In the 2020 presidential election, the Left staunchly promoted voting by mail and scoffed at critics of the option. In 2024, however, Democrat and Republican election officials, as well as an inspector general, are raising concerns about whether the U.S. Postal Service is prepared for mail-in ballots.  Last week, election officials from both major parties expressed concern about mail-in ballots, the same week the National Letter Carriers Association—which represents 290,000 active and retired mail carriers—endorsed Vice Preident Kamala Harris for president. In July, the American Postal Workers Union, representing 200,000 Postal Service employees, endorsed Harris.  Earlier this year, the Postal Service Office of Inspector General expressed concern about the “risk of delays in the processing and delivery” of election-related mail as well as “operational changes that pose a risk of individual ballots not being counted.” However, U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy insists that he is “confident in our Election and Government Mail Services group, and in the robust plans we have in place.” During the pandemic election year of 2020, 43% of voters participated by mail, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission—almost twice as many who voted by mail in each previous presidential election, 2012 and 2016, when about one-quarter sealed their ballots in envelopes.  Voting by mail isn’t likely to be as high for the Nov. 5 presidential election, said Ken Cuccinelli, national chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative. But the volume of mailed ballots is expected to be substantially high, he said. Ballots that leave a voter’s state pose a significant problem for election mail, Cuccinelli said, adding that he doesn’t view the Postal Service as ready.  Delays are caused by changes in shipping, said Cuccinelli, former attorney general of Virginia and acting deputy secretary of homeland security during the Trump administration.  “For election mail, if you don’t have a postmark by Election Day, it won’t be counted in most states,” Cuccinelli told The Daily Signal. “A lot of people think that the day you put it in the mail is the day that it’s postmarked. That’s not true. Depending on where you live will determine where the mail is taken. It sometimes will leave the state and then return.” The Election Integrity Network, a coalition of state groups focused on clean elections, has a national working group that identified vulnerabilities after looking at the postal system, said Ned Jones, director of the Citizens Election Research Center at a think tank called the Virginia Institute for Public Policy.  Jones said continuing problems include poor tracking of ballots (also known as “chain of custody”), no “reconciliation” of ballots received by voters and ballots delivered to election offices; and ballots delivered to voters who no longer live at their registered address. Reforms of regional processing have caused “built-in delays” after the U.S. Postal Service launched its Delivering for America initiative in 2021. That 10-year plan, designed to make the USPS more efficient, includes processing more mail through large regional centers.  “Mail will leave the state and then comes back. There are so many problems with this system beyond what the inspector general reports said,” Jones told The Daily Signal. “There is a lack of security and no chain of custody. Undeliverable ballots go to addresses where the people no longer live.” During the 2020 presidential election, more than 1.1 million mailed ballots were “undeliverable,” according to a study by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election watchdog group. The inability of our federal government to adequately operate the postal service is another example of why I oppose mass mail ballot distribution and no excuse absentee ballots.https://t.co/sakc67R26q— Wes Allen Alabama Secretary of State (@alasecofstate) September 13, 2024 A total of 29 state and local elections officials last week signed a letter to DeJoy, the postmaster general, flagging their concerns about “processing facility operations, lost or delayed election mail, and front-line training deficiencies.” The lead signers of the letter were Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat who is president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, and Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican who is president-elect of the association for the coming year.  