'Lock him up'

'The actions of this physician might have put patients at a low risk of exposure'

'He needs to drop out'

NYPD Blue enjoyed a solid 12 season run throughout the '90s and into the 2000s. While the length of the series is impressive, it received a lot of attention and critical acclaim not for its run-time, but for its rather questionable content. NYPD Blue pushed the envelope for what was possible to show on regulated broadcast networks and changed the game when it comes to realism, nudity, language... Source

One reason the colonies declared independence from Great Britain was the political manipulation of the courts, but the Left today seems to think that judicial manipulation is a good idea after all. Leftists’ campaign to control the Supreme Court includes institutional and personal threats, smears of individual justices, and now articles of impeachment from the liberal congresswoman known as AOC. Did anyone not see that one coming from AOC? Calling names and making accusations long proved false are no more persuasive dressed up in a new way. Let’s review: August 2019: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and four other Senate liberals file a brief in a Second Amendment case threatening the Supreme Court with “restructuring” if it decides the case the wrong way. March 2020: Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., shouts from the Supreme Court steps that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh will “pay the price” and “won’t know what hit you” unless they decide an abortion case the way he wants. USA Today’s editorial board called Schumer’s threats “beyond the pale.” May 2022: Whitehouse introduces a bill to require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct, a step that liberal Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe called “a stark violation of the separation of powers.” (Note: Tribe’s statement, submitted for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in May 2023, is strangely no longer available on the internet.) June 2024: Left-wing group Fix the Court claims Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t disclose what it defined as “gifts” that he “likely” received. July 10, 2024: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and other left-wing House members introduce resolutions to impeach both Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. These and other assaults have the same purpose: to demonize justices the Left believes will not be reliable political partners and to undermine the validity of Supreme Court decisions that don’t further their preferred political interests. In other words, the Left opposes judicial independence; leftists want a Supreme Court that’s dependent, compliant, and will do what it’s told. Ocasio-Cortez’s articles of impeachment targeting Thomas and Alito simply repackage old news. Her impeachment resolution for Thomas, for example, accuses the justice of “refusing to report the source, description, and value of gifts.” Did you catch how “refusing” instead of “failing” makes it sound like Thomas deliberately chose to conceal information he knew he was required to report? This includes the details of noncommercial transportation, lodging, or meals that he received from friends. You’d think that, of all places, an impeachment resolution would cite the authority requiring Thomas to report such things. You’d think that, but you’d be wrong, because no such authority exists. Federal judges follow the Guide to Judiciary Policy when preparing their annual financial disclosures. The guide in place when Thomas joined the Supreme Court in 1991 told judges to “exclude gifts received as the personal hospitality of any individual.” The 2012 revision stated that “a ‘gift’… does not include … social hospitality based on personal relationships.” The current rule, revised in March 2023, provides that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as “personal hospitality of any individual” need not be reported. In other words, AOC’s accusation in the impeachment resolution targeting Thomas is worth reading only if “exclude” and “does not include” in the rule means “include” and “need not be” means “must be.” This reminds me of Humpty Dumpty saying to Alice: “When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution against Thomas also recycles claims that he should have recused himself from participating in certain cases before the Supreme Court. The Left imagines a requirement that justices recuse themselves whenever their impartiality is questioned. Thankfully, here in the real world, the federal recusal statute requires a judge “to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The Supreme Court’s Code of Conduct explains the requirement that questioning impartiality must be reasonable: “where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” If there’s one adjective that does not apply to the Left’s campaign to control the Supreme Court, it’s unbiased. Not to put too fine a point on it, saying that a judge isn’t impartial simply because you don’t like how he judges is far from enough to make the accusation reasonable. See if you can understand this: AOC’s resolution claims that, 13 years ago, a Thomas friend contributed to an organization previously founded by Thomas’ wife Ginni. That friend also served on the board of a separate organization that has filed friend-of-the-court briefs in unidentified Supreme Court cases over the years. Thomas allegedly agreed with unspecified positions in an unknown number of those briefs filed with the high court. This organization in question wasn’t a party in any case before Thomas, mind you, but a third party who wanted to share legal arguments with the court. AOC’s impeachment resolution claims that, therefore, Ginni Thomas has ongoing “financial interests” in entities that file legal briefs with the Supreme Court and that, therefore, Thomas must recuse himself—presumably forever—from any case in which those entities (or their donors) participate in any way. This mess gives speculation and attenuated arguments a bad name, and it bears no resemblance to the actual standards for recusal. Ocasio-Cortez’s