Most countries allow only their own citizens to vote in national elections and require voters to prove their eligibility to vote through photo identification when they register and before they cast their vote. Here in the U.S., verifying eligibility and registering voters is left to the states. You would hope that the federal government would want to assist the states, especially when it comes preventing foreign interference, and that election integrity would be a bipartisan issue. You’d think that a bill requiring U.S. states to obtain proof of citizenship before registering voters would have wide support. Such a proposal, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE, Act (H.R. 8281), passed the House of Representatives Wednesday—but with only five Democrat votes. And the Biden administration “strongly opposes” it. Why? The White House statement is correct that “it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections” and that “making a false claim of citizenship or unlawfully voting in an election is punishable by removal from the United States and a permanent bar to admission.” But that’s where truth ends and spin begins. First, no state requires proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, and they vary on what documents are required to vote in person. Second, all 50 states allow noncitizens who are in the U.S. legally to get a driver’s license, and in 19 states, illegal aliens can get one, too. The problem is, in many states, those who apply for welfare benefits or driver’s licenses are automatically given voter registration forms. That’s a risky combination that invites millions of noncitizens to register to vote, leaving it up to their honesty to opt out. We know that some do register, despite it being illegal. In Arizona, one county told voters that even if their proof of citizenship could not be confirmed to register them for state elections, they would still be sent a ballot for federal elections! It’s hard to see how the U.S. Justice Department or local prosecutors would even find out, let alone prosecute them, if noncitizens voted. In California, the DMV automatically registers every customer unless they specifically opt out. You can also register to vote using a gym membership, credit card, or utility bill—all of which are obtainable by noncitizens. According to California officials, a person with such a low-quality ID would have to show real government-issued ID when they first voted. But with crowded polls, activist local officials, and paranoia about discrimination, can we be sure they are actually doing that? Even if a noncitizen is caught red-handed illegally voting, it is hard to imagine “progressive” district attorneys like Alvin Bragg in New York or George Gascon