Sometime after Pentecost in 33 A.D., Peter and John were going up to the temple in Jerusalem during the 3 p.m. hour of prayer.
They encountered a beggar who had been lame from birth seeking charity from those entering the temple. Peter told the beggar that they did not have money to give but offered something better.
In the name of Jesus, Peter commanded the lame man to walk -- and for the first time in his life, he did. Overjoyed, he entered the temple with Peter and John, praising God.
This captured the attention of the people in the temple who were amazed at the miracle they had just witnessed. Peter took the opportunity to urge his hearers to repent of their sins and believe in the Lord Jesus, whom they had previously rejected and condemned to death. About 5,000 of those in the temple who heard this message believed.
As Peter and the apostles continued to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and the forgiveness of sins through faith in him, the religious authorities sought to silence them with threats of prison, flogging and death. But this did not dissuade them, for they declared that they must obey God rather than man (Acts 4:12, 5:29-32).
The convicted and offended high priest, elders and scribes hated the gospel message because it was the truth about Jesus and their involvement in his death. They saw it as a threat to their religious power over the people of Israel.
However, the apostles continued undaunted, overjoyed that they were considered worthy of suffering for Jesus’ name. Efforts by the religious authorities to censor and cancel the proclamation of the gospel notwithstanding, the Holy Spirit-inspired courage and persistence of the apostles resulted in the salvation of many, to the glory of God.
There are many examples in society today in which narratives are promoted by very powerful people and organizations that invert reality in the pursuit of certain agendas. These powerful entities work in conjunction with government, Big Tech, big media, the largest banks, international institutions and multinational corporations to label anything that goes against their current narratives as misinformation or hate speech.
Once these collaborators call something hate speech or misinformation, intimidation tactics and threats are used to silence those who persist in saying unapproved things. This often includes censoring or canceling social media accounts, disrupting financial activity, and using government power to bankrupt or jail.
Because of his hatred of God and his creation, especially human beings who are made in his image, Satan, the father of lies, seeks to prevent as many people as he can from being connected to God through Jesus Christ so that they can join him in his ultimate destination. Through his rulers, powers and principalities (Ephesians 6:12), he controls some of the most powerful people and organizations in the world to aid in this effort.
One of the tools the devil uses is the promotion of transgenderism through the medical and education industries, entertainment, and other mass media outlets.
A gaslighting campaign targeting children is meant to confuse them regarding their objective biological nature and get them to undergo permanent genital mutilation to supposedly change their sex. Of course, all this does is cause sterility, mental instability, depression and, too often, death.
Anyone telling the truth in order to protect children from this evil agenda often faces censorship, deplatforming and other sanctions.
Schools, the media and the medical industry indoctrinate children to turn them away from God, hate themselves and hate those who do not go along with their unreality. This satanic hatred has caused many involved in transgenderism and convicted by the truth to react violently against themselves or others.
On May 22, Franklin Graham gave the keynote address at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Orlando, Florida.
He said that as we continue to live in a cancel culture, big corporations will erect barriers for Christian organizations in business, insurance, banking and technology to silence their voices. He challenged them to defend themselves but continue proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ in the face of increasingly difficult circumstances.
Amid the cultural revolution of the LGBT agenda (sodomy combined with Marxism), we should love those involved in this sinful lifestyle enough to plainly tell them the truth (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
Graham urged his listeners: "If you're going to try to proclaim the gospel, they're going to try to shut you up. Preach -- don’t back up, don’t make excuses. Just tell it the way it is."
Do not fear the seemingly overwhelming power of the rulers of society and their efforts to suppress the truth. Their plans will crumble before God’s power (Psalm 33:10-11).
God gave the apostles of Christ the faithfulness and boldness to preach the gospel in the cancel culture of their day. Whether it was the Jewish religious authorities or the Roman government, the gospel could not be bound. We who have received eternal life through believing the gospel are the beneficiaries of the work of God through them.
Let that encourage us to proclaim the gospel no matter the obstacles placed before us, so that many today and in the days to come will receive the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ.
"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel, for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned. For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory" (2 Timothy 2:8-10).
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
Entering the 2024 election, there are several cold, hard truths.
One: Donald Trump, however popular among some Republicans, simply cannot appeal to people outside of his very narrow base -- not anymore.
Two: Ron DeSantis is the strongest Republican candidate in the field. And he is the only Republican who can beat Joe Biden in a general election.