impeachment resolution targeting Alito fares no better. Who would have thought that flying a flag at one’s primary and vacation residences would amount to a “high crime and misdemeanor” requiring a justice’s removal from office? While no reasonable person would, AOC’s resolution makes this the center of her attack on Alito. The impeachment resolution claims that an inverted American flag flown for a few days at the Alito residence in early 2021 and the “Appeal to Heaven” flag flown at the Alitos’ vacation home show that Alito was “aligning himself … with the insurrectionary cause.” Rarely has a more serious charge rested on a weaker foundation. The resolution sounds as if these flags had been designed and produced by those who dispute the 2020 election or participated in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol. The truth is that each flag has a long history and has been flown to convey all sorts of messages. Protesters of the Vietnam War, for example, flew inverted American flags at marches and rallies in the 1960s. Far more people likely have seen it in the iconic photo of the American Indian Movement’s protest at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, than spotted it in media coverage of the Jan. 6 events. Come to think of it, an inverted American flag has been used to criticize all sorts of policies of every presidential administration for decades, including Trump’s. In fact, a March 22 article in People magazine explained how an upside-down American flag has been used “by both sides of the political aisle.” on for the flag’s display at his home. A search of archives of photos from the events of Jan. 6 found hundreds of American flags, all but one or two flown right side up. Similarly, the “Appeal to Heaven” flag—also called the Pine Tree flag—has been flown since the American Revolution. It became the official maritime ensign of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in April 1776 and was featured on a stamp issued by the U.S. Postal Service in 1968. The “Appeal to Heaven” flag flew for 60 years outside San Francisco City Hall. It has been associated with the quest for American independence, and since 1776 has taken on a more general meaning that those who face injustice and have no one to defend them may rely on a higher power in their fight for justice. How do decades, and even centuries, of history behind these symbols get completely neutralized because a few protesters on Jan. 6 held them? Is anyone who displays either flag in the future to be guilty of, as AOC’s charge claims about Alito, “show[ing] support for domestic enemies of the United States?” Of course not. Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution offers nothing to establish either what it claims is the wide understanding of the meaning of flying each flag or, more importantly, whether Alito understood it that way or that the understanding had anything to do with the display of the flags. Any reasonable person, however, would expect such evidence for AOC’s accusation that Alito “indicated sympathy with the efforts to overturn the 2020 election.” Such reasonable persons would expect it, but they would be disappointed. That evidence simply does not exist. Almost as an afterthought, the impeachment resolution targeting Alito spends just two paragraphs recycling past claims that, like Thomas, he failed to disclose gifts he received from friends and did not recuse himself from certain cases. It is truly baffling how a justice’s not disclosing what he wasn’t required to disclose—and was advised not to disclose—would, as Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution claims, lead anyone to believe that “the gift was offered and accepted in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act.” We get it: The Left can’t stand Thomas and Alito, or any judge who takes the Constitution as it is rather than making up one that might better serve liberal political interests. The last thing the Left wants is an independent judiciary; such independence is an obstacle to be eliminated, not a principle to be defended. The Left’s unprecedented public threats against the Supreme Court and the smearing of its justices—which led to an assassination attempt—were bad enough. Now we see the weaponization of impeachment. Where will the Left go from here? The post Left’s Campaign to Highjack Supreme Court Takes Bizarre Turn appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE WASHINGTON STAND—According to a new report, Pentagon schools pushed DEI propaganda on the children of armed service members stationed abroad. The nonprofit government transparency watchdog Open the Books published a report this month titled “Schools for Radicals: The Secret Push to Institute Radical DEI Curriculums within the Pentagon’s K-12 Public Schools,” detailing the efforts of the Department of Defense Education Activity to promote left-wing agendas in classrooms. The report begins by noting that the DODEA operates 160 schools across seven states, 11 foreign nations, Guam, and Puerto Rico and is responsible for the education of over 66,000 students. The program’s budget for the 2023 fiscal year was $2.25 billion. “Unfortunately, the DODEA has been pushing radical ideologies on children of military personnel for way too long,” said Meg Kilgannon, Family Research Council senior fellow for education studies, in comments to The Washington Stand. “Imagine serving your nation on the battlefront and returning home to find your daughter is now your son, and to further learn that the schools provided to your family were the first to encourage this lie. This situation is outrageous and fixing it should be a priority for a Republican administration.” Open the Books explained that it “used spending data gathered from federal checkbook database USASpending.gov. Other information was collected from FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests and through videos from the Equity and Access Summit provided by a whistleblower.” These are the report’s key findings: The Pentagon Lied About Dismantling DEI Initiatives According to Open the Books, the DODEA became the subject of intense scrutiny for