Sixteen Republican-led states filed a lawsuit in partnership with America First Legal against the Biden-Harris administration over a plan to give as many as 1.3 million illegal immigrants what critics call “immediate executive amnesty.” The lawsuit, filed on Friday, challenges a new parole-in-place program from the Biden-Harris administration’s Department of Homeland Security “that effectively provides a new pathway to citizenship for more than a million illegal aliens.” “Longstanding federal law prohibits aliens who entered the United States unlawfully from obtaining most immigration benefits,” the lawsuit states, addressing the Biden-Harris administration program that would allow some illegal aliens to stay in the United States while requesting parole status. Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you. “This includes obtaining lawful permanent resident status—without first leaving the United States and waiting outside the United States for the requisite time—based on an approved family-based or employment-based visa petition,” the suit goes on to say. While the administration has claimed that roughly 550,000 illegal immigrants would be eligible for the parole-in-place amnesty, the lawsuit argues that the figure is “likely a significant underestimate,” also stating that the real number could be as high as 1.3 million. “Biden’s new parole workaround unilaterally grants the opportunity for citizenship to unvetted aliens whose first act on American soil was to break our laws,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton contended. “This violates the Constitution and actively worsens the illegal immigration disaster that is hurting Texas and our country.” WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI The sixteen states that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs against the Biden-Harris Department of Homeland Security are Texas, Idaho, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming. The lawsuit comes amid an unprecedented crisis on the southern border that has turned immigration into one of the most important issues heading into the November elections. Over 10 million people have crossed the border under the Biden-Harris administration, with an estimated 1.7 million illegal immigrant gotaways recorded since he was inaugurated in 2021. There were 415,000 total reported gotaways for 2018, 2019, and 2020 under the Trump administration.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said on Monday that if he wins back the presidency this fall, he will create a new reserve component for the U.S. Space Force. Trump made the remarks while speaking at the National Guard Association of the United States conference in Detroit about national security issues. Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you. “One of my proudest achievements in my first term was to create Space Force, the first new branch of the Armed Forces in over 70 years,” he said. “Now that Space Force is up and running, I agree with your leadership … that the time has come to create a Space National Guard as the primary combat reserve of the U.S. Space Force.” “As president, I will sign historic legislation creating a Space National Guard into law,” he continued. “We will make a historic investment in building a U.S. military for the 21st century, investing heavily in drones, robotics, artificial intelligence, hypersonics,” he added. WATCH: PRESIDENT TRUMP: “One of my proudest achievements in my first term was to create SPACE FORCE, the first new branch of the Armed Forces in over 70 years… Now that Space Force is up and running, I agree with your leadership that the time has come to create a SPACE NATIONAL GUARD… pic.twitter.com/u9ZQphUzOd — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) August 26, 2024 Trump directed the creation of the U.S. Space Force in 2018 as the sixth branch of the armed forces. WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI “Space is a war-fighting domain, just like the land, air, and sea,” Trump said at the time. “We have the Air Force, we’ll have the space force.” During his speech in Detroit, Trump added that he wants to create a missile defense system around the U.S. that is similar to Israel’s “Iron Dome.” “And, we’re going to build a great Iron Dome for missile defense around our nation,” he said. “Other countries have said Israel has it. You know, Ronald Reagan wanted this many years ago, but we didn’t have the technology at that point. But now we have the technology.”

'Is that enough?'

Paul Finebaum was spittin' flames

Government cheese!

'can‘t get it all squeezed into one day'