NASS and the National Association of State Election Directors coordinated the letter to the postmaster general, which also notes “exceptionally long delivery times” for ballots mailed back to election offices. “In nearly every state, however, local election officials are receiving timely postmarked ballots well after Election Day and well outside the three to five business days USPS claims as the first class delivery standard,” the letter to DeJoy says. “For example, election officials in multiple states report receiving anywhere from dozens to hundreds of ballots 10 or more days after postmark.” The letter adds: “Election officials report mail sent to voters is being marked as undeliverable at higher than usual rates, even in cases where a voter is known not to have moved.” NASS- 9.11.24 NASS_NASED Letter to US Postmaster DeJoyDownload Despite such criticism, the Postal Service contends that in the 2020 election it delivered 99.89% of ballots from voters to election officials within seven days. In the 2022 midterm election it delivered 99.93% of ballots within seven days. DeJoy is scheduled to speak Thursday about election readiness in a briefing for the media and the public. The Postal Service referred The Daily Signal to a letter in which DeJoy responded to the two organizations.  DeJoy wrote that many of the issues they raised were addressed previously. The reforms should not affect election mail, he said.  “Let us reiterate, modernization and enhancement plans will not have an impact on election mail, and we have committed to limit network changes to avoid any unintended disruption in service for the upcoming election and peak season,” DeJoy wrote, adding later: “Furthermore, as demonstrated consistently in previous elections, election mail routinely outperforms our regular service performance due to our long-standing processes and procedures.” Although Democrats championed mail-in voting in 2020, they targeted DeJoy who became postmaster general that June in the final months of the Trump administration. He stayed in the job for the Biden-Harris administration.  The Postal Service said it is implementing “extraordinary measures” or expediting delivery for election mail two weeks in advance of Election Day. The election officials asked for a month, however.  DeJoy disagreed in his letter, saying that “we implement certain processes and procedures specific to election mail all year-round, including advancing election mail ahead of other mail-in processing.”  “We have determined that implementing extraordinary measures two weeks before the election provides ample time,” DeJoy wrote. “That said, we are, and will continue, to look for opportunities to further improve our processes and procedures and to enhance our election mail service performance.” DeJoy-9.13.24 – NASS-NASED Letter ResponseDownload Last month, the USPS Office of Inspector General released an audit finding that from December 2023 through April, the Postal Service processed election and political mail almost entirely on time.  “However, as a result of our observations and inquiries, we found that Postal Service personnel did not always comply with policy and procedures regarding all clear certifications, election and political mail logs, and audit checklists,” the audit says.   “In addition, we identified processes and policies that could pose a risk of delays in the processing and delivery of election and political mail,” it continues. “Further, we identified issues related to some Delivering for America operational changes that pose a risk of individual ballots not being counted.” The post The Left Lauded Voing by Mail in 2020, but Now It’s a Bipartisan Concern appeared first on The Daily Signal.

One of the great mysteries in most polling on abortion is the small percentage of those surveyed who are fully committed to either a pro-life or pro-choice position. One study of swing states across the country found that only 31%  of adult Americans said they put a stake in the ground on one viewpoint or another, with the balance being somewhere in the middle.   It doesn’t make sense not to have your mind made up on abortion—the life developing in the womb is either a human being deserving of protection or it’s not. But four decades in the branding business have taught me that the decisions people make are not always sensible. We who value life are losing at the ballot box because we presume what’s going on in the minds of abortion-vulnerable women is what matters, rather than what’s happening in their guts. That’s where the battle is raging. What appears to be driving a lot of women’s thinking is a feeling—a raw, primal, and often subconscious sense of unease, what novelist and pop culture commentator Kat Rosenfield describes as “a nightmarish state of perpetual physical vulnerability.” That’s why, when given a binary choice of outlawing abortion entirely or making it legal up to birth, even many who lean pro-life choose the latter. Though their position isn’t morally justifiable, it is understandable. Women are fearful for themselves, for their daughters, and for their granddaughters.  