its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in 2022, after then-DEI chief Kelisa Wing made racist social media posts targeting white people. DODEA assured Congress in a 2023 hearing that it “would be dismantling its DEI department and transferring DEI chief Kelisa Wing to a different position, unrelated to DEI.” The report continued, “In internal emails, however, [then-Executive Director] Thomas Brady stated DEI specialists would be embedded into different departments throughout the agency, and a new DEI Steering Committee would be formed, composed of agency executives and administrative staff.” Furthermore, Open the Books reported that the DODEA continued using a controversial Equity and Access Summit even after coming under fire when videos from the summit were leaked to the public in 2021. The report noted that, at the summit, “staffers discussed how the classrooms can make students more aware of social justice issues, hide ‘gender transitions’ from parents[,] and force ‘uncomfortable conversations’ on race onto both children and staff … ” Instead of dismantling the program, DODEA “hid the public links to the summit videos days after the reports about them began circulating in the press, and the agency has liberally used Freedom of Information Act redactions to obfuscate emails, calendar invitations, and other data that would be useful in understanding its operations.” DODEA Used SPLC Content in Classrooms The Southern Poverty Law Center is a known left-wing activism organization, but DODEA still uses the group’s content in training teachers, according to whistleblowers cited in Open the Books’s report. “Along with paid content, staffers have been found to use and advocate for a variety of troubling free resources that push radical ideologies in the classroom. Because the content is available online at no cost from organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, it is impossible to trace with spending data,” Open the Books noted. In one instance, an SPLC Learning for Justice handbook titled “Let’s Talk!” was used. That handbook claims that students “recognize the injustice inherent in racism, gender bias, ableism, anti-immigrant sentiment, religious and anti-LGBTQ bias and more” and encourages teachers to start and foster conversations in the classroom on those topics. The handbook specifically tells teachers that they may “plan” these conversations “ahead of time.” It also includes sporadic “glossaries” defining or redefining terms like “identity,” “dominant identity group,” “intersectionality,” “injustice,” “bias,” “discrimination,” and others. Teachers are encouraged to in turn encourage students to consider what makes up their identity from a list of “identities” such as ability, age, body type, ethnicity, gender identity, home language, immigration status, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. In another instance, according to a whistleblower, a DODEA Headquarters physical education specialist boasted of how closely the DODEA’s College and Career Readiness Standards “line up with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s ‘Social Justice Standards: Teaching Tolerance Anti-Bias Framework.’” Another DODEA teacher explained that SPLC Social Justice Standards are “a road map to develop anti-bias education for every grade level and focus on four domains: Identity, Diversity, Justice, and Action,” noting that SPLC standards are implemented into classroom content. Tyler O’Neil, managing editor at The Daily Signal and author of “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” told The Washington Stand, “The Southern Poverty Law Center’s far-left activism has no place in schools, much less in the classrooms where America’s brave service members entrust their kids’ education.” He continued: The men and women who lay their lives on the line for our country shouldn’t have to worry about their kids getting brainwashed and turned into social justice activists at a young age. The Department of Defense also has no business legitimizing the SPLC, a far-left smear factory that routinely brands mainstream conservative and Christian organizations ‘hate groups’ and places them on a ‘hate map’ with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. This smear inspired an act of terrorism in Washington, D.C., and the SPLC has been forced to hand over sensitive documents in the discovery process for a key defamation lawsuit. A former SPLC staffer exposed this ‘highly profitable scam’ in 2019, yet it seems the DOD failed to notice. This is a disservice to children and it gives undue legitimacy to a corrupt organization. The brave men and women who risk life and limb for our freedom deserve better. Family Research Council’s Kilgannon published a report in 2021 examining the SPLC’s Learning for Justice program, calling it “a particular threat to our values and religious freedom: divisive identity politics inserted into school curricula.” Based on the organization’s divisive identity politics, promotion of critical race theory, and LGBTQ+ classroom activism, Kilgannon concluded, “The SPLC is a highly partisan and ideological organization that cannot be trusted to inform the minds of our nation’s children.” DODEA Hired Third-Party Contractors to Conduct DEI Training on Taxpayers’ Dime According to Open the Books, DODEA has not only free resources from the SPLC but spends millions of dollars hiring third-party contractors to promote DEI in classroom programs, too. Between 2019 and 2023, DODEA paid nearly $2 million to Advancement Via Individual Determination, a company that has openly expressed “solidarity” with radical organizations like Black Lives Matter. The group conducts training sessions on topics like “power” and “privilege” and is “a major part of student life at DoDEA.” DODEA paid over $2.4 million to Discovery Education between 2019 and 2023. Described in the report as a “media platform,” the program hosts purportedly educational videos for classroom use. Open the Books noted, “One [Discovery Education] ‘channel’ recommended by DoDEA staff is called ‘Dissent, Equity, and Inspiring Change,’ which is intended to ‘help educators facilitate classroom conversations and