On the latest episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast,” we watch the battle for the swing states of the Rust Belt—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—take Kamala Harris’ campaign’s attention away from the swing states of the Sun Belt—specifically, Arizona and Nevada. Will that refocusing levy a massive shift in the polls—or is this more media humbug and nonsense in an election where everything is already decided? And what does Nebraska, of all places, have to do with it? The world stage gets more chaotic as Israel begins operations in southern Lebanon in some of the most targeted military strikes of all time. President Joe Biden appears to completely forget where he is and who he is, while first lady Jill Biden steps into her Edith Wilson shoes as the nation looks on in horror. Finally, we parse a bit of breaking data on the various unions and their election endorsements and involvement. The traditional “1990s labor Democrats” demographic may have one good gasp of air left before being lost to the pages of history, and what a doozy of an election to swing! Catch the live radio show and livestream weeknights at 7 p.m. EDT on The Daily Signal’s YouTube, X, or Facebook—and subscribe to the podcast so you never miss an episode or exclusive interview! The post WATCH: The Sun Belt Might Outshine the Rust Belt appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Donald Trump by all accounts survived another assassination attempt earlier this month when Secret Service agents engaged a rifle-wielding man lying in wait in bushes adjoining a hole at his private golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida, where the former president was playing. As is so often the case after high-profile incidents involving the criminal misuse of firearms, a lot of gun control activists immediately took to the internet with their “hot takes,” declining to wait for correct information to come to light or to analyze whether their initial gut feelings had any relationship to reality. And, as usual, many of these immediate hot takes really missed the mark. Here are three of the most common assertions erroneously made in the days following the second known attempt to assassinate Trump. 1. This happened because of “weak” gun laws. Right on cue, many major gun control organizations insinuated that “weak gun laws” were to blame not only for the assassination attempt but basically for all social ills. As with the first assassination attempt on Trump, these groups made no effort to explain which of their much-touted “stronger” gun laws, specifically, would’ve prevented this individual from committing this specific criminal act, or how. Since he is 58 years old, the second gunman’s actions certainly wouldn’t have been hindered by age-based restrictions on gun sales. Nor was the gunman’s attempt to kill Trump facilitated by Florida’s recent change to its permitless public carry law, which (to the chagrin of gun control activists hoping to place as many barriers as possible between ordinary Americans and their rights) authorizes all non-prohibited adults to carry concealed handguns in public after first obtaining special licenses. Not only was the gunman a convicted felon who couldn’t lawfully possess any firearm, much less carry one in public, but Florida law continues to prohibit the open carrying of long guns in public places. Moreover, no reasonable person believes that a highly motivated criminal willing to commit premeditated murder with an illegally possessed rifle would have been dissuaded from doing so just because of public carry restrictions. Moreover, as with the first gunman who attempted to assassinate Trump (at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania), there’s no evidence that Florida’s supposedly lax public carry laws confused Trump’s security detail or led it initially to downplay the severity of the threat posed by a rifle-wielding man setting up a sniper’s nest several hundred yards from a former president and current presidential candidate. Looking at the standard “wish list” of laws supported by gun control activists, the only proposal that might plausibly come into play is their desire to eliminate private intrastate gun sales—i.e., “universal background checks.” For several reasons, however, it seems unlikely that a federal version of that law would have mattered. It’s not yet clear precisely when or how the gunman in Florida got his rifle. But since he’d been a prohibited person for more than two decades, we can safely assume he didn’t buy it from a licensed seller within the past 20 years. Several other possibilities remain. He may have lawfully purchased the rifle prior to becoming a prohibited person and illegally retained possession of it. That would hardly be surprising, as even states such as California—with their universal gun registration laws—struggle to confiscate guns from tens of thousands of prohibited persons whom officials know failed to surrender their previously lawfully possessed guns. In theory, the gunman also could have purchased the rifle via a private intrastate sale by