Three: Democrats, their media allies and other Ron-haters are so terrified of DeSantis’ popularity that they have resorted to publishing nasty hit pieces about his wife, setting up softball town halls for Trump (who is still ratings gold), and screaming from the digital rooftops about every conceivable slight.
Four: It’s time for Republicans to accept the truth, stop the infighting, and focus on winning. In DeSantis’ own words: “Two have a chance to get elected president -- Biden and me."
He’s right. According to our extensive, observational “anti-polling” data across three separate trackers and over 19 million Americans, Trump’s support is louder, not larger, and limited to a slowly shrinking core audience. DeSantis, on the other hand, can succeed where Trump will fail -- and he can do it with the entire electorate.
Since May of last year, Ready for Ron has used Impact Social to observe and monitor 40,000 swing voters across America -- identified by their actual social media posts, not Twitter bots. DeSantis consistently beats Biden among swing voters, who are fed up with the Trump shtick.
Even within the Republican Party, where Trump’s base is significant, it is still a minority. With DeSantis’ consistent, disciplined message and his ability to deliver results while ignoring the noise, he can win the primary by uniting a wide range of Republicans behind him.
Winning takes a movement. Ready for Ron, which I helped start, spent the last year running thousands of TV ads, distributing millions of mailings, and making tens of millions of online, email and social connections to build that movement behind a simple truth: Ron DeSantis will be America’s next great president.
We changed the discussion, driving up his national positives with core grassroots audiences and securing a quarter million petition signatures to draft DeSantis -- and it worked. Now, we’re ready to win, simply because that’s all that matters in 2024.
The stakes are high. Today’s left is crazy, peddling woke propaganda and making America more communist in the process. In a weak economy with sky-high inflation, Biden’s top concern is apparently “white supremacy.” And we’re supposed to tolerate that nonsense? And not elect an actual leader?
Knowing the stakes, there is no room for a “stick in the eye” pyrrhic victory in 2024. There is only victory: nominating and electing a Republican president who will reverse the damage done by the left-wing Biden administration and make America great again.
To many Republicans, Trump was a strong candidate and a successful president -- in the past. But the past is not the present. What worked then cannot work now, not after the 2020 election. Ron DeSantis is the present and the future, just like the state he governs so successfully.
While the instinct of the consulting class is to pour money into TV ads, that’s not where this election -- primary or general -- will be won. The unsexy work of knocking on doors, with its clear metrics and low profits, is anathema to most political consultants, but that is how the 2024 election will be won -- on the ground.
With over 250,000 grassroots petition signers who are ready to win, we have a strong foundation to build on. It’s more difficult rallying support for DeSantis on the ground than putting out another TV ad, but the hard work is exponentially more impactful.
Win the grassroots game, and Republicans will nominate Ron DeSantis to take down Biden. Lose on the ground, and another winnable election will slip away -- at America’s expense.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
Just days after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton demanded Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan resign from office for being drunk on the job, Phelan’s lieutenants have announced plans to illegally impeach Paxton.
On Thursday, General Investigating Committee Chairman Andrew Murr filed 20 articles of impeachment against Paxton with charges dating as far back as 2002.
Elected attorney general in 2014, Paxton has been an outspoken conservative, often leading coalitions of state attorneys general against the Obama and Biden administrations, defending Texas' pro-life and pro-family laws, and supporting the policies of President Donald Trump.
Paxton even took a case contesting the 2020 election to the U.S. Supreme Court, a move that drew sharp criticism from Texas Democrats who sought to defund his office and even initiated complaints against him with the Texas State Bar.
Unabashedly pro-Trump, Paxton had the support of the former president in his recent re-election campaign and has already endorsed Trump in his current presidential campaign.
Honored to receive the endorsement of President Donald J. Trump. pic.twitter.com/LMOtAjVooy
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) July 27, 2021
Paxton is one of Trump’s top allies, but Trump doesn’t hold Phelan in high regard. Just last month, he blasted Phelan’s property tax relief plan and called him “California Dade.” Those comments came two years after he bashed Phelan by comparing him to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and accused him of displaying “weak RINO leadership.”
Trump thus far has not commented on the allegations Phelan is making against Paxton, but the attorney general hasn’t shied away from defending himself.
In a statement released Thursday evening, Paxton characterized Phelan as a liberal, his lieutenants’ efforts to impeach him as an attempt to “overturn the results of a free and fair election,” and their accusations as “based on hearsay and gossip, parroting long-disproven claims.”