They’re anxious in ways they can articulate and in ways they can’t. They’re continually disturbed—not in an adrenaline-inducing state of conscious fright, but in a dull, unrelenting apprehension about what might happen: “I am against abortion, but what if it happens to me?” That may never have crossed the frontal lobe of many women, but it’s a question that can lurk in the back of their minds like other conflicting thoughts we all have as human beings. “I would never kill someone—unless my family was threatened. I would never steal a loaf of bread—unless my children were starving. I would never want my daughter to have an abortion—unless … ” This is the emotional context underlying any debate about abortion. Women believe they must protect themselves and those they love—from criminals, yes, but more commonly from men who’ve let them down. From deadbeats and slackers. From cowards. From men who would abandon them; not only those who have, but those who might. Even if it hasn’t happened to them personally, it’s enough that it could happen potentially. Consider a twisted yet compelling video in which a woman pens a letter to her deceased father. “If some psycho was dead set on having a baby with me,” she says, “he literally could. Dad, that scares me. It really scares me. What the hell is happening?” She goes on to say: “I know you understand. And I also know if you were here, you would [vote for Democrats] too. Because you’ve always done everything to protect me. And I have to protect myself.” ?NEW ELEVEN FILMS?MAGA Republicans want a national abortion ban. DEMOCRATS will always DEFEND a woman’s right to choose! ??PLEASE SHARE this emotional video:#DemocratsDefendWomen pic.twitter.com/A5wioMUB2s— Eleven Films (@ElevenFilms) March 6, 2024 How did we get here? It didn’t happen overnight. Over the past several decades, what it means to be a man has been under continual assault in America. Militant feminism increasingly has made masculinity a byword, resulting in two generations of men who have lost their way. That’s not to indict every man—far from it. But too many have relinquished their roles as providers and protectors, instead indulging their base desires, taking advantage of women’s so-called “sexual freedom,” or simply giving in to defeatism. Chivalry isn’t dead, but it has become little more than a curiosity. Because this is a widespread, hydra-headed sociocultural issue, it doesn’t avail itself of simple political solutions. But those who value a child’s life from conception must no longer assume the answer lies in merely sharpening arguments; there’s no debating with dread. We must recognize the current reality and begin to address the root issue: Men are the reason women are afraid. This is fertile ground on which the life-affirming may create resonant, emotional messaging every bit as compelling as the fearmongering at which the Left is so adept. And it can provide those who are running for office what, in recent cycles, they’ve desperately lacked: a way of going on offense. Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, candidates on the Right largely have been frozen on the abortion issue, unable to dodge it but afraid to take it on. Equivocation, however, doesn’t win votes (and more often loses them). Rather than soft-pedaling their views on the sanctity of life, conservative candidates should step into them on behalf of the mother as well as the child. There are a variety of ways of doing so. Candidates can rhetorically go after cowards who selfishly use and abuse women. They can advocate stronger laws to stop predators more effectively, from abusive husbands to sex traffickers to dangerous illegal aliens. They can work to increase the certainty and severity of penalties for sex offenders. They can vow to hold men financially accountable for their offspring from the moment of conception. And they can use the power of the bully pulpit to exhort deadbeat dads to embrace accountability, encourage basement boys to take responsibility, and take to task today’s so-called alpha males for their abdication of true manhood. It takes two to tango, as they say, and last I checked pregnancy was 100% man-caused. Allowing it to be framed as a women’s issue is just another symptom of the problem—men have gotten off too easy. Recognizing the predicament into which they’ve put women won’t, by itself, make women feel entirely safe. But it’s a starting point that likely would be welcomed by people from across the political spectrum. Perhaps it would encourage just enough of them no longer to feel they have to vote for a ghastly escape hatch. In a swing district, that could make all the difference. Times change, issues evolve, and political winds continually shift, but some things are immutable. The more men live up to their calling as men, the more women will embrace their instinct to nurture and protect those who can’t protect themselves. And the more children will be saved from the scourge of our time. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Abortion: How to Begin to Win appeared first on The Daily Signal.