an unlicensed seller who acted in good faith, not knowing the buyer’s status as a prohibited person. Such a sale still would have been completely illegal on the gunman’s part. It also would mean that he most likely kept the rifle stored somewhere (or with someone) in North Carolina after moving to Hawaii. Taking it back-and-forth from one of the nation’s most restrictive gun states would’ve required him to formally declare the rifle with an airline, an incredibly high-risk move for a convicted felon. To be even quasi-legal, such a private gun sale also must have occurred prior to 2018, when the gunman moved to a state that effectively bans private sales. In fact, if the gunman took possession of the rifle within the past six years, it by definition was through an illegal sale. No, he couldn’t just bypass Hawaii’s de facto prohibition on private sales by buying a gun in another state—at least not legally. Interstate sales must be conducted by licensed sellers, who are legally obligated to conduct background checks and ensure a sale complies with all laws of the buyer’s state of residency. Most likely, however, the gunman either bought the rifle “off the street” in an illicit, black-market transaction with a seller who knew or didn’t care whether he was a prohibited person or he obtained it through an illegal straw purchaser. Authorities said the serial number on the gunman’s rifle had been obliterated, an illegal technique commonly employed by black-market dealers and straw purchasers because it significantly hinders the ability of law enforcement to trace the weapon back to its last transaction through a federal firearms licensee—and thereby potentially work out a chain of custody that could incriminate the dealer or straw purchaser. Finally, even if the gunman got his rifle through an otherwise lawful private sale, it’s quite the stretch to suggest that he could not just as easily have gotten it the same way as the vast majority of criminals—illegal black-market sales by people lacking any motivation or incentive to abide by federal gun sale laws. 2. The gunman used an “assault-style” AK-47 rifle. Perhaps one of the most commonly repeated gun control talking points is that the gunman in Florida used an “assault weapon,” allegedly demonstrating why we should ban these firearms. To be fair, this seems to stem from the fact that many major media outlets repeatedly have mischaracterized the gunman’s SKS rifle as an “AK-47” or “AK-style” gun, likely due to ignorance. Based on photos released by law enforcement and other official documents, the rifle at issue seems to be a semiautomatic SKS platform that’s been mildly “sporterized” from its original World War II-era design. The most notable modifications were replacing the straight stock with what appears to be an Ansch?tz grip and substituting the internal box magazine for a detachable one. The differences between an SKS platform and AK platform are more than just technical specifics or mere semantics. For purposes of the “assault weapons” debate, the differences are inherently legal. Typically, the statutory distinction between a prohibited “assault weapon” and its “non-assault counterpart” is the presence of one or more specific “military-style” features, such as a collapsing stock, barrel shroud, pistol grip, or vertical foregrip. Although an AK platform utilizes a pistol grip (rendering it, for statutory and “visual” purposes, an “assault weapon”), the gunman’s SKS-platform bears none of these prohibited features. To the extent the rifle qualifies as an “assault weapon” under any current state law, it’s only because some states (such as California and Illinois) also prohibit hundreds of specific semiautomatic rifle models for seemingly arbitrary reasons, regardless of whether they otherwise meet the quasi-objective “feature-based” definition. Even in those states, the SKS is considered a perfectly lawful “nonassault” weapon as long as it utilizes a “fixed magazine” instead of a detachable one, even though internal box magazines may be reloaded with stripper clips just as easily as empty detachable magazines may be replaced with fully loaded ones. Not that any of these distinctions are relevant in the context of rendering the rifle “less lethal” or less capable of being used to kill at a distance. Consider that the bolt-action rifle used to kill President John F. Kennedy ironically would not be considered a “military-style” assault weapon by modern gun control activists despite having been literally designed for and used by the Italian army. 3. Blame Trump—he’s the one who made it easier for crazy people to get guns. As just one example, in a viral post on X one major left-leaning account reasoned: “Here’s irony for you. Trump ended laws preventing the mentally ill from owning guns. This is the second attempt where a mentally ill person with a gun tried to assassinate him.” You’ll be shocked, I’m sure, to learn that none of this is true. First, Trump never “ended laws preventing the mentally ill from owning guns.” Presumably, this poster and others are referring to Trump’s role in rescinding a highly