“By attacking the Office of the Attorney General, corrupted politicians in the Texas House, led by liberal Speaker Dade Phelan, are actively destroying Texas’s position as the most powerful backstop against the Biden agenda in the entire country. The RINOs in the Texas Legislature are now on the same side as Joe Biden, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Chuck Schumer, collaborating to tie our hands and render Texas less powerful and effective in the fight for the nation’s future.”
Phelan’s decision to impeach Paxton -- who recently won re-election to his third term despite fielding serious attacks in the Republican primary from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, George P. Bush, Eva Guzman and even Louie Gohmert -- is an escalation of the war he has been waging against Texas conservatives since winning the gavel with the backing of Democrats in 2021.
Just this session, Phelan blocked a Republican-led vote on a rules proposal to block him from appointing Democrats to chair House committees. After the Texas GOP went on the airwaves with a radio ad in his district calling on him not to empower the Democrats, he defied his party and appointed eight of them to powerful committee chairmanships.
Phelan has also sided with Democrats to kill border security legislation and supported numerous attacks on the Republican Party of Texas, advancing bills targeting the operation of the party and even ballot access provisions that would turn primary elections into chaos.
Phelan’s allies have also picked fights with Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller. They’ve thwarted efforts to pass school choice, stopped a bill to prevent Chinese nationals from buying land in Texas, weakened ESG reform efforts, and watered down a DEI bill to ensure left-wing radicals on college campuses keep their jobs.
Phelan has even killed a bill to end COVID vaccine mandates authored by Trump Health and Human Services official-turned-state Rep. Brian Harrison.
Now Phelan is taking his war on conservatives to an even greater level by launching an illegal impeachment of Paxton. Texas law states that “an officer in this state may not be removed from office for an act the officer may have committed before the officer's election to office.”
In a Facebook Live video on Thursday afternoon, state Rep. Steve Toth quoted from the code and called the impeachment proceedings an “illegal act.”
“It’s really clear. You can’t remove a statewide officeholder under an alleged accusation that occurred before the person was elected, and that’s exactly what they're doing right now,” he said.
[firefly_poll]
Toth went on to note that regardless of the law, Phelan and his allies intend to go ahead with the impeachment proceedings against Paxton with the support of “all 64 Democrats and a few Republicans.”
Should Phelan’s illegal impeachment effort succeed in the House, as expected, Paxton would be temporarily removed from office until a trial can be conducted by the Texas Senate. It would require a two-thirds vote of Texas senators to remove Paxton from office.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
"NAACP" used to stand for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The only thing it's advancing now is nonsense.
This august organization supposedly dedicated to the advancement of African-Americans made what can best be described as an attempt to advance Democrats, and President Joe Biden in particular, when it issued a travel advisory for the state of Florida.
According to the advisory, "Florida is openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals. Before traveling to Florida, please understand that the state of Florida devalues and marginalizes the contributions of, and the challenges faced by African Americans and other communities of color."
In advising black people to avoid travel to the Sunshine State, the NAACP does not recommend current black residents flee the state for their safety.
In reality, this is nothing more than an attack on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
"Following Gov. DeSantis' so-called leadership in driving the state to reject students' access to AP African American studies course in March, the NAACP distributed 10,000 books to 25 predominantly Black communities across the state," the group said in a news release accompanying the advisory.
"The NAACP encourages Florida residents to join this effort to defeat the regressive policies of this Governor and this state legislature."
A travel advisory is generally issued to protect travelers from unwittingly going to places where their lives and property aren't safe. A dim-witted NAACP is now trying to prevent voters from going to a place where the only risk is to the NAACP's brand of politics and progressive rubbish.
Here are some cities that are unsafe for anybody, irrespective of race:
By comparison:
These numbers suggest that it's safer in Florida than in Chicago or New York, but no advisory has been issued for those cities. The NAACP's notice seems to be concerned with partisan affiliation rather than personal safety.
It's of course no coincidence that this warning about the well-being of blacks in Florida was issued shortly before DeSantis entered the 2024 presidential derby.
The truth is that the safety of African-Americans in Florida would be worsened if the progressive policies of the Democrats were implemented there. No-bail laws, no-pursuit laws and the "defund the police" movement are the stock in trade of liberals whose concern for safety begins and ends with their own.