much-needed discussions about implicit bias and systemic racism, human rights, equity, social justice, dissent, protest, and empathy.’” The Goodheart-Willcox Co. has been paid over $1 million by DODEA and the company’s health program is “used across DoDEA for health education.” According to a whistleblower cited in the report, the health program discusses “sexuality,” “gender and gender identity,” “sexual orientation,” and “sexual experiences and thoughts” and encourages students to learn about and explore their own sexualities. Described as “learning management software,” Schoology has been paid nearly $1.5 million by DODEA. While the program is “intended to help kids and teachers keep track of their homework, quizzes, and grades,” DODEA teachers and trainers have recommended that their colleagues use the program “to facilitate secret chatrooms around sexuality and gender topics, outside of the eyes of parents.” DODEA Spending Is Increasing With Almost No Accountability Open the Books noted in its report that DODEA federal grant spending has “roughly tripled since 2020, from $20 to over $70 million annually,” approximately $300 million is spent annually on contractors, and over $1 billion is spent on salaries, “but individual salaries remain a mystery, as DoDEA refused to disclose this data, unlike nearly every other federal agency or school district across the country.” Despite its substantial budget, DODEA has repeatedly stonewalled not only Open the Books but even Congress whenever inquiries are made into what is spent on DEI programs. DODEA’s DEI Steering Committee is reportedly comprised of CEO Thomas Brady, DODEA’s chief operating officer, DODEA’s chief academic officer, and 12 others. But the agency has refused to answer FOIA requests regarding the identities of those others. Any information that was provided to Open the Books was “so redacted that [it was] practically unusable … ” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, reportedly questioned Brady about “wasteful travel spending,” but did not receive an informative response. Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s, R-Mo., queries regarding DODEA’s policies regarding students’ gender transitions have gone unanswered. Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., demanded information on the activity of DODEA’s DEI Steering Committee earlier this year but has also yet to receive a response. Open the Books noted that it “has appealed the redaction decisions on our FOIAs, but the wait time for an appeal response—even if successful—can take many months to a year or more.” The watchdog observed, “This is far too long for military parents, policymakers, and taxpayers to wait to see how their money is being spent indoctrinating children into radical ideologies.” Originally published by The Washington Stand The post Report Shows Pentagon Funding DEI Content in Classrooms appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton is calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to fire Kristen Clarke following the Daily Signal’s reporting on her arrest and subsequent expungement. “I write regarding an act of perjury committed by Kristen Clarke, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights,” he wrote in a letter first published by Breitbart News. “I call for Ms. Clarke’s immediate termination and removal from office.” Cotton sourced The Daily Signal’s April 30 report revealing for the first time that Clarke hid her arrest for a domestic violence incident and its subsequent expungement from investigators when she was awaiting Senate confirmation to her high-ranking Justice Department post. Her ex-husband, Reginald Avery, has told The Daily Signal that Clarke attacked him with a knife, slicing his finger to the bone, while they were married in 2006. That record was later expunged, The Daily Signal confirmed. Asked by Cotton during her confirmation, “Since becoming a legal adult, have you ever been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime against any person?” she responded, “No,” according to a 66-page document she submitted under oath to “Questions for the Record” from senators. “Lying to Congress under oath is a felony,” Cotton told Garland. He continued: “The last time you were before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you said, ‘The integrity of our legal system is premised on adherence to the rule of law.’ In order to have confidence in our Department and in our democracy, the American people must be able to trust that we will adhere to the rule of law in everything we do.’ Ms. Clarke does not meet this standard and must be immediately terminated.” Clarke has not responded to requests for comment from The Daily Signal, though the DOJ previously acknowledged receipt of these requests. Following The Daily Signal’s initial report, Clarke told CNN she hid the arrest during her Senate confirmation but then alleged she was the victim of domestic violence at the hands of her ex-husband. Avery previously told The Daily Signal he did not abuse his ex-wife. The Daily Signal’s reporting on Clarke prompted calls for her to resign from Utah Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican, the New York Post Editorial Board, and others. In early May, a group of conservative leaders called on Clarke to resign from her leadership position in a letter they sent to the high-ranking DOJ official. And in June, Article III Project filed three ethics complaints and criminal referral, calling upon Garland to open a criminal probe into Clarke on the grounds that she “knowingly and willfully” made “materially false statements” and that she committed “perjury.” “There is ample evidence to support this referral for false statements and perjury,” Mike Davis, founder and president of Article III Project, said in the criminal referral. Davis’ organization is focused on defending constitutionalist judges, opposing radical judicial nominees, and pushing back on “radical assaults on judicial independence” such as court-packing. The post ‘IMMEDIATE TERMINATION’: Cotton Calls On Merrick Garland To Fire Kristen Clarke Following Daily Signal Expose appeared first on The Daily Signal.