controversial, Obama-era administrative rule promulgated by the Social Security Administration. That rule, which went into effect just days before Trump took office in 2017, required the agency to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as “prohibited persons” anyone using a representative payee to help manage disability benefits. As a result, an estimated 75,000 Americans would be stripped of their Second Amendment rights without the slightest bit of due process—no hearings, no individual medical assessments declaring them dangerous, and no opportunity for rebuttal. Worse, at the time these individuals requested or were assigned representative payees, none of them had any reason to believe the decision would dramatically affect their right to keep and bear arms. The Obama administration rule was staunchly opposed not just by pro-gun groups, but by dozens of national organizations that traditionally have supported greater restrictions on the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, denounced the rule as lacking any basis in reliable evidence or solid data, particularly with respect to whether those whose rights were stripped had any increased propensity toward violence. As president, Trump didn’t unilaterally rescind the rule, which he doubtless could have done. Instead, he signed legislation passed by Congress with bipartisan support that prohibited the Social Security Administration from reporting recipients to the background check system as mentally unfit merely because they had a representative payee. The unpopular and unconstitutional nature of the rule notwithstanding, there’s absolutely no evidence that either gunman accused of trying to assassinate Trump ever received disability payments, much less required a representative payee to manage those benefits such that the rule plausibly would have resulted in their being reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. To the extent there’s any irony to these viral claims, it’s not based either on the gunman’s mental state or Trump’s role in overriding a controversial administrative rule with limited reach. No, the irony is that the second suspected gunman is a convicted felon whose name was already on the NICS list of prohibited persons when the Obama-era rule took effect, and he remained a prohibited person even after Congress overrode it. In conclusion, there’s truly nothing new under the sun when it comes to gun control activists in the wake of concerning national headlines. They’ll say just about anything to cast the blame on lawful gun owners and insist that our rights be restricted further, regardless of how little capacity their laws actually have to render us all safer. Their proposed laws certainly wouldn’t have made a difference for Donald Trump. The post Debunking the Worst Gun Control ‘Hot Takes’ After Second Trump Assassination Attempt appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Women and girls seeking equal opportunity in scholastic athletics have notched a few significant wins this year against the Department of Education over its massive rewrite of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX is the brief, 50-plus-year-old civil rights law that prevents sex discrimination in any publicly funded education program. The Biden-Harris administration, however, has expanded the meaning of “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity or expression.” But based on a plain reading of the text of Title IX, and with an eye toward the congressional history of the law as geared toward ensuring women’s equality in education, the rewrite is more than a little illegal. At least three federal appellate courts have agreed. Not so, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, however. It brought that streak of victories to a halt recently when it determined that the state of Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act was both unconstitutional and a violation of Title IX. This isn’t the first time that the 9th Circuit has botched its analysis on “gender identity.” And once again, its reasoning left court-watchers scratching their heads. Last year, the 9th Circuit reached an identical conclusion in striking down Idaho’s women’s sports fairness law in Hecox v. Little. Legal scholars have called the court’s opinion in that case “full of deceptions and irrelevancies.” Perhaps not surprisingly, that case is now pending on a petition for review at the U.S. Supreme Court. In Doe v. Horne, the court followed its flawed reasoning in Hecox to affirm the trial court’s finding that two biological boys (referenced in the court’s opinion as “transgender girls”) were entitled to a preliminary injunction against the state of Arizona—something that prevented the state from enforcing its Save Women’s Sport Act. While the underlying litigation proceeds, the court ruled that both boys must be allowed to play on girls’ sports teams at their respective Arizona schools. So, how did the court reach such a hackneyed conclusion? Its twisted reasoning went something like this: It began with blind acceptance of the Left’s talking points on “gender identity” as something distinct from sex “assigned” at birth, including the fact that there is “a consensus among medical organizations that gender identity is innate and cannot be changed through psychological or medical treatments.”  