our duty to speak, in this place, of freedom,” he said. “Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe,” said Reagan. He then issued an unambiguous challenge to then-Soviet communist leader Mikhail Gorbachev.   “There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace,” Reagan said. “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Two years later—on Nov. 9, 1989—German citizens started tearing down the wall. Reagan’s successor, President George H.W. Bush, was in office then. But it was Reagan’s vision and persistence that brought the Cold War to an end. At the end of January 1981—the month Reagan took office—the total debt of the federal government was $934,073,000,000, according to the Treasury Department’s Monthly Statement of the Public Debt. By the end of June 1987, the month Reagan called for destruction of the Berlin Wall, it had risen to $2,309,296,000,000. At the end of November 1989, the month the wall came down, it was $2,923,589,000,000—or $1,989,516,000,000 more than it was the month that Reagan took office, and $614,293,000,000 more than it was the month when Reagan called for Gorbachev to tear down the wall. In November 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, 117,912,000 people were employed in the U.S. The $2,923,589,000,000 in debt the federal government held at the end of that month equaled approximately $24,795 per each one of those workers. What has happened to the debt since then? As of the end of this August, according to the Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, the total federal debt was $35,256,057,000,000. That is about 12 times as much as the $2,923,589,000,000 in debt the federal government held the month the Berlin Wall came down. This August, there were 161,434,000 people employed in the U.S. The $35,256,057,000,000 in federal debt at the end of that month equaled approximately $218,393 per each of those workers. On Jan. 20, 2021, when President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris were inaugurated, the total federal debt was $27,751,896,236,414.77, according to the Treasury Department. As of this past Monday, it was $35,346,469,569,597.74. So far, under the Biden-Harris administration the federal debt has increased by approximately $7,594,573,333,182.97. That less-than-four-year increase in the debt is more than two-and-a-half times as much as the total debt that was accumulated in the more than two centuries that passed between Declaration of Independence and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Where are we headed now? “If current laws governing taxes and spending generally remained unchanged, the federal budget deficit would increase significantly in relation to gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 30 years,” the Congressional Budget Office wrote in its “Long-Term Budget Outlook,” published in March. “The likelihood of a fiscal crisis would increase as federal debt—measured in relation to the size of the economy—continued to rise, because mounting debt could erode investors’ confidence in the U.S. government’s fiscal position,” wrote the CBO. “Such an erosion of confidence would lower the value of Treasury securities and further drive up interest rates on federal debt as investors demanded higher yields to purchase those securities.” As we near the end of the federal fiscal year on Sept. 30 and another federal election approaches, the American people deserve to hear what the politicians who have authority over federal spending intend to do about this problem. And future generations of Americans do not deserve to pay for the failure of these politicians to deal with it. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post It’s Long Past Time to Confront the Exploding National Debt appeared first on The Daily Signal.