When did an institution with such a storied history of seeking the betterment of Americans abandon reason and instead decide to engage in the lowest form of discourse -- politics? Why would it risk what little of its prestige remains? Why not instead invest in the fight against crime and its effects on low-income and minority communities?
The answers to these questions are easily fathomable, as the group's motivation is revealed by the mere mention of DeSantis' name in its advisory. The NAACP is advancing the progressive cause, playing politics, and nothing more. Sad, but true.
America's biggest cities are raging dumpster fires of crime, unrest and hopelessness, and the best the NAACP can do is to attack a state that is flourishing under the leadership of a conservative governor.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
Be angry, America. Be really angry.
And now, put that anger to good use by raising your voices in fearless unison to bring accountability to the corrupt scoundrels out to destroy this country.
The long-awaited Durham report is out. But Americans who love their country and abide by the law will not be satisfied. Instead of issuing indictments against the despicable Obama-Biden-Clinton crew and their deputies who perpetrated one of the greatest crimes against this country, the Durham report leaves us simply with 306 pages of words on paper.
Americans deserve better. Where is the justice? Where is the accountability to hard-working Americans who were duped, force-fed as fact the Russia hoax for nearly a decade?
Where are the consequences for the cabal of power-hungry liars who set the witch hunt in motion in 2016, bastardized the U.S. Constitution, lodged false charges against innocent Americans while illegally spying on them, weaponized our system of justice, used their positions to interfere in an election and then the transfer of power, and spit on the sanctity of this nation’s rule of law?
The survival of the United States of America is now in the hands of We the People. The Durham report makes that crystal clear with this one statement: “Our investigation determined that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations contained in the Steele reporting.”
Yet the report makes no criminal referrals. Instead of pursuing justice against the criminals, it whitewashes their crimes.
Funded by the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, the Steele dossier was the discredited evidence used by Obama’s Department of Justice and FBI to open a broad investigation -- called Crossfire Hurricane -- against innocent Americans to destroy their lives and families, ruin their reputations and bankrupt them. It was the premise used to conduct a coup against the entire country and the president we elected, Donald J. Trump.
It was the trigger that sparked the Obama regime’s intelligence community assessment that falsely linked Trump and his supporters to Russia. It was the source of a hailstorm of media lies that supported the conspiracy against the American public known as Russiagate.
On April 10, 2016, a few short months before his spy chiefs began their surveillance and propaganda operation against Trump’s presidential campaign, Obama sat for an interview on Fox News and told America, “I do not talk to the attorney general about any investigations. I do not talk to any FBI directors about pending investigations. ... I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case [the investigation of Clinton’s use of a private server], but in any case. Full stop. Period.”
We must not forget that the man ultimately responsible for endangering the country’s national security and inflicting injustice and corruption on America is Barack Obama. At least the Durham report recognizes that his Department of Justice and FBI “failed to uphold their important mission of fidelity to the law.”
If those law enforcement officials were not faithful to the law, then they committed crimes. And if they committed crimes and are not charged with those crimes, then the Durham report is meaningless, and justice is not served. And that, my fellow Americans, is shameful.
But patriots rise to the occasion when the battle lines are drawn. It’s in our DNA. It is the history of this country’s citizens’ relentless fight for freedom over generations.
The time is now. It is time to raise your voice, be courageous in the face of the challenge, and never surrender.
There is an election on the horizon. The uni-party and its partners in the propaganda press are coming after We the People with all they have -- ballot malfeasance and bundles of cash for corporate honchos and Big Tech to interfere in the 2024 election.
Now is the time to put your anger to use and stand tall for the truth, election integrity and American values and see to it that those who injured the United States of America and targeted Americans are held to account.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
In 2012, the Republicans were on a roll. In 2010, Tea Party candidates had enlarged the Republican coalition enough to win a majority in the House and break the Democratic supermajority in the Senate.
Even so, in all quarters other than the third quarter of 2011, donors weighed in by pouring most of their funding into Mitt Romney's campaign.
But Romney had an Achilles heel. A Massachusetts progressive, Romney, far and away more tainted than any others in the Republican primary field, had championed "Romneycare," the pilot program for Obamacare. Romney would not diminish his signature achievement by attacking Obamacare.
Specifics change, but themes repeat.
In 2024, the Republicans will be moving again. In 2022, Freedom Caucus candidates enlarged the Republican coalition enough to win a majority in the House.
For 2024, fortunately, donors are giving more funding to Ron DeSantis and less to Donald Trump.