That ignores the increasing body of clinical evidence that most prepubescent and pubescent children will—if left alone to experience normal pubertal development—grow out of any purported expression of a “transgender” identity. The court continued that the state law, which separated scholastic sports teams by males, females, and coed or mixed teams, was discriminatory. That was so because the classifications based on biological sex discriminated against students who were biologically of one sex but expressed a different gender identity, by preventing them from playing on sports teams in accordance with that gender identity. In the words of Judge Morgan Christen, an appointee of President Barack Obama, who wrote the opinion for the unanimous three-judge panel that included Judges Mary Margaret McKeown and David A. Ezra, appointees of Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, respectively: “[T]he ban turns entirely on a student’s transgender or cisgender status.” Not so. The ban turns entirely on a student’s sex—regardless of whether that student’s sex is male or female. The court’s opinion ignored one very glaring weakness in its own arguments: the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that “sex” and “transgender status” are one in the same. Classifications based on sex are just that. And in Arizona’s case, whether the students were transgender “girls” or “boys” resulted in the same outcome: All students, regardless of gender identity, were required to compete on teams that matched their underlying biological sex.   The court’s opinion also clung to the fact that, in its view (and the view of the trial court), [t]ransgender girls who receive puberty-blocking medication do not have an athletic advantage over other girls because they do not undergo male puberty and do not experience the physiological changes caused by the increased production of testosterone associated with male puberty. However, medical evidence now indicates that regardless of the use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, males begin to distinguish themselves athletically from their female counterparts around the age of 11. Hormones have limited or no impact on wingspan, muscle mass, height, or bone density—all critical physiological advantages in competitive sports.  The court went on to rationalize that laws that discriminate based on “transgender status” are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. That meant that the state of Arizona bore the burden of proving that its law served an important government objective, and that the law was substantially related to achieving the objective. The appellate court wrote that the state had not met its burden. In the court’s view, the act had been adopted for the sole purpose of excluding “transgender girls” from playing on girls’ sports team. This was not, the court wrote, a law substantially related to achieving an “important government objective,” nor could the state bear the burden of demonstrating an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for what it viewed as a discriminatory classification. Turning to the Title IX discrimination claims, the 9th Circuit panel was influenced mightily by the Department of Education’s expansive rewrite of Title IX to include “gender identity or expression” as commensurate with biological sex. Judge Christen wrote that the law “does not afford transgender women and girls equal athletic opportunities … [and] the record does not demonstrate that transgender females would displace cisgender females to a substantial extent if transgender females were allowed to play on female teams.” In the end, the court determined that in addition to the foregoing, the “public interest” was served by preventing “the violation of a party’s [i.e., the transgender student’s] constitutional rights.” Despite the court’s ongoing delirium about transgender discrimination, Arizona’s then-governor, Doug Ducey, when signing the women’s sports bill into law, noted perhaps the simplest and clearest aim of the legislation:   This legislation simply ensures that the girls and young women who have dedicated themselves to their sport do not miss out on hard-earned opportunities, including their titles, standings, and scholarships due to unfair competition. This bill strikes the right balance of respecting all students while still acknowledging that there are inherent biological distinctions that merit separate categories to ensure fairness for all.  The simple, nondiscriminatory mission of the Save Women’s Sports Act, however, was utterly lost on the 9th Circuit. Perhaps, in time, sanity will prevail at the U.S. Supreme Court. The post 9th Circuit’s Characteristic Nuttiness on Gender Identity Again on Display appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Why Does the Media Pretend Kamala Can Do a Single Thing She Promises?