Applause to Aaron Gordon for this

Roughly one-third of the funds spent by the Lincoln Project, a political action committee founded by former Republican political consultants with the aim of stopping former President Donald Trump, this election cycle has gone to firms controlled by its senior operatives, Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show. The Lincoln Project has spent $12.8 million since January 2023, and just over $4 million of that has gone to firms owned by members of its leadership, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation review of FEC records. Fox Business in 2021 reported that more than half of the $90 million the Lincoln Project had raised for the 2020 election was paid out to firms owned by its leaders. Of the Lincoln Project’s total spending this election cycle, about 31% has gone toward various types of consulting, roughly 16% has gone toward salary or payroll, and around 10% has gone toward producing ads not intended to oppose or support a specific candidate, per FEC records. The organization also spent more than $500,000 on “podcast services” and nearly $1 million on legal fees. “Their whole shtick is ticking off Donald Trump, and that’s what they sell,” Capital Research Center senior investigative researcher Ken Braun told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “They’ve really come up with a unique way of weaponizing negative campaigning against their own donors, and that’s a lot easier of a thing to raise money [off of] than actually being effective. You can show your donors, ‘Look, we said this nasty thing about Donald Trump, don’t you like that? Here, give us more money!’ … I’ve got to hand it to them in a very cynical way, they’ve come up with a really effective way to raise money, without really being effective.” Lever Communications, formerly known as Joe Trippi & Associates, has raked in nearly $1 million from the Lincoln Project this election cycle for consulting and digital advertising work, per campaign finance filings. Trippi is a Democratic strategist and a senior adviser at the Lincoln Project. Lincoln Project board member and co-founder Rick Wilson’s firm, Intrepid Media, meanwhile, took in $664,000 from the PAC, primarily for “strategy consulting,” disclosures show. Wilson’s son, Andrew, also received a large check courtesy of the Lincoln Project’s donors, with the PAC paying him $105,750 for “corporate campaign management.” The Lincoln Project has been criticized for self-dealing since it started operating as a PAC in 2019. George Conway, one of the Lincoln Project’s co-founders who left the organization in 2020, even said in March 2021 that the organization “should shut down, absent full disclosure of its finances.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., meanwhile, said in 2020 the group entered “scam territory” due to its high fundraising totals and lackluster results, according to Business Insider. Among its failed campaigns in 2020 was a $2.7 million effort to unseat Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., who won by 10 points, and its $1.7 million spending spree to replace Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, which resulted in her winning by nine points. More recently, the Lincoln Project spent $300,000 supporting Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s 2021 run for Virginia governor. Republican Glenn Youngkin achieved an upset victory by becoming the first member of the GOP to hold the governor’s mansion since 2009, Fox News Digital reported. Braun went on to argue that Republicans should be grateful that money is flowing into the Lincoln Project, as opposed to what he would consider a more competent committee. “I think any donor that gives money to the Lincoln Project thinking that they are succeeding in stopping Republicans from getting elected … that’s exactly the opposite of what’s happening, and I would want as much money going to the Lincoln Project as possible.” Among the other firms controlled by members of the Lincoln Project’s leadership that took in large sums from the PAC during the 2024 election cycle was Summit Strategic Communications, a consulting firm owned by Lincoln Project co-founder Reed Galen, which was paid $531,000. Message Mountain Productions, another consultancy owned by senior adviser Stuart Stevens, received $410,000 from the PAC. The Katz Watson Group, which is run by the Lincoln Project’s finance director, Fran Katz Watson, was paid $384,000 for “fundraising consulting,” and Veracity Reigns, which is owned by former senior adviser Tara Setmayer, got $372,000 from the PAC primarily for “administrative consulting.” Viking Strategies, which is run by senior adviser Trygve Olson, and Two Rivers Public Affairs, a “political advocacy company” where Lincoln Project senior adviser Jeff Timmer serves as a partner, both took in hundreds of thousands of dollars for consulting as well. Allegations of self-dealing and inefficacy, however, have not stopped the Lincoln Project, as the PAC has spent $657,000 on operations supporting or opposing political candidates, working primarily to stop Trump from being elected to a second term, FEC records show. Among its recent campaigns is the use of geographically specific attack ads to target people at a Trump golf club in New Jersey, paying for anti-Trump mobile billboards at the Republican National Convention, and attempting to sow discontent within the Trump campaign by running ads advocating for the firing of high-level staffers. “In truth, not even Trump or his supporters were the real target audience for the Lincoln Project’s attacks,” Braun wrote in 2022. “Trump & Co. were instead the bait used [to] hook the real target: the tens of millions of Trump haters … and their money.” Wilson, Trippi, Stevens, Galen, Watson, Setmayer, Olson, Timmer and the Lincoln Project did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Anti-Trump PAC Continues to Shuffle Millions of Donor Dollars to Firms Owned by Insiders appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On the latest episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast,” we examine the fallout from the the Democratic National Convention and the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsement of former President Donald Trump. Every pollster has his or her own take—and, as usual, no one is using their common sense. With former Democrat Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard joining the Trump endorsement crew, what differences, if any, should we expect? With Joel Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, announcing rate cuts just in time for the election, what accountability is there for all those falsified jobs numbers from the Biden administration? Does your wallet have what it takes to survive yet another round of inflation? Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who legacy media have been championing as America’s “sitcom dad” for the last month after he became the Democratic vice presidential hopeful, is embroiled in even more scandals over embellishing his record. From dogs and Army ranks to Nebraskan awards and in vitro fertilization, he certainly picked the weirdest things to lie about. And Savanna Deretich joins us from Students for Life to bring an eyewitness analysis of the gubernatorial record of Walz and what it meant for her as a Minnesota resident. She claims the soft, friendly words from Walz did little to soothe the radical policy and violent riots which plagued his administration. Catch the live radio show and livestream weeknights at 7 p.m. EDT on The Daily Signal’s YouTube, X, or Facebook channels. The post WATCH: Gabbard, RFK Jr. Declare ‘All Hands on Deck’ for Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court had multiple opportunities during the last term to end the censorship of conservatives by social media. It chose a different path. Now, Democrats are free to double down on the Biden-Harris administration’s massive censorship enterprise. There is every indication they intend to do so.  The bedrock of American democracy, the First Amendment, prohibits Congress from making laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The prohibition also applies to executive actions and state governments. Until recently, there was bipartisan agreement on the centrality of free speech to American liberties. Today, nearly a third of Americans believe free speech rights go too far. When Donald Trump was elected president, Democrats in Congress threatened social media platforms with antitrust actions and repeal of the libel protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if they failed to rein in conservative speech. When Joe Biden took office, the federal government institutionalized a censorship enterprise that coerced and collaborated with social media platforms to censor, suppress, and demonetize disfavored views. The New York Times acknowledges the Left has long sought to limit “unfettered speech.” Former President Barak Obama told a Stanford University conference that government controls must be imposed to stop so-called disinformation. Vice President Kamala Harris announced a White House task force to block disinformation involving women’s issues. Democrat vice presidential candidate Tim Walz told MSNBC, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.” In fact, both are generally protected by the First Amendment. The Democrat platform sees controlling disinformation as a priority. By contrast, in July, the Republicans adopted a platform that states: “We will ban the Federal Government from colluding with anyone to censor Lawful Speech, defund institutions engaged in censorship, and hold accountable all bureaucrats involved with illegal censoring. We will protect Free Speech online.” In Murthy v. Missouri, health care professionals, Missouri, and Louisiana sued to block the Biden-Harris censorship regime. During discovery, officials testified that they knowingly sought to end-run the prohibitions on government interference in free speech by working with and through third parties, including Stanford, nonprofit associations, and social media companies. After reviewing extensive discovery, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty found that the Biden-Harris administration had engaged in “a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government” and issued an injunction to stop it. A unanimous panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the findings but tailored the injunction to eliminate ambiguities and exclude some agencies. Florida and Texas then passed laws to make it more difficult for social media platforms to ban political speech. The 11th Circuit struck down Florida’s law, finding that it impermissibly limited editorial discretion, while the 5th Circuit upheld Texas’ law, concluding that content moderation activities are not speech. Last term, the Supreme Court weighed in on both cases. In Murthy v. Missouri, a 6-3 court overruled the 5th Circuit, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate that their speech was specifically censored by specified actions of identified government officials. The majority found that the platforms had independent incentives to censor content, “often” exercised their own judgment, and likely would have censored the same content without government coercion or encouragement. In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the court unanimously decided that the Florida and Texas appeals courts had inadequately analyzed the First Amendment. It sent the cases back for reconsideration, though warning the 5th Circuit that content moderation usually involves editorial decisions protected by the First Amendment. The court’s use of the Left’s preferred euphemism, “content moderation,” in these decisions, rather than “censor” or “suppress,” is troubling. And, while the court is properly wary of states intruding in the editorial choices made by social media platforms, it expressed no similar concern about the federal government. Murthy was inconsistent with NetChoice, precedent, and the evidentiary record. In Peterson v. City of Greenville (1963), the court held that when the government strongly involves itself in a private party’s conduct, it cannot claim the conduct occurred as a result of private choice, even if the private party would have acted independently. In Norwood v. Harrison (1973), Chief Justice Warren Burger explained that the government “may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” In Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974) and Blum v. Yaretsky (1982), the court developed guidelines for when government becomes responsible for private actions by coercing or “significantly encouraging” those actions. In his concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. (2021), Justice Clarence Thomas summarized: “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.” Since the court’s ruling in Murthy, the Biden-Harris administration has ramped up its censorship enterprise. A July report from the Justice Department recycles the same justification of malign foreign influence it used in defending Murthy to again authorize DOJ collaboration with social media platforms to suppress disfavored postings. Last week, referring to Elon Musk’s interview with Trump on X, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre channeled former press secretary Jen Psaki, asserting that social media companies have a “responsibility” to stop disinformation and misinformation. Though the court’s rulings leave an opportunity for future plaintiffs to more carefully link coercion to specific instances of censorship, unless Republicans win in November, government-encouraged censorship of conservatives will only get worse. This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire The post This Election Is a Referendum on Free Speech appeared first on The Daily Signal.