Trump has his own Achilles heel. A New York progressive, Trump led the federal government as it rolled out massive deprivations in the form of "covidcare."
Covidcare’s most destructive elements included lockdowns, huge inflation caused by stimulus money, and vaccine mandates. When all elements are combined, covidcare emerges as the only serious contender for having caused massive rises, domestically and worldwide, in excess deaths and injuries -- including some injuries that will likely shorten people’s lives.
As Herbert Hoover pioneered substantially all of the policy infrastructure that Franklin Roosevelt then continued, and George W. Bush pioneered substantially all of the policy infrastructure that Barack Obama then continued, so too Trump pioneered substantially all of the policy infrastructure that Joe Biden has now continued.
No presidential candidate -- Republican, Democrat or otherwise, and not even Mike Pence or Biden -- is weighed down by nearly as much covidcare baggage as Trump as the president who ratcheted up the health coercion state.
Given this fact, it’s unremarkable that Trump won’t own up and promise to do differently in the future. That would undercut his supporters’ denial or excuses, weaken the energy behind his campaign, and decrease the total number of voters who would at least lean toward him. And it could not credibly raise expectations that Trump would be the best candidate whom voters could elect.
Republican progressives don’t fix problems. When they can get in early, they create problems. When they get in the game later, they reframe problems as their own accomplishments.
In 2024, voters won't buy what Trump is selling.
DeSantis might not have the support from swing state executives or judges to overcome the Democrats’ one-two punch of fraud-prone election laws in states where Democrats control the legislatures, plus executive defiance of election laws in states where Republicans control the legislatures. Pools of votes contaminated by unverifiable ballots in urban precincts may well allow Democrats to swing elections until voters someday strip swing states’ Republican coalitions of the Republican progressives camouflaged as usual by conservative talk.
But DeSantis, some other Republican or some Mises Caucus libertarian would at least force Democrats to mobilize their well-honed election law defiance once again.
Trump won’t.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
I do not wish death or incapacitation on people. That includes President Joe Biden. I hope he lives to be 120, but in a long and happy retirement, beginning on Jan. 20, 2025.
I also don’t believe that just because a person is over 80 he or she can’t function in a demanding job, even as president of the United States.
However, not all octogenarians are the same. Bernie Sanders is a young 81. And Donald Trump, who’s 76, has the energy of a teenager. But Biden is an old 80.
Other than Biden’s rapidly declining cognitive skills, he seems physically healthy. Actuarial tables aside, there’s a good chance he would live to complete a second term. But there’s not too good a chance he’d be able to function properly. Many argue that Biden’s already too incapacitated now, let alone three years from now, or five.
If Biden should be unable to fulfill his duties as president because of incapacitation, his vice president would become president. At the moment, that’s Kamala Harris, and it doesn’t look like he’s going to drop her from the 2024 ticket.
While some polls show Trump -- widely expected to be the 2024 Republican nominee -- beating Biden in a general election matchup, it’s only by single digits. However, Trump beats Harris by a comfortable 10 points. Think about that: She’s so unwanted that Democrats won’t run her, yet we may wind up with her anyway.
Granted, vice presidents are usually not very much in the public eye, but in Harris’ case, it seems the administration is going to great lengths to keep her under wraps. As expected, she’s unpopular among Republicans, but also among independents and, awkwardly enough, Democrats.
Americans don’t know very much about her and apparently aren’t confident enough to hand over the reins to her. In fact, many staunch critics of Biden, who think he’s been the worst president in their lifetime, believe Harris would be even worse.
Vice presidents are there to reassure Americans that just in case something happens to the president, there’s a good backup plan in place. They don’t need to be charismatic or inspirational, just competent.
Going back 40 years, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his VP, a safe and competent choice. As it turned out, the wisdom of Reagan’s pick was confirmed as Bush handled his own presidential term quite well.
Bill Clinton picked Al Gore. Not exciting by any means. Boring, but safe. The younger George Bush picked Dick Cheney, who some thought had so much gravitas that the ticket should’ve been reversed, with Cheney as the headliner.
Barack Obama picked Joe Biden. Not today’s Biden, but the Biden of 15 years ago, who was never the sharpest tool in the shed and was a human gaffe machine, but whose cognitive skills had not yet begun to erode.