Everyone's Favorite Ukrainian Sweater Boy Gets an AirForce Lift to D.C. 'Cuz Trump

ABC News’s stilted coverage throughout the 2024 election has solidified it as the most wildly biased broadcast network of the “big three” (ABC, CBS, and NBC). From 100 days of 100 percent pro-Kamala Harris coverage, to possibly the most stilted debate in modern political history, the network has abandoned even the pretense of objectivity and relegated itself one of the Democratic Party’s most loyal vassals.     For an idea of what ABC thinks qualifies as journalism, look no further than The View. Absurdly billed as a news program, the all-female talk show has become one of the most vitriolic hotbeds of Trump derangement on television. It’s difficult to take this low-information program seriously on any level, but if the bigwigs at ABC insist we treat it as a news show, we’re happy to oblige. Back in January, co-host Whoopi Goldberg declared: “If [Donald Trump’ ever gets in again, we’ll never have any more elections. There will be no more. He will stop and he’s very clear about that. He wants to be a dictator for life.” Later that month, during a rant in which she compared Donald Trump to Hitler, co-host Joy Behar dubbed the former President “one of the most dangerous of my lifetime to ever be in the oval office.” In May, Behar went further, this time comparing all Trump supporters to Nazis: “That hat you keep wearing — that red hat that says ‘Make America Great Again,’ that tells people that you go along with this, so might as well put a swastika on the hat.” Of course, the issues with ABC News go far beyond The View. In a different world, the very notion of a long-time Democratic operative and Clinton bag man becoming the anchor of a major news show would be laughable; but here in this universe, that’s just the reality of George Stephanopoulos. The veteran host of Good Morning America and This Week kicked off a recent edition of the latter show with this anti-Trump attack ad of a monologue: In 1774, John Adams said, “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty.” 250 years later, the heart and lungs of liberty are facing what might be the ultimate stress test… The New York jurors have already presented their fellow citizens with a choice: do we want to be represented — to be led for the first time in history — by a convicted felon? That answer will come in November. Then of course there was World News Tonight Sunday anchor Linsey Davis’s question to Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) during the Democratic National Convention: Former President Donald Trump is expected to go campaign in Howell, Michigan tomorrow. Many people are aware that a month ago, in Howell, KKK protesters marched in the streets… I’m curious if you make anything about that connection and him going in particularly to Howell tomorrow. An MRC study published earlier this month found that throughout 100 campaign stories airing between July 2021 and September 6, Vice President Kamala Harris received a mind-blowing 100 percent positive coverage. Trump, meanwhile, was subjected to a more predictable 93 percent negative slant. When people accuse the news media of deliberately inciting violence against Donald Trump, this is what they’re talking about. The former President has already faced two assassination attempts since July, yet networks like ABC show no signs of letting up the gas. At best, they don’t care whether another attempt occurs, and at worst, they’re secretly hoping one does. Of course, if they wanted to redeem themselves, they could try acting like journalists for half a second. They could stop lying to their millions-strong audience that Donald Trump wants to permanently destroy America and usher in a thousand-year reich. But we all know that’s not going to happen. Their job is not to report to the news, it's to help Democrats get elected, and it's a job they do tirelessly.

A peculiar juxtaposition occurred on Monday following the FBI releasing a letter written by the man behind the second assassination attempt of former President Trump. The letter contained a call for people try again since he failed, even offering up a $150,000 bounty to person who completed the job. But while CNN put that part of the letter up on the screen MSNBC refused to share that detail and said they didn’t want to “encourage” someone to be violent. Late in the 12:00 p.m. hour, during CNN’s Inside Politics, senior reporter Katelyn Polantz ended her report on the latest developments in the case by not only mentioning the bounty but had them throw it up on screen: A civilian witness who was given by Routh a box of materials. In that box, a letter from Routh that was opened after Routh was picked up by the cops. Writing: “This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, but I failed you. I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster. It is up to you now to finish the job and I will offer $150,000 to whomever can complete the job.” “Boy, is that chilling,” added host Dana Bash.     