NYT Taking Sledgehammer to Biden Campaign Pledges & Prospects

NBC’s Today co-host Craig Melvin must have taken a page out of his colleague Savannah Guthrie’s playbook as he grilled longtime House Democrat Jim Clyburn (SC) over his choice to remain enthusiastically behind President Biden as more continue to abandon him and demand he not seek reelection due to his cognitive decline. The 11-minute-plus segment began with Melvin cutting to the chase about how Biden’s Thursday night press conference contained plenty of gaffes even though it “was supposed to have allayed concerns that a lot of folks have — many of them within your own party — about the President’s ability to do the job.”     Clyburn offered a pathetic defense of confusing Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy then Kamala Harris and Donald Trump by insisting this happens so much to the point it’s “almost natural for people who grew up stuttering, and they do focus a little more and, when you focus a little more, you tend to use — lose the flow.” Melvin wasn’t having it: “But you’re not saying that what we’ve seen from this President over the last few weeks is just a function of him — him stuttering. I mean, it’s more than that.” Clyburn doubled down: “Of course not. He doesn’t stutter now. He’s still working to overcome the stuttering of his childhood. I’ve been around that condition for a long time, and I know exactly how it — it operates, but he has one of the best minds that I’ve ever been around”. Melvin still didn’t take the bait and instead cited what were then 17 congressional Democrats calling for Biden to end his reelection bid and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s meandering earlier in the week. After Clyburn insisted the “conversation should” stop about whether Biden will leave and instead go to “the record of this administration” and preventing Project 2025 from “becom[ing] the law in any form”, Melvin hit back with a reality check about how will the campaign even work for Democrats if they’re constantly facing questions about Biden “remain[ing] viable”. Clyburn scoffed, leaving Melvin incredulous (click “expand”): MELVIN: But, Congressman, again, how — how is this a candidate — how is this candidacy or candidate that can remain viable? If you literally have a Democrat every day calling on him to drop out of the race, down ballot Democrats who are going to asking questions every day about the President’s mental acuity, how is that a — how is that a camp — campaign that can be successful? CLYBURN: Well, Joe Biden is focused on the future of this country and I always say the best predictor of future performance is past behavior. Let’s continue to compare the past behavior of Joe Biden and to the past behavior of his opponent, Donald Trump, and let that be a guide to our reactions going forward. And I think, if we do that, we will give the American people exactly what they need to make their choice for our children and grandchildren. MELVIN: You — CLYBURN: That’s what this campaign is all about.    It’s about whether or not we’re going to have — MELVIN: — but you — CLYBURN: —a viable democracy. MELVIN: — but you recognize there are a lot of folks in this country, many of whom in your own party, who don’t think this is the same Joe Biden we saw four years ago. You’ve known him for decades. CLYBURN: Yep. MELVIN: You’re traveling with him next week. You’ve spent more time with the President than just about anybody else in the House. Is this the same Joe Biden that we saw two years ago? CLYBURN: Well, look, I grew up — MELVIN: Is it the same Joe Biden? CLYBURN: — no. I’m not the same Jim Clyburn that I was four years ago, and given a few — what — ten more days — MELVIN: You’ll be 84. CLYBURN: — I’ll be 84 years old. That’s an anniversary of my 39th birthday. It’s not another birthday. It’s the anniversary of my 39th, but I’m a bit wiser than I was before. And I’m a bit wiser than I am on many fronts.  