Who did I leave out? Oh yeah, the elder Bush’s pick for vice president, Dan Quayle. You see, Quayle was the last vice president about whom much of America was really shaky. In fact, I recall bumper stickers with an unflattering image of Quayle and the words, “Keep George Healthy!”
And there’s the difference: When Bush chose Quayle as his running mate, Bush was a vibrant 64 years old and not even close to being done with jumping out of airplanes. Biden can barely board them.
Accordingly, quite probably for the first time in U.S. history, we are facing the prospect of re-electing a president whose health (mental health, at least) we question, who’d be replaced by a vice president in whom we have very little confidence.
That won’t matter to Trump-haters, because they’d take Harris over Trump in a heartbeat. But what about Maybe Trumpers -- voters who aren’t thrilled with Trump but haven’t ruled out voting for him? Would they really entrust the country to Harris just to avoid mean tweets every couple of days?
Americans don’t always play it safe. That’s why we have crumbling infrastructure -- we often wait until a bridge collapses to repair it. Maybe some will play chicken that way with the health of their president.
This is why those who care about rescuing America from the hands of the Democrats need to spring into action and remind their non-Republican fellow Americans that if they vote for Biden next year, they’re not even getting the Biden of today.
They’ll be stuck with either an 81-year-old man whose age-related decline isn’t going to reverse itself -- and in fact will probably get worse -- or with Kamala Harris.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
When is the ceiling not above your head?
When it's a tool used by politicians to beat each other's brains out without improving any American's quality of life. Regarding the debt ceiling, their actions aren't above you, but beneath contempt.
As always, no one can plumb the depths of contempt deeper than President Joe Biden, the epitome of the Peter principle.
The position of the White House on the current debt ceiling fracas is that there should be no barrier to rampant, unrestrained spending -- meaning the debt ceiling should be increased because it's not a fixed boundary, but a malleable, meaningless "limit" to which no one is accountable.
If you could continually increase your debt limit at your discretion, imagine what you might buy.
I suspect many Americans think a discussion about the debt ceiling should focus on reducing and then eliminating debt. Instead, these negotiations are about how much more debt we as a country can accumulate. Weird, ain't it?
Your president believes it's more dangerous to cut spending in any manner than to continue spending money we don't have.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, working with the Republican majority, has proposed the Limit, Save, Grow Act as his party's debt ceiling plan. The bill would increase the debt limit by $1.5 trillion and proposes a return of funding for federal agencies to fiscal year 2022 levels while aiming to limit the growth in spending to 1 percent per year.
[firefly_poll]
Remember those halcyon days of 2022 when the government lived within its means? Neither do I.
The Republican bill, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, will save the country $4.5 trillion over the next decade. The logic is, increase the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion now, and we'll save $4.5 trillion later. I applaud any reduction in federal spending, but I am suspicious of any "cut" that requires us to spend more money first.
The White House's response to the Republican plan:
"An actual breach of the U.S. debt ceiling would likely cause severe damage to the U.S. economy. Analysis by [the Council of Economic Advisers] and outside researchers illustrates that if the U.S. government were to default on its obligations -- whether to creditors, contractors, or citizens -- the economy would quickly shift into reverse, with the depth of the losses a function of how long the breach lasted. A protracted default would likely lead to severe damage to the economy, with job growth swinging from its current pace of robust gains to losses numbering in the millions."
According to both parties, default is not an option, so why is the administration using the threat of default as a rhetorical tool? Because the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and his handlers are hysterical fools, that's why.
As with all debt ceiling stalemates, both parties want to use the opportunity to injure each other and damage their opponents' chances in the next election.
Wouldn't it be better if, instead of continuing to try to kill each other, they worked on behalf of their constituents to place government on a firm financial footing and thus improve the economy?
Lower our debt and its ceiling and raise our hopes for a better America.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
Many pollsters and pundits believe the 2024 Republican primary will be a two-person race between Floridians: former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. However, a third Floridian is expected to announce his candidacy this summer, and that is Miami Mayor Francis Suarez.
Suarez, 45, was first elected mayor in 2017. He is the son of former Miami Mayor Xavier Suarez and is the first mayor of Miami to be born in Miami. His family is native to Cuba, having fled to America to escape Fidel Castro's tyranny.
Despite the mayor's office being a nonpartisan position, Suarez proves that Republicans can run urban cities effectively.