Contrast that with the way MSNBC’s national law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winter decided to address that part of the letter a little earlier in the same hour on Andrea Mitchell Reports: There’s a call to action and other things in the letter, which we're not going to share because there so no reason to encourage any sort of potential violence, Andrea, but that's at least the focus on this letter. Winter’s model gets the point of cross that the shooter wanted others to do something violent but didn’t share the part that could entice someone to follow in his footsteps. This presents an interesting debate for journalists. One is giving the public more details about an important and impactful story related to a presidential candidate in an bitter election year, while the other was keeping information close to the chest. The flipside is that giving a dollar amount and a plea for others to try again could spur on another lunatic. Definitely a dilemma. The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s Inside Politics September 23, 2024 12:41:31 p.m. Eastern (…) KATELYN POLANTZ: A civilian witness who was given by Routh a box of materials. In that box, a letter from Routh that was opened after Routh was picked up by the cops. Writing: “This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, but I failed you. I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster. It is up to you now to finish the job and I will offer $150,000 to whomever can complete the job.” That piece of evidence, now, very likely, being discussed in court as prosecutors want to keep him behind bars. DANA BASH: Boy, is that chilling. Thank you so much Katelyn for that report. I appreciate it. (…) MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Report September 23, 2024 12: (…) ANDREA MITCHELL: That's why we're no longer calling it an apparent assassination attempt, cause in his writing, he says it was. TOM WINTER: That's right, Andrea. Of course, all along, nobody thought he brought a long gun, a semi-automatic rifle to the Trump golf course for any other reason other than potential threat to Donald Trump. So, that's at least a little bit more detail now why the FBI was saying what it was saying. And so. they have this additional detail, apparently came up from an individual who received a box of documents, ammunition, and building materials from Routh, a month before this alleged shooting -- before the incident involving the Secret Service took place. And so. he has this box of documents, and after he finds out about Routh’s alleged role that day, he looks through it and finds this letter. And in the letter, according to federal prosecutors, he does reference an assassination attempt on Donald Trump and says he's sorry that he failed. So, it is not clear why he writes this is a failed assassination before he undergoes this potential effort. He hasn't been charged with, but people assume he was there to carry out a violent attack against Donald Trump, just a little over a week ago. So, that remains a little bit of a question involving the timing of all this. There’s a call to action and other things in the letter, which we're not going to share because there so no reason to encourage any sort of potential violence, Andrea, but that's at least the focus on this letter. (…)

California Governor Gavin Newsom suggested that X owner Elon Musk doesn't understand his state's new laws surrounding election-related content restrictions.The new legislation, the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, was signed into law in mid-September.The bill's digest said the law prohibits any person or entity from distributing deceptive audio or visual media about a candidate for elected office within 60 days of the election if it intends to "injure the candidate’s reputation or to deceive a voter into voting for or against the candidate. "The law also requires any "large online platform" to block deceptive content before and after an election.These new rules could require censorship of memes or images containing AI-generated material about a candidate or the upcoming election.'We believe in truth and trust.'Newsom was asked about the law during a recent press conference and alluded to the idea that Musk didn't comprehend the legislation."I think Mr. Musk has missed the punchline," Newsom said in a clip uploaded to X. "Parody is still alive and well in California, but deepfakes and manipulations of elections ... that hurts democracy and the integrity of the system and trust."Governor Newsom went on, "We believe in truth and trust, and I think this law is sound and will be upheld in the courts," A reporter then asked if Newsom intends to "seek legal action" against Musk through the new law."The law asserts that many can seek injunction relief," Newsom replied, largely avoiding a direct answer. He added that he hasn't had a chance to review any specific lawsuits.Musk responded to the video of Newsom by simply stating, "amazing."Actor Randy Quaid also responded by insulting the California politician."My god he is stupid!" Quaid wrote.My god he is stupid!— Randy Quaid (@RandyRRQuaid) September 19, 2024 Newsom was likely referring to a lawsuit against the state from content creator Christopher Kohls, who goes by the name Mr. Reagan. Kohls posted an AI-manipulated parody video about the Kamala Harris campaign in July, which has been viewed over 77 million times.At the time, Newsom chimed in though X account, saying "You can no longer knowingly distribute an ad or other election communications that contain materially deceptive content -- including deepfakes."Kohls' lawsuit argues, however, that California is "flagrantly" using state power to "force private social media companies to censor private citizens’ speech by purging election-related AI-generated content."Under the California law, platforms are required to develop reporting procedures for California residents so that they can flag any content that "has not been blocked or labeled in compliance with the act."Ian Miles Cheong, who posted the video of Newsom's recent press conference, told Blaze News that the governor must think his constituents are inept if they are to accept such laws."The onus is still on [viewers] to check the facts and not believe everything they see on their screens. Newsom is not their nanny and should stop acting like he is," Cheong added.