Melvin tried again: “But, congressman, you’ll also knowledge that the President we’ve seen over the last few months is not the man you endorsed four years ago. But in terms of mental acuity, in terms of his physical ability, is he still the same man?” Clyburn replied that while he didn’t “think so” physically, Biden’s still entirely there mentally because he “still grasp[s] what this country is all about” and “what a democracy is all about”. Melvin also touched on the topic of cognitive testing, but Clyburn batted that away with the insistence that would be none of our business. Side-note: Doubt Clyburn would have that same take if Trump were to be reelected. This marathon interview continued on with Melvin hitting the gas on Biden being purposefully closed off from the press by his staff and that more Americans could make up their mind on him if he was seen more often in “unscripted settings” (click “expand”): MELVIN: He’s done fewer news conferences than any president — the — the last seven Presidents, fewer news conferences, fewer interviews like this. Do you think this White House has shielded him too much? CLYBURN: Well, I don’t know what the magic number would be, but I do believe — MELVIN: I — you can — CLYBURN: — he’s pacing himself — MELVIN: — you can acknowledge that he’s not been out there as much as some of his predecessors. Is that — has that been to his determinant? CLYBURN: — well, I don’t know. I don’t know about that. I do know that all of us — you know, I have been asking him to do more town hall-style meetings because I think that he performs well when he interacts with people, and I think people feel better about him when they’re allowed interact with him. You know, I don’t want people to think that you’ve got to be going through the trials of a press conference. If you let the press look in on your interactions — MELVIN: But, congressman, don’t you think this would help allay a lot of the concerns that people have in this country that the President’s not — just not up to the job if they saw and heard him in more unscripted settings on a more regular basis? CLYBURN: — well, that may be true. I’m not saying that — that won’t be the case, but I’m saying that is not required in order to prosecute the case. MELVIN: Last — CLYBURN: Get among the people. After a series of questions about whether he would have still endorsed Biden in 2020 knowing how things would pan out and if he’d back Vice President Harris were Biden to quit, Guthrie and Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker analyzed the interview.  They even tossed back to Clyburn when they wanted to make sure they understood him earlier in his support for Biden with the caveat that the Democratic National Convention isn’t for another month. To see the relevant transcript from July 12, click here.

All new mothers are screened usually multiple times for postpartum depression following the birth of a child. It’s a condition that, according to studies, is the most common childbirth complication. When it’s determined that a woman is suffering from postpartum depression, she is often prescribed selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, which are commonly used to treat depression. But how effective are these kinds of drugs? And are they safe? According to Dr. Roger McFillin, clinical psychologist and co-host of the “Radically Genuine” podcast, who’s outspoken on the dangers of modern psychiatry, not only are they not necessarily effective, but they’re technically “experimental.” The FDA is Experimenting on Postpartum Women | Guest: Dr. Roger McFillin | Ep 1031 youtu.be “This is what your audience should know,” he tells Allie Beth Stuckey. “There are no approved SSRI/anti-depression drugs for postpartum depression … The FDA is corrupt and has approved drugs that harm people routinely throughout history, so when they don't have a drug that's approved, understand that [prescribing SSRIs for postpartum mothers] is an experimental medical intervention.” Further, “SSRIs pass through the breastmilk,” and “they absolutely impact fetal development,” contributing to “neurodevelopmental problems, cognitive disorders, autism,” says Dr. McFillin, adding that “the published research on that is clear.” Babies of mothers who take SSRIs while pregnant “are born dependent and in withdrawal on SSRIs — it's published literature,” he explains. “I would never, for a family member, for a friend, for a client, under any circumstances — any circumstances at all” recommend “a psychiatric drug while pregnant because it's going to impact the baby,” he says. As for postpartum depression, Dr. McFillin says “it’s a cultural problem,” but the “significant hormonal change” following birth can be treated “nutritionally, with sleep, [and] with family being around.” According to him, what we modernly understand as postpartum depression is actually “created in [the] consciousness” and is driven by our “fear-based culture” that attempts to convince new mothers that if they’re struggling, they’re going to harm their baby. This fear then steers them toward the medical system, where they unknowingly agree to “experimental mind- and mood-altering drugs that haven’t been researched longterm.” To learn more, watch the episode above. Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.