His tenure as mayor has seen property taxes cut by 1.2 percent to the lowest level since 1964 and takes into account a population increase of around 65 percent. According to federal data, Miami had an annual growth rate of 3.5 percent from July 2021 to July 2022, making it the fourth-fastest-growing city in America. In addition, the corporate income tax is 5 percent, and the Miami economy thrives with no income tax.
Miami is now the top entrepreneurial center, No. 1 in tech job relocation and wage growth. The homicide rate is at its lowest level since 1957, and the homelessness rate is the lowest since 2013. In a recent interview with Suarez, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said the American dream is all about Miami.
It is important to note that Miami ranks as the No. 1 city in diversity, and Miami-Dade County is over two-thirds Hispanic. While Democrats have historically done well with Latino voters, that trend is not working for them in Florida.
Former President Donald Trump won the state by 110,000 votes in 2016 and increased his margin of victory by nearly 300,000 in 2020. Hillary Clinton won 63 percent of the vote in Miami in 2016, but President Joe Biden only garnered 53 percent in 2020. Suarez was re-elected in a landslide with 79 percent of the vote in 2021.
Despite rumors that a less white America makes it easier for Democrats, polls show that Hispanic and Latino voters are trending more conservative, especially in South Florida.
In a recent Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal, Suarez described people moving to his city as a response to the socialist-style policies of California and New York. "On one side, we have the socialist model: high taxes, high regulation, less competition and declining public services with government imposing itself as the solver and arbiter of all social problems. On the other side, we have the Miami model: low taxes, low regulation and a commitment to public safety and private enterprise."
Suarez has taken his conservative message across the country and spoke at CPAC and the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. He is not shy about his presidential ambitions, referring to it as "the big job." He sees himself as a generational leader who can lead the Republican Party back to winning again.
[firefly_poll]
Despite not appearing in most presidential polls, Suarez believes "inspiring people" could help him come out on top. While Trump and DeSantis are criticized for being negative or uninspiring, Suarez takes a Reagan-esque approach to connecting with individual voters.
"I think it's important to connect with the people, listen to the people, to give them an opportunity to understand what you're about, why you've succeeded, and why someone who's a mayor and someone my age could be qualified to run a country as complex and as large as the United States of America," Suarez told Fox News.
No one has ever been elected president from a mayor's office. However, it is essential to note that Suarez will have had more executive experience before taking office than Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama before him.
Considering voters of both parties prefer not to see a Trump vs. Biden rematch, a Suarez candidacy could breathe new life into the Republican Party and give Americans a chance to vote for someone noble.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
The Supreme Court, in an interim “emergency” decision requested by the Biden administration, on Friday rejected lower court rulings that placed safety restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone.
Ironically, only last week, a reminder of the need for drug certification rules was provided in a settlement: Danco Industries, the manufacturer of mifepristone, had to pay $765,000 to the U.S. because from 2011 to 2019, the company failed both to properly label imports of the drug (its single product) as originating in China and to pay customs duties on those imports.
It's timely that an old scandal concerning the inadequacy of the safety research on the abortion drug has resurfaced.
To this day, there remain significant gaps in the research. Seriously comprehensive research should have been done before the Food and Drug Administration, intimidated by massive political and media pressure, issued a premature approval letter back in September 2000.
Significant safety problems with mifepristone were exposed in two lower courts. An order was issued by District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk to halt the approval of mifepristone, and a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision then allowed the FDA’s certification of the drug to stand but limited its use.
No more hiding
The time has come for the FDA to face up to the scandal attached to its reluctant, politically coerced approval of mifepristone.
Few today can recall that scandal, but Kacsmaryk, in his April 7 order, drew a clear outline of the shameful history.
Nevertheless, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the abortion drug should remain available pending a full hearing of the case, but retained limited access to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, down from 10. The appeals court also decreed that in-person visits would once again be necessary to obtain the pill and blocked the medication from being sent by mail.
Now, the Supreme Court, at the behest of the Department of Justice and Danco, has temporarily restored complete access. Investigation in the lower courts will still go ahead, but it should have been done 23 years ago.
There can be no hiding that historical scandal now. Eventually, it will reach the Supreme Court again. The truth will be uncovered, and it’s not pretty.
Anatomy of a scandal
Back in 2000, the FDA was manipulated into abandoning the thoroughness of its standard safety investigation regimen.
It adopted instead the accelerated approval process for emergency medications that had been introduced in the '90s to fast-track new experimental drugs to deal with, inter alia, the alarming HIV/AIDS outbreak. The sponsors of the abortion pill, the Population Council and Danco, opportunistically jumped on the expedited bandwagon.