By a miracle, really a series of miracles, former President Donald Trump has survived two assassination attempts in little more than two months.    The implications of Trump being murdered are almost too disturbing to contemplate. The fact that a man running for president continues to be targeted like this is certainly worth a “national conversation.” Yet, the media is treating the story of the second assassination attempt—already fading from the back pages of national newspapers days after it happened Sunday—as if it’s no big deal. When the media can be bothered to mention it at all, they switch to rabidly blaming the victim. In this case, the man they hate so much: Trump. What we should take away from the treatment of this story is more than just the obvious fact that the news media is biased, although that’s almost cartoonishly the case right now. It’s clear that the media thinks that another news cycle about a Trump assassination this close to the Nov. 5 election has to be downplayed. It’s double bad that the would-be assassin Sunday has a record of donating to Democrats and copied the Biden-Harris campaign message about Trump being a threat to “democracy.” The legacy media seem particularly agitated that Trump gets to adopt the “language of victimhood,” as one author put it in the Guardian, a London-based newspaper. That’s usually the Left’s favorite language. No fair! Trump in this case was the direct, twice-over victim. That makes no difference to a hostile media. The language of victimhood is all about power, not about actual victims. So how do they solve the Trump-as-victim conundrum? There is an old phrase in the media world for when you’re in an interview and don’t want to answer a specific question. It’s called a “block and bridge.” That’s what the media has done collectively with this story to make it go away. First, they’ve done their best to block discussion of the event entirely. The story often was missing on the front pages of newspapers across the country. That includes Florida Today, a subsidiary of USA Today, radio and TV talk-show host Chris Plante notes. Plante noted that the second Trump shooting story was on the last page of the B section of the Florida newspaper, even though the assassination attempt took place in West Palm Beach, Florida. USA Today, the national publication, also left the story off the front page in the next day’s paper. Well, OK, it was in a tiny insert in the corner. The real front-page news is a random fluff piece. For the 2nd time in 3 months, someone tried to murder a former POTUS, who is also the current GOP nominee for president. Here is USA Today’s cover the morning after the assassination attempt was thwarted: https://t.co/E7kUQHHYJz pic.twitter.com/pKzSPR9jPd— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 16, 2024 So, the bias is obvious. You already know how this would have been covered if it was Vice President Kamala Harris who nearly had been assassinated for a second time. It seems that right now corporate media outlets are cynically counting on Americans to be desensitized to assassination attempts on Trump. Yet the story lingers. And here’s where we get to the “bridge” part. USA Today, when it bothered to report on Sunday’s second assassination attempt at all, insinuated that it’s Trump’s fault that people are trying to kill him. Here is USA Today’s summary above its story about the FBI’s investigating the second assassination attempt on a former president: “The incident occurred on the same day Trump posted ‘I hate Taylor Swift’ on his Truth Social platform and his running mate said he had no regrets for propagating fake stories about Haitian migrants.” See, you shouldn’t have sympathy for Trump or his running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio. Those meanies really deserve what they get. Just imagine what a wonderful and peaceful world we would live in if only Trump and his supporters would just disappear. Here’s The Cincinnati Enquirer on the social media site X. Opinion: Opinion: There is no place in politics for violence. That said, the former president, Donald Trump, brings a lot of this stuff on himself. https://t.co/vq4J5VSKIe— Enquirer (@Enquirer) September 16, 2024 The Enquirer ended up changing the headline about Trump’s bringing violence on himself for not “meeting their editorial standards.” Of course, the Ohio newspaper left in a summary that Trump “brings the crazies out, and one of those crazies tried to shoot him.” A writer argued in The New Republic that Trump is simply being engulfed by the chaos he created. Deranged leftists keep trying to kill Republicans, and it’s apparently the Right’s fault. Trump is to blame for Trump derangement syndrome. Oh, and while the media has generated this narrative about Trump’s “rhetoric,” here’s the rhetoric we get from Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign opponent, Hillary Clinton. Clinton said in an MSNBC interview with host Rachel Maddow—aired just a day after the assassination attempt—that the media needs to be even more relentless in how it defines Trump as a “danger to our country and the world.” Hillary Clinton tonight on MSNBC:"The press needs to create a consistent narrative about how dangerous he is""He is a danger to our country & world" pic.twitter.com/7rBt7zcVGY— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 17, 2024 According to Clinton, the media have just been too fair and even-handed when dealing with Trump. Again, we are supposed to believe that bad things happen because opposition to the Left exists and hasn’t been shut down. The message from the Left and their media allies has been clear and growing. They think it’s fine to perpetually frame Trump as an existential threat to the country, Hitler 2.0. Instead of victim-blaming Trump, it’s time for much of America’s corporate media outlets to look in the mirror and consider that they, not Trump, have become a threat to democracy. They’re the ones who’ve sown chaos and kept the country in a state of hysterics. The post Media Victim-Blames Trump for Assassination Attempts. But They’re the Ones Sowing Chaos. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Unlocking the Web’s Potential: 10 Must-Have Open Source Browser Extensions appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

City Council Approves Homeless Sweeps in...Berkeley?

