Biden can't cover up documents scandal

In a surprising turn of events, it seems that the majority of Democrats view President Biden's mishandling of classified documents as a bona-fide scandal that shouldn't be covered up by the federal government. According to a Rasmussen poll taken over the weekend, 55% of Democrats agreed that the mishandled documents constituted a political scandal.

Obviously this is terrible news for the Biden administration, but it's important that we continue the work to hold the President accountable. That starts by imploring the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the classified documents to the fullest extent. It's a vital part of our republican government that we recognize that no politician is above the rule of law.

To give you a better idea of American's views on the Biden classified documents scandal, check out this section of an article from The New York Post:

A Rasmussen poll out Monday, and exclusively revealed here, shows that almost three-quarters of voters (72%) regard the president’s handling of classified records as a scandal. That includes a majority (55%) of Democrats.

Nearly half (48%) of all voters say it is a “major scandal,” according to the national poll of 1,000 voters taken over the weekend.

But even more damning for the president is that 60% of all voters believe it is likely that information from those classified documents “was used by Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, in his foreign business deals.” Fully 44% believe it is “very likely.”

Among Democrats, 36% believe it is likely that Hunter used his dad’s classified files, with more than one in five saying it is “very likely.” Not a good omen for the president’s bid for re-election.

We have to ask ourselves if we're willing to put politicians above the law, and whether or not Biden's actions mean that he's unworthy of the position of President. Until the Department of Justice acts, we'll have to keep a close eye on what could turn into the biggest political scandal of the 21st century.

https://nypost.com/2023/01/29/....majority-of-voters-b

nypost.com

Majority of voters, including Democrats, believe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents is a scandal

A new poll shows that almost three-quarters of voters regard the President Biden's handling of classified records to be a scandal. That includes a majority of Democrats. 

The Abortion Zealots of the Left

It seems like wherever you look, politicians, pundits, and celebrities on the political left are obsessed with preaching to America about the benefits of abortions. The worst part is, these pro-abortionists seem to have a religious fervor whenever they talk about how important it is to allow women to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

In fact, in their latest push to increase abortion availability nationwide, some lawyers have argued that restricting access to abortions violates American's right to freely exercise their religion. Their argument is that certain religions allow abortions, even though the law restricts the practice.

The real question for courts to decide is whether or not restricting abortion access violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the government from "substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion."

If you're interested in learning more about the upcoming legal battles involving abortion and religion, The Federalist just put out a great article about the issue, which can be found here. A section of the article summarizes the issues facing the court:

The plaintiffs claim that Indiana’s ban on almost all abortions violates its Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the government from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion” unless it is the “least restrictive means” of furthering a “compelling governmental interest.” Indiana’s law is modeled on the federal RFRA, enacted in 1993 — and its legal standard, known as “strict scrutiny,” is the toughest in any area of law.

Congress overwhelmingly passed RFRA, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law in reaction to the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith. That decision embraced a weak legal standard that allows the government to frequently interfere with religious practice. States such as Indiana started enacting their own RFRAs after the Supreme Court decided in 1997 that the federal RFRA could not be applied to the states.

While we should all celebrate the repeal of Roe v. Wade that happened last year, we should also keep in mind that the legal battles affecting abortion are far from over. Rest assured that when I'm elected to represent the 24th District of Florida, I will fight tooth and nail to keep abortions out of our great state.

https://thefederalist.com/2023..../01/27/leftist-lawye

thefederalist.com

Leftists Try To Protect Killing The Unborn By Calling It A Religion

Abortion lawyers are launching less conventional attacks, including that pro-life laws violate the right to freely exercise religion.

3

1

Another useless gun control push by Democrats

Gun-hating politicians have always been quick to exploit tragedies if it means they can support their anti-gun agenda. The recent shooting in California is no exception, with Governor Gavin Newsom calling on Democrats in power to do more to restrict our right to self-preservation.

This is despite the fact that the anti-gun group, Giffords, has already given California an "A" rating, meaning they already have a slew of gun control measures in place. Proponents of gun control even went as far as saying that California has, "the strongest gun safety laws in the nation and has been a trailblazer for gun safety reform."

With all of this in mind, does it really make sense to pass more gun control measures that will only hurt law-abiding citizens? California is a litmus test for whether or not extreme gun control laws work, and the evidence is clear: mass shootings still occur in California, which shows how gun control is not the fix for gun violence that Dems think it is.

David Harsanyi went into more detail on California's failed gun control policies in this piece for The Federalist:

California already has “universal” background checks. California has a 10-day waiting period limit for handgun purchases, a microstamping system, a personal safety test, the ability to sue gun manufacturers even if they haven’t broken any law, an age hike on the purchase of certain firearms including rifles from 18 to 21, “red flag” laws that allow police to confiscate guns without genuine due process, a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (and legislation held up in courts to confiscate those magazines), among many other restrictions.

Short of letting cops smash down the doors of gun owners and take their weapons, California has a law for it. And all it’s done is leave people attending dance halls defenseless.

It's time that we admit strict gun control measures would have an insignificant effect on the number of mass shootings in America. Instead we should ensure that the average American has the ability to defend themselves - both against a tyrannical government and against those who would wish them harm.

We need to stand together if we want to prevent the erosion of our right to self-preservation, so please support candidates who understand and appreciate the importance of the Second Amendment.

https://thefederalist.com/2023..../01/26/get-ready-for

thefederalist.com

Get Ready For Democrats' Cynical, Useless, Gun-Control Push

They don't care about the effectiveness or constitutionality of gun control. They just want something 'done.'

6

2

Don't believe the Doomsday Prophecies

Politicians seem incredibly adept at restricting freedoms in times of crisis, and no one does that better than the political left. If you turn on CNN or MSNBC, you'll be bombarded with dozens of news stories about the world ending. Whether it's climate change or mass starvation and famine, Democrats seem hell-bent on establishing America in particular as a nation in crisis.

My advice? Don't believe them. When Democrats like Al Gore were warning that climate change would doom the world in the next ten or so years, it never happened. When they said we'd face mass starvation and famine, it didn't happen. According to an article written by John Stossel for Reason magazine, we're facing less famine and the sea levels aren't cataclysmically rising.

In his recent story for Reason magazine, John Stossel put it best when he summarized the left's doomsday prophecies:

The world's population more than doubled. But today there is less famine!

60 Minutes did mention that Ehrlich was wrong about widespread starvation, but they ignored his many other silly predictions. One was that by the year 2000 (because of climate change), England will not exist.

Ehrlich won't talk to me now, but seven years ago, when my producer asked him about his nonsense, Ehrlich said, "When you predict the future, you get things wrong."

The media should ignore doomsayers like Ehrlich, and pay more attention to people like Marian Tupy, editor of HumanProgress.org.

In my new video, Tupy points out that "life is getting better." The modern era has brought much longer lives and the greatest decline in poverty ever.

Of course, universities, media, and politicians say capitalism is destroying the earth, so young people throw soup on famous paintings. It's the moral thing to do, they believe, because we face an apocalypse!

"If you sell the apocalypse," says Tupy, "people feel like you are deep and that you care" But "if you are selling rational optimism, you sound uncaring."

The true goal of politicians when faced with a crisis is to use the public's fear as leverage so they can restrict our freedoms. When challenges like climate change and overpopulation threaten to doom the world, it's a lot easier to restrict our rights to free speech and peaceable assembly. Just look at the response to Covid-19 for further confirmation of this.

https://reason.com/2023/01/25/....despite-the-media-na

reason.com

No, the world is not heading toward 'mass extinction'

"60 Minutes" recently had on Paul Ehrlich, who claims the world is careening toward mass destruction. The opposite is true.

4

Biden's Big Tech Censorship Case

The Biden administration has been busy attempting to coerce Big Tech into suppressing free speech that they disagree with.

The President's director of digital strategy, Rob Flaherty, has been accused of using the administration's power to force media companies to adhere to Biden's strict censorship measures. Of course, the censorship is one-sided, with the White House specifically targeting truth tellers like Tucker Carlson for free speech suppression.

In a piece for the New York Post, Jeff Landry summarizes the abuses of power from the Biden White House:

The First Amendment is the bedrock of American liberty. Our citizens have the right, if not civic duty, to engage in open, dynamic discourse, and no government has the right to limit, suppress, censor or otherwise control it.

Yet as we dig deeper into discovery in our Big Tech censorship case — Missouri and Louisiana v. Biden — we uncover ever more truly appalling abuses of power that President Biden’s director of digital strategy, Rob Flaherty, admitted come from “the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the” White House.

Such evidence proves the Biden administration is leveraging its power to coerce social media companies to suppress the speech of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who disagree with its political narratives.

These are just the latest in a long string of liberal efforts to suppress free speech, which begs the question of why they would be so afraid of letting Americans exercise their 1st Amendment rights.

https://nypost.com/2023/01/23/....our-lawsuit-uncovers

nypost.com

Our lawsuit uncovers more shocking evidence Team Biden used Big Tech to censor

Evidence proves the Biden administration is leveraging its power to coerce social-media companies to suppress the speech of thousands, if not millions, of Americans.

7