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Imagine a world where a governor controls your every move, choice, right, and liberty. While this may sound like a plot from a George Orwell dystopian novel, it’s happening now under the guise of “public safety.”Recently, the Uniform Law Commission, a powerful organization responsible for several radical proposals over the past century, introduced a new model bill — the Public Health Emergency Authority Act. The commission proposed the legislation in response to what they called the “unpreparedness” of federal and local authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ULC claims the model bill would improve states’ preparedness for public health emergencies by clarifying “the powers of a Governor to declare a public-health emergency and to issue orders in response to that emergency.”The biggest problem with the PHEAA is that it would grant governors unprecedented and unchecked powers without oversight from state legislatures.This model bill would give governors the power to declare public health emergencies within their states without any oversight from the state legislature. So what qualifies as a public health emergency? According to the model bill’s language, it could range from an infectious disease to a chemical spill that might cause “a significant risk of substantial harm” to the state’s population. Clear as mud, right? With such vague guidelines, how do we know if a governor’s emergency declaration is based on a genuine threat or simply an overreaction to the latest Netflix documentary?Even more concerning, the PHEAA would allow governors to declare and implement public health emergencies based on “the little information that is then available,” including the premise of an “unknown disease.”In other words, governors could use minimal information to enact unilateral measures such as business and school closures, surveillance, quarantine, testing, suspension of statutes, or other rules and gain access to electronic security systems through work, school, general notifications, and more.Once a public health emergency is declared, the PHEAA allows governors to renew the emergency declaration as often as they see fit. The bill explicitly states, “There is no limit on the number of times the Governor may renew an initial or previously renewed declaration of a public-health emergency that has not expired.” So if you’re hoping for a break from a “temporary” dictatorship, don’t count on it.The biggest problem with the PHEAA is that it would grant governors unprecedented and unchecked powers without oversight from state legislatures. Additionally, the bill would let governors seize resources and property, restrict individuals’ movement, and cull animal populations, among other plainly authoritarian measures.You may recall the “Sister Revolutions” that took place in America and France during the late 18th century. While the American Revolution was founded on a virtuous desire to secure religious freedom and sovereignty from an unaccountable monarchy, the French Revolution aimed to abolish all past truths in the name of “science” and “reason.”Unlike its American counterpart, the French Revolution eventually devolved into mass violence, hysteria, corruption, and intrigue under the Committee for Public Safety. Empowering governors to become temporary tyrants may provide some Americans with a sense of security, but it tramples upon the God-given rights that all Americans are entitled to under the Constitution.If we surrender our fundamental liberties so easily, what else will we sacrifice to the radical leaders of our time? Ironically, Benjamin Franklin foresaw this, warning, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”The PHEAA may offer a fleeting sense of security, but is it worth sacrificing our essential liberties? Not a chance.

One of the left's biggest weapons against Trump is its weaponization and manipulation of the events of January 6 — which too many Americans have bought into. However, as more evidence comes out, it appears that the left knew exactly what its plans were regarding this day from the very beginning. And Blaze Media’s investigative journalist Steve Baker has just received testimony from a high ranking government official that proves it. “He decided to go on the record with us and reveal to the Blaze that he was on the teleconference call,” Baker explains. “Four-star and three-star generals were on the teleconference call with the National Guard at the same time discussing the deployment of the Guard after the Capitol Police chief’s son was desperately trying to get them to come down and assist.” “And they were ready,” Glenn Beck comments. “They were completely ready, and this is what the Guard commanders were trying to convey. But the Pentagon pukes, the guys who answered directly to Milley, were saying, ‘We’re not so sure about the optics of this,’” Baker explains. “We just assumed it was Pelosi. No, it was passed along from these generals at the source, at the Pentagon, on this teleconference call, which assistant secretary Casey Wardynski was on that call, and he laid it all out to us,” he continues. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump was asking for the National Guard to be there in order to make sure the situation was safe. “His campaign has to get on this,” Baker says. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.