US Soldier Who Deserted to North Korea Released After Guilty Plea

Stupid or liar. Comedian Adam Carolla poses the questions to sketchy politicians. Are they dumb enough to believe what they’re saying, or is it a calculated lie? Simple. Powerful. Effective.   Stupid or liar. It always comes back to stupid or liar — Adam Carolla (@adamcarolla) June 29, 2015   The podcaster’s maxim rushed to mind while processing a Hollywood Reporter interview with key “Saturday Night Live” players. The magazine interviewed show founder Lorne Michaels along with Weekend Update hosts Michael Che and Colin Jost. Why now? It’s “SNL’s” 50th season, an impressive milestone for any TV program. No show can maintain its level of excellence during that span. That applies to “SNL.” Quick, name the last time a show regular became a breakout movie star? How many modern “SNL” skits fueled feature-length comedies? Even more damning? The show long ago lost its counter-culture cred. Its liberal bias isn’t just showing. It’s impossible to miss. Michaels, Che and Jost discussed season 50, the show’s political reach and more in the dishonest interview. Why dishonest? The trio continues to insist the show is a bipartisan attack on sacred cows. Reality doesn’t just suggest otherwise. It screams so. The show celebrates progressive power, lets fumbling Democrats skate and won’t defend free speech. The THR reported pressed Che if the show still speaks “truth to power?” The question included a quip he made last season about President Joe Biden’s disconnect with Black Americans. The crowd didn’t take kindly to the jab, a very rare “SNL” line that hit Biden hard. I can’t agree with everything political that we’ve had on the show. And I’m sure there’s stuff I’ve written that’s made some castmembers bristle or some writers go, “What are we putting on? We can’t say that.” But we have to live with each other; we’re renting this space and trying to get this real estate for our ideas. So, there’s no one mission statement, I don’t believe, beyond funny is funny. Maybe Lorne has an idea of what he wants the identity to be. Later, Che acknowledges how partisan political satire has become of late. He comically denies “SNL” joined that chorus, ignoring years of overt liberal bias. … the show is not about being left leaning or right leaning or any leaning. It’s about seeing the truth and pointing out that the emperor is not wearing clothes. That’s what I like about comedy, so I’ll always go for those types of jokes. Michaels similarly addresses the show’s political takes. But if it feels like you’re talking to the audience and want to be supported because your values are the same as their values, you really shouldn’t be in comedy. He’s right. And, apparently, his home lacks a single mirror. Later, Michaels digs a deeper hole for himself. You can’t lecture the audience, which most of politics is now, people lecturing the audience. Ours is like, yeah, there are kind of idiots on both sides. And we’re not going to do anything that didn’t work at dress [rehearsal]. It has to play. It has to be comedy. We’re first and foremost a comedy show. Does this look like a comedy show?     Or this?   "SNL" paid a heartfelt tribute to Obama by singing "To sir, with love" https://t.co/x0RgHcjqF6 pic.twitter.com/B23TtiFkck — BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) January 22, 2017    “SNL” at 50 isn’t just a shell of its former self. It’s betrayed both the shows bipartisan roots and its founder’s public stance. The only chance we’ll get to see “SNL” in its glory days comes on Oct. 11. That’s when director Jason Reitman’s “Saturday Night” hits theaters. The film captures the behind-the-scenes chaos from the show’s debut episode.  

Cows. They seem so gentle, chewing their grass along country roads.But beneath that docile exterior is a deadly menace. In fact, bovine attacks kill about 20 Americans each year — typically more than sharks, bears, or school shootings combined.The next time you see a sensational report about the latest impending doom, remember the humble cow.Sharks scare us more yet kill only five Americans annually. Bears? They maul about two people to death each year. And while school shootings are tragic and horrifying, they don’t take nearly as many lives as cow stompings.Yet, cows don't get the same media treatment. There is no “Cow Week” on the Discovery Channel, no breathless news reports about the “bovine menace.”Imagine if the media covered cow attacks like they do plane crashes or mass shootings. We'd have 24/7 coverage, complete with fancy graphics and ominous theme music: "Hooves of Death: Are You at Risk?" or "Mad Cow: The Silent Killer in Your Pasture."Pundits would speculate endlessly about the motives of these mad cows and society’s inability to solve this problem once and for all. Politicians would grandstand for stricter bovine control laws. Social media would explode with hashtags like #FarmerStrong.But in reality, cow attacks barely register a blip on the media radar. It's not that the deaths are less tragic. It's just that cow carnage doesn't drive clicks or sell papers. So these killers continue their reign of terror, unchecked and unreported.Cow attacks in perspectiveIn truth, most cow-related fatalities involve farm workers or those who work closely with cattle. These deaths often result from blunt-force trauma — kicks, trampling, or crushing.The CDC tells us that most fatal cow attacks are by bulls, with the remaining split between individual female cows and multiple-cattle attacks. Most of those who die are older and overwhelmingly male. And, all puns and media complaints aside, the killings are truly violent.Those 20 deaths are tragic, yet pale in comparison to the 42,000 annual traffic fatalities in America. And yet, like cow attacks, we rarely see sensationalized reports about the "killer cars" stalking our streets. We recognize that driving carries risks, and we put those risks in context.The same logic applies to cows. Working with large animals always involves some danger. It's a risk that farmers and ranchers accept as part of the job.Our skewed view of riskThe way we perceive the threat of cow attacks reveals a lot about how we consume media and assess risk. We're far more likely to die from mundane causes than headline-grabbing events like shark attacks or airplane crashes.But fear sells. And in a 24-hour news cycle, the most sensational stories get the most airtime, regardless of the actual risk they pose.So the next time you see a sensational report about the latest impending doom, remember the humble cow. The real dangers in life are often far more ordinary — and far less reported on — than we're led to believe.We live in a world full of risks, both large and small. We can't eliminate them all, but we can put them in perspective.The things that scare us the most aren't always the things most likely to harm us.Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared on Ken LaCorte’s Substack.