The FDA, under political and media pressure, reneged on its duty and claimed an emergency need for this drug to be approved. It placed healthy pregnancies in the same basket as the AIDS epidemic. The usual careful regimen was rashly tossed aside in this newly instituted process.
Now let’s take a look at some of the anomalies.
1. In 1996, the Population Council filed a new drug application for mifepristone with the FDA. The real result, after four years of review following the proper protocols, was a thumbs-down -- the drug could not be declared safe.
A letter to the Population Council dated February 2000 stated that “adequate information has not been presented to demonstrate that the drug, when marketed in accordance with the terms of distribution proposed, is safe and effective for use as recommended.”
2. On June 1, 2000, the FDA sent another letter to the Population Council setting out proposed restrictions to address serious safety issues.
Doctors were to be trained in administering mifepristone and treating adverse events and must have “continuing access (e.g., admitting privileges) to a medical facility equipped for instrumental pregnancy termination, resuscitation procedures, and blood transfusion at the facility or [one hour’s] drive from the treatment facility.”
3. “When FDA’s proposal was leaked to the press, a political and editorial backlash ensued.” -- Kacsmaryk
4. “In response, the Population Council rejected the proposal and repudiated the restrictions the sponsor itself proposed in 1996 -- what FDA deemed a 'very significant change' in the sponsor’s position. Because '[t]he whole idea of mifepristone was to increase access,' abortion advocates argued that restrictions on mifepristone 'would effectively eliminate' the drug’s 'main advantage' and would 'kill[] the drug.'" -- Kacsmaryk
5. Only a few months later, the FDA reneged on its safety proposals and gave in to the objections of the Population Council and Danco. Despite its “serious reservations” about mifepristone’s safety, the FDA concluded that "there was no need for special certification programs or additional restrictions.”
6. In September 2000, the FDA’s assessment from earlier that year was abandoned -- replaced with a set of precautions that waived the requirement for an assessment of the safety of mifepristone in pediatric patients.
7. Sixteen years later, the safety precautions adopted in lieu of the “adequate information” originally demanded by the FDA were further relaxed.
8. In 2021, precautions were so relaxed that mifepristone could be sent through the mail to be self-administered.
With the unreported and under-reported, research studies were skewed.
Back in 2006, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources held a hearing to investigate the FDA’s handling of mifepristone and its subsequent monitoring of the drug.
Kacsmaryk quotes a subcommittee report showing that mifepristone was “associated with the deaths of at least 8 women, 9 life-threatening incidents, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection” and that there were “more than 950 adverse event cases” associated with mifepristone “out of only 575,000 prescriptions, at most.”
Kacsmaryk points out that the FDA’s 2016 relaxation of nearly all safety precautions relied on the very conditions FDA is now refusing to adopt.
“Moreover, FDA shirked any responsibility for the consequences of its actions by eliminating any requirement that non-fatal adverse events be reported. Thus, FDA took its chemical abortion regimen -- which had already culminated in thousands of adverse events suffered by women and girls -- and removed what little restrictions protected these women and girls, systematically ensuring that almost all new adverse events would go unreported or underreported.”
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals underlined this point, saying that the FDA eliminated REMS (risk evaluation and mitigation strategies) safeguards based on studies that included those very safeguards. “The fact that mifepristone might be safe when used with the 2000 Approval’s REMS (a question studied by FDA) says nothing about whether FDA can eliminate those REMS (a question not studied by FDA).”
The court is scathing: "This ostrich's-head-in-the-sand approach is deeply troubling -- especially on a record that, according to applicants' own documents, necessitates a REMS program, a 'Patient Agreement Form' and a 'Black Box' warning." The patient agreement form requires the signer to have a surgical abortion if the pill fails.
“In sum, applicants’ own documents -- from the 'Patient Agreement Form' to the 'Black Box' warning that have accompanied mifepristone ever since the 2000 Approval up to and including today -- prove that emergency room care is statistically certain in hundreds of thousands of cases.”
There is a real scandal in the fact that the FDA has ignored the genuine danger that, without the original requirements, some users will not be able to confirm pregnancy and gestational age, to recognize ectopic pregnancies, or to identify coerced abortions, particularly in cases of abuse or human trafficking.
Finally, we must never forget that behind all Big Pharma is the unquenchable thirst for big money. But that must await another time.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