During Tuesday’s interview with Kamala Harris at the National Association of Black Journalists, TheGrio White House correspondent Gerren Keith Gaynor lobbed the softest of softballs when he asked Harris what she made of the idea that “Republicans have at times weaponized you laughing in campaign ads.” Later, Gaynor would join MSNBC’s The ReidOut and admit he did it to boost the Harris campaign. Gaynor also asked, “Why is joy important to you to insert into this election, and what do you make of Republicans using that as a way to suggest you're not a series candidate?"     With that all as background, host Joy Reid inquired, “Gerren, why did you ask that question?” Gaynor responded that, “it was important for me to ask that question because one, I noticed in doing my research for this interview, the vice president had been using the joyful warrior term even years before she was vice president. She did an interview with Ellen DeGeneres and she described herself as a joyful warrior. And this is obviously a theme of the Harris-Walz campaign that I think is resonating with voters.” He also claimed to observe how, “on the Republican side, they have been using, Joy, her laughing, and using that as a tool to suggest that she's not a serious candidate, particularly as a black woman, and the implications that that might give to voters. It was important for me to lift that up. And who doesn't love joy, Joy?” That is what was important? Her “joy” and kooky accusations of racism? Gaynor’s ode to Harris’s joy represents a journalistic conflict of interests. If TheGrio doesn’t care, does the NABJ care that one of the people they chose as a moderator viewed the opportunity as a way to boost one campaign over another? Ultimately, Gaynor simply said the quiet part out loud because most reporters seem to think their job is to boost Harris. The NABJ’s vastly different treatment of Trump and Harris is just one example. Here is a transcript for the September 17 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 9/17/2024 7:26 PM ET JOY REID: Gerren, why did you ask that question? GERREN KEITH GAYNOR: You know, it was important for me to ask that question because one, I noticed in doing my research for this interview, the vice president had been using the joyful warrior term even years before she was vice president. She did an interview with Ellen DeGeneres and she described herself as a joyful warrior. And this is obviously a theme of the Harris-Walz campaign that I think is resonating with voters. But also, because I noticed on the Republican side, they have been using, Joy, her laughing and using that as a tool to suggest that she's not a serious candidate, particularly as a black woman, and the implications that that might give to voters. It was important for me to lift that up. And who doesn't love joy, Joy? REID: Exactly. Exactly, I totally agree. 

Podcast host Joe Rogan called out Vice President Kamala Harris’s 2019 proposal to regulate and oversee Big Tech companies.  During a Sept. 10 segment of the Joe Rogan Experience, Rogan warned that such proposals would restrict freedom of speech. “She was saying that she wants government oversight and regulation for social media. That's crazy!” Rogan exclaimed, responding to a 2019 clip of Harris. The clip Rogan referenced is from a 2019 CNN interview during Harris’s first unsuccessful run for the Democratic nomination, where she shared enthusiastically, “There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power, they are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. That has to stop.” FLASHBACK: Five Times Kamala Harris Pushed to Censor Donald Trump — And It Worked Reuters fact-checked the video on Sept. 10, claiming that Harris “did not say she wanted to shut down X in a 2019 interview.” Responding to this fact-check, Rogan argued, “There is no way to misconstrue that. Oversight and regulation for free speech is ridiculous.” He clarified further, “She is essentially saying, ‘Why should they have different rules for Facebook than they do for Twitter.’ Like, what rules? We don't have rules. We have First Amendment rights of free speech.”  Rogan warned the audience about Harris’s baffling proposal, “Whatever she was saying right there is not what you want to hear from somebody, you don't want to hear they're going to censor social media.”  Later in the podcast, Rogan called out the apparent hypocrisy of forcing Big Tech platforms to censor Americans, stating, “So what are you saying then? It’s okay If your side says things that aren't true and you can regulate in a way that’s not based on fact or reality, but based on a result that you want to take place and that’s fine. So we don't have freedom of speech.” In the reference, Harris was asked about the discussion revolving around the removal of then-President Donald Trump from Twitter. She urged the government to police free speech, particularly on social media platforms. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

