Holy War Erupts When Basketball Coach Dares to Voice Christian Faith

/1 Comment/in , /by

A coalition whose goal includes censoring select Christians who make reference to their personal faith has demanded that the University of South Carolina censor its women’s basketball coach.

But officials with the Rutherford Institute have volunteered to help defend the school from the attack by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The fight is over comments by Dawn Staley, the coach of the Gamecocks, which came after the team defeated Oregon State last month to advance to the NCAA’s Final Four. The team later won the title.

Staley was interviewed, and was asked, “Since the last two games have been close and tough,…what’s impressed you about this [team]?”

She praised the players’ resilience and added, “I’m giving all the glory to God, though. …The devastating loss that we had last year, to put us back here with a totally different team—if you don’t believe in God, something’s wrong with you, seriously. I’m a believer. I’m a believer because He makes things come true. When you’re at your worst, He’s at His best.” (Read more from “Holy War Erupts When Basketball Coach Dares to Voice Christian Faith” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

U.S. Supreme Court: State Can Enforce Ban on Sex Changes for Children

/2 Comments/in , /by

The United States Supreme Court awarded Idaho emergency relief that will allow the state to enforce its ban on doctors performing sex-change operations on children and providing them with sex-change drugs.

In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower appellate court had gone too far when it blocked Idaho from enforcing the law altogether. The decision, however, does not settle the question of whether the law is constitutional.

The lower court had blocked the state from enforcing any part of the law in response to a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the rules. The lawsuit is still ongoing, but the order had been preventing the law from going into effect while both sides litigated the constitutionality of the law in court.

Per the Supreme Court’s decision, Idaho can broadly enforce the law and is only blocked from enforcing it against the plaintiffs who are named in the lawsuit until the litigation is settled.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a Republican, praised the Supreme Court’s decision in a statement Monday. (Read more from “U.S. Supreme Court: State Can Enforce Ban on Sex Changes for Children” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Rep. Thomas Massie to Speaker Mike Johnson: “Announce Your Resignation, You’re a Goner”

/1 Comment/in , /by

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said Tuesday he is co-sponsoring a motion by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., to vacate Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., urging him to “pre-announce his resignation.”

“You’re not going to be the speaker much longer,” Massie told Johnson in front of a closed-door meeting of the entire Republican conference, Politico and Punchbowl News reported.

According to Punchbowl, Massie told Johnson he “should clean the barn and resign or else he’ll be vacated.” . . .

“I just told Mike Johnson in conference that I’m cosponsoring the Motion to Vacate that was introduced by @RepMTG. He should pre-announce his resignation (as Boehner did), so we can pick a new Speaker without ever being without a GOP Speaker,” Massie posted.

Massie’s public display drew boos and catcalls from the majority of the GOP conference, Politico and Axios reported. Massie is the first House Republican to publicly back Greene’s ouster of Johnson since her letter of discontent was sent to the conference last week.

(Read more from “Rep. Thomas Massie to Speaker Mike Johnson: “Announce Your Resignation, You’re a Goner” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

House Dissatisfaction With Johnson Explodes Over Foreign Aid ‘Insanity’ That Neglects Southern Border

/0 Comments/in , /by

House Republicans’ dissatisfaction with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is rapidly growing as Reps. Scott Perry (R-PA) and Jim Banks (R-IN) are sharing their frustrations about what Banks called “insanity” in Johnson’s foreign aid framework, which includes over three times as much money for Ukraine as it does for Israel while neglecting the U.S. Southern border.

Perry took to X Tuesday to share an image of the framework, showing the bills allocate $48.83 billion to Ukraine, $14.1 billion for Israel, $2.4 billion for “Red Sea Operations,” $2.58 billion for “INDOPACOM,” and $3.3 billion for a “Submarine Industrial Base.”

“Notice anything missing?” wrote Perry. Speaker Johnson “failed to incorporate any border security into any of the FOUR of the bills he’s going to ram down our throats this week.”

“On more than half a dozen occasions in the last six months, he promised the American People this wouldn’t happen,” Perry added.

Sharing Perry’s tweet, Banks called the package “Insanity,” emphasizing the plan would send three times as much money to Ukraine as it does Israel while simultaneously neglecting the U.S. Southern border.

(Read more from “House Dissatisfaction With Johnson Explodes Over Foreign Aid ‘Insanity’ That Neglects Southern Border” HERE)

Judge Allows Juror Who ‘Celebrated Trump’s Loss in 2020’ to Stay in Pool

/1 Comment/in , /by

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan reportedly allowed a juror who celebrated former President Donald Trump’s 2020 loss on social media to remain in the jury pool.

Trump’s unprecedented trial began Monday morning with jury selection, the first day of a process that could span two weeks. The trial could last until June.

During Tuesday’s jury selection, Trump’s defense attorneys tried to prevent a potential juror from staying on the case because she celebrated Trump’s 2020 loss, Fox News reported.

“They wanted to have a peremptory challenge to excuse the juror because they thought that she said she could be impartial, but had social media posts that apparently had her celebrating Trump’s loss in 2020,” Trace Gallagher reported, “and so they challenged her. The judge said, ‘Nope, she can be impartial. She stays.’”

(Read more from “Judge Allows Juror Who ‘Celebrated Trump’s Loss in 2020’ to Stay in Pool” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Marine’s Accusations: Pentagon Cover-Up in Afghanistan Bombing Probe

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Marine at the heart of the recent Afghanistan probe has leveled serious accusations against the Pentagon, alleging a cover-up of evidence that could have prevented the deadly suicide bombing during the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.

Former Sgt. Tyler Vargas-Andrews, who suffered life-altering injuries in the attack, testified in March 2023 about the events leading up to the bombing. He claimed that despite having identified a potential threat, he and his team were prevented from taking action. Vargas-Andrews stands by his testimony, asserting that the attack could have been averted if action had been taken based on the on-the-ground intelligence available.

The subsequent probe initiated by CENTCOM failed to substantiate Vargas-Andrews’ claims, leading to a dispute over the accuracy of the findings. While the investigation concluded that the bomber was not the individual initially identified by Marines, Vargas-Andrews maintains that there was a failure to act on actionable intelligence.

One of the key points of contention revolves around missing photographs of the bomber, which could have provided crucial intelligence. Despite exhaustive searches, these photos remain unaccounted for, raising questions about the thoroughness of the investigation.

The identification of the bomber as Abdul Rahman Al-Logari, an ISIS operative released by the Taliban, adds complexity to the situation. While CENTCOM asserts that the evidence conclusively links Al-Logari to the attack, Vargas-Andrews insists that he still had an opportunity to engage the bomber and prevent the tragedy.

The discrepancies between Vargas-Andrews’ account and the findings of the investigation underscore the need for transparency and accountability in understanding the events leading up to the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Former Trump Attorney Tells CNN: Irish Woman Critical of Trump Not Deemed ‘Dangerous Juror’

/1 Comment/in , /by

Criminal defense attorney Bill Brennan, who previously represented former President Donald Trump, told CNN Monday that an Irish woman who went off about her dislike of Trump was not a “dangerous juror.”

Jury screening for Trump’s hush money trial began Monday as concerns emerge about jurors with bias against the presumptive 2024 Republican nominee. Brennan told CNN’s Jake Tapper that an outspoken woman who made her “hate” for Trump undoubtedly was less “dangerous” to the jury pool than someone less vocal.

“We had a lady come up as a prospective juror. I’ve been picking juries for about 35 years. Uh, she looked good to me, a lady in her mid-40s, uh, of Irish extraction. She spoke with a brogue, she worked in an Irish pub and on our questionnaire, questions 29 and 30 said, ‘Do you have any former — do you have any strong feelings about the former president and if so, would they affect your ability to be fair?’” Brennan said.

“And she checked them, so I said, ‘Well, ma’am, would they be positive or negative feelings?’ And she says, ‘Oh, I despise that man,’ he continued, imitating the woman’s Irish accent. “And I said, I guess it was late in the day, Jake, and I said, ‘Oh, come on, don’t sugarcoat things for me. Speak your mind.’ She says, ‘Oh, Speak me mind? I hate him!’”

Brennan was recalling a potential juror from the time he defended Trump during a tax fraud case against the Trump Organization in 2022. New York Justice Juan Merchan, the same judge presiding over the hush money case, fined the Trump Organization $1.6 million in Jan. 2023, according to The Associated Press (AP). (Read more from “Former Trump Attorney Tells CNN: Irish Woman Critical of Trump Not Deemed ‘Dangerous Juror'” HERE)

Supreme Court to Deliberate on Case with Potential to Impact Hundreds of Jan. 6 Prosecutions

/4 Comments/in , /by

The upcoming Supreme Court hearing of Fischer v. United States has drawn significant attention due to its potential ramifications for both the prosecution of Jan. 6 defendants and the ongoing legal challenges involving former President Donald Trump. At the heart of the case lies the interpretation of an obstruction statute, Section 1512(c)(2), which carries penalties of up to 20 years in prison for those found guilty of corruptly obstructing official proceedings.

Joseph Fischer, a defendant in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, argues that his prosecution under this statute represents an unprecedented expansion of its scope. Fischer’s legal team contends that Section 1512(c)(2) was originally intended to target evidence tampering in corporate fraud cases, rather than obstruction of Congress’ certification of electoral results.

Fischer’s case underscores broader concerns about the application of the statute to Jan. 6 defendants, many of whom face felony charges under its provisions. Should the Supreme Court rule in Fischer’s favor, it could potentially affect the outcomes of numerous cases and even prompt early releases for some defendants.

The government, however, maintains that the statute’s language encompasses all forms of corrupt obstruction of official proceedings, without limitation to evidence tampering. This interpretation was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision, which deemed the meaning of the statute unambiguous.

Nevertheless, dissenting voices, including Judge Gregory Katsas, have criticized the government’s interpretation as overly broad and potentially unconstitutional. They argue that such a reading could criminalize constitutionally protected activities such as advocacy and protest.

The Fischer case also intersects with the legal challenges facing former President Trump. Two of the charges in Trump’s election interference case hinge on the same obstruction statute under review. Critics contend that a correct interpretation of the statute could undermine a key aspect of the indictment against Trump.

However, Special Counsel Jack Smith has defended the charges, asserting that they would remain valid irrespective of the Supreme Court’s decision on Section 1512(c)(2). Smith argues that the use of falsehoods or creation of false documents constitutes evidence impairment, thus satisfying the statute’s requirements.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in April, the outcome of Fischer v. United States holds significant implications for the legal landscape surrounding Jan. 6 prosecutions

White House on Iran Striking Despite U.S. Saying Not To: ‘Another Way of Looking at This Is, They Didn’t’ Succeed

/1 Comment/in , /by

During an interview with CBS on Monday, White House National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby responded to a question on Iran attacking Israel despite American warnings to not do so and what that says about American influence in the region by stating that “I think another way of looking at this is, they didn’t. They meant to cause casualties, they meant to cause extensive damage inside Israel, and they didn’t.” . . .

Kirby responded, “I think another way of looking at this is, they didn’t. They meant to cause casualties, they meant to cause extensive damage inside Israel, and they didn’t. And the reason they didn’t was because the United States and partners came to help…defend Israel, we came to their assistance, and we knocked down just about everything that the Iranians threw up into the sky. And as the president told Prime Minister Netanyahu on the phone Saturday night, this was an extraordinary success, and you ought to look at it as an extraordinary success. Israel proved that it’s not alone and they proved that they’re militarily superior to Iran. And they ought to consider what that success actually means in the region. There’s no reason for this to escalate further. The president doesn’t want a wider war in the region. Everything he’s been doing since October 7 has been designed to prevent that. And, of course, we’re not looking for a war with Iran.” (Read more from “White House on Iran Striking Despite U.S. Saying Not To: ‘Another Way of Looking at This Is, They Didn’t’ Succeed” HERE)

Californians Arming up for Self-Defense as Illegals Flood Into Cities

/0 Comments/in , /by

Californians are arming up for self-defense as the U.S. Border Patrol carries out street drop-offs of illegal immigrants in and around cities like San Diego.

The New York Post reported that “roughly 125,000 migrants have been released onto the streets in the San Diego area since September,” and many area residents are reacting by purchasing firearms and ammunition for themselves and their families.

Cory Gautereaux owns a gun store, Firearms Unlimited California, in northeast San Diego and he has seen business increase as more and more illegals are let loose on the streets.

Gautereaux said, “The problem for people that live around the gun store is the street dropoffs.” . . .

On October 11, 2023, the Daily Mail noted that the Border Patrol “[released] 13,000 migrants onto San Diego streets in a month due to overflowing shelters.” (Read more from “Californians Arming up for Self-Defense as Illegals Flood Into Cities” HERE)