A Virginia man has been indicted in the stabbing death of his wife and the fatal shooting of a man that occurred last year. The husband also was alleged to be involved in a love triangle with the couple's Brazilian au pair — who previously was charged with the murder of a male who was in the couple's home. Fairfax County Police Department Chief Kevin Davis and Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano announced the arrest and indictment of Brendan Banfield in connection with the 2023 double murder that occurred in Reston — which is roughly 20 miles west of Washington, D.C. Investigators believe the husband and nanny were lovers involved in a 'sexual relationship' and devised a sordid scheme to take out the wife. Banfield, of Reston, was charged with four counts of aggravated murder and use of a firearm in commission of a felony. Banfield was being held at the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center on no bond.Davis said at a Monday press conference, “I stood in the middle of a cul-de-sac street in Fairfax County and described the deaths of two persons inside of a residential home. Now, 570 days later, we know the deaths of Joseph Ryan and Christine Banfield were both, in fact, murders.”Davis added, “This much is clear, we have evidence to now allege that Christine Banfield’s life was unlawfully taken, and Joseph Ryan’s life was unlawfully taken.” Police who responded to the Banfield home on Feb. 24, 2023, described an "appalling scene." Brendan Banfield and the family's au pair – 23-year-old Juliana Peres Magalhaes — made the 911 call, police said. Officers found Christine Banfield, 37, in an upstairs bedroom suffering from stab wounds to the upper body. They also discovered Joseph Ryan, 39, dead from gunshot wounds to the upper body.Banfield's wife was rushed to a local hospital where she was pronounced dead.Police said two firearms and a knife were recovered from the home.Magalhaes reportedly told investigators that she and Brendan Banfield had walked in on Ryan stabbing a naked Christine Banfield with a knife. The au pair said Brendan shot at the “intruder.” Investigators believe that the husband and nanny were lovers involved in a “sexual relationship” and devised a sordid scheme to take out the wife. The husband and the live-in au pair are accused of shooting Ryan, who had been "summoned to the couple’s million-dollar Herndon home through a sexual fetish online site," the New York Post reported.Prosecutors said Ryan was lured to the Banfield home by a profile on FetLife — which described itself as the "world's largest and most popular social network for the BDSM community, kink community, and fetish community."According to the Washington Post, Ryan went to the home for a planned rendezvous with a woman identified in a dating app as “Annastasia9.” The outlet noted that there is no evidence to suggest that Christine created the profile or knew about it. Authorities have not revealed who created the profile. Davis stated, "We know Brendan Banfield and Juliana Magalhaes, the family au pair, were involved in a romantic relationship at the time of the murders."Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Kelsey Gill has said that Magalhaes and Brendan began a romantic affair “several months” before the murders, based on photos of them that investigators found on the nanny’s cellphone. Magalhaes and Banfield went to a shooting range weeks before the murders, prosecutors said. Banfield bought a Glock from the range on Jan. 28, 2023, according to WTOP.Brendan and Magalhaes reportedly continued their relationship following the deaths of Ryan and Banfield's wife. Magalhaes was arrested in October 2023 for Ryan's murder.At the time of her arrest, the au pair allegedly had moved into the main bedroom of the Banfield home. Authorities said there was a framed picture of her and Brendan Banfield set on the nightstand, and her clothes were hung in the closet Christine Banfield once used.Magalhaes was charged with second-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. She was being detained at the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center on no bond.“Early last year, a double murder devastated two families and shocked our entire community,” Commonwealth Attorney Descano declared during a press conference. “I will ensure that my office puts forward the strongest case possible at trial, and that we continue to seek justice for the victims and their families.”The Banfields have a 4-year-old daughter. Brendan Banfield is expected to be arraigned later this week.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Former NASCAR driver Matt Tifft was fined for his involvement in a post-race scuffle in which he was kicked in the face by a crew member from another team.The incident, which Tifft called "over the line," happened after the Glass City 200 at the Toledo Speedway in Ohio. Tifft said that after the race, he attempted to confront the driver of the No. 23 car, driven by Billy VanMeter, who Tifft alleged wrecked several cars in the race, including himself.Only nine cars actually finished, including VanMeter, while Tifft was among seven cars that did not finish due to accidents.Tifft posted a video of the incident online that showed him approaching VanMeter's crew after the event."Hey, what the f***?!" Tifft said as he walked toward VanMeter.The driver was quickly subdued by a crew member, who put him in a headlock and brought him to the ground."Get out of here! You came to the wrong place!" the crew member is heard saying. Tifft said he initially had no problem with the altercation being broken up by the crew member and subsequently a racing official."I had no problem with that. I instigated the confrontation, he was trying to break it up and protect their driver, I'm all good with that. ... [The official] did a great job and was doing nothing but his duty to break up the fight."However, Tifft said that after he had clearly given up on the situation and was on the ground, another crew member named Bryan Glaze kicked him in the face. "Under no circumstance do you just line up a kick, like you're in the NFL, to someone's face," Tifft said in an interview with Blaze News. "That's just over the line. And to add to it, he not only connected with my face but ended up kicking the official too."Tifft was making his first comeback since leaving NASCAR in 2019 due to a brain tumor and an epilepsy diagnosis. For the Toledo race under the American Speed Association, he explained that he had heard about VanMeter beforehand."I was warned he was notorious for wrecking drivers, and unfortunately I fell victim that day," the driver said.In a caption for the video, Tifft wrote, "Hopefully this is the last time getting 'VanMetered.'"'I won't press charges to anybody else on the team.'The ASA Stars National Tour quickly took action against all parties involved, fining Tifft $250 and deducting 25 points from his tour score. He was also placed on probation for the remainder of the calendar year.Crew member Glaze was suspended indefinitely from all events and fined $2,000. The car owner and team were placed on probation.Driver VanMeter also lost 25 points and was placed on probation for the remainder of the calendar year.After seeing the video, Tifft said he is "seriously considering" pressing charges against Glaze due to how "egregious" his actions were."I won't press charges to anybody else on the team, again no problem with a little scuffle, but I am seriously considering it with Bryan because of the fact that aspiring young drivers come through this series to develop, and they don't need to be around people like this."Tifft concluded by stating he will not be retaliating against VanMeter in any way and hopes that he will race clean in the future. The driver said that he wanted to channel all the drama into attention toward a good cause when he appears at the Akron Children's Hospital Dance for Kids event on October 18."Watch me dance (terribly) on stage with some kids for a good cause."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The FBI is investigating the incident at the Trump International Golf Club in Florida as a second assassination attempt against Donald Trump — but is the FBI trustworthy to lead this investigation? FBI whistleblower Steve Friend, who exposed what really happened in the FBI's Mar-a-Lago raid — is blowing the whistle again. This time, he’s warning that the same FBI office is handling this investigation. “The guy who authorized that, and then dummied evidence up, is the guy in charge now of the FBI’s investigation of this shooter,” Glenn Beck says, shocked. “It actually goes a little bit deeper than that Glenn,” Friend comments. Friend explains that Jeffrey Beltre was once the deputy assistant director of the security division for the FBI before assuming his current post as a special agent in charge of Miami’s FBI. His prior position is the branch that goes after the whistleblowers. Friend notes that Beltre has said that “they were looking to purge from the ranks people who were military veterans because he thought that they were disloyal, as well as people who attended regular religious worship ceremonies and opposed the coronavirus vaccine.” When he announced he was going to Miami, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Deputy Director Paul Abbate, and Executive Assistant Director Jen Moore told him to cleanse his social media accounts of all the anti-Trump vitriol. “Now, he’s in a position of authority in the FBI Miami office, and that is the office that has the responsibility for investigating this latest assassination attempt,” Friend explains. “So you think the guy who wanted to purge the FBI of military people, religious people, and Trump supporters might not do an honest investigation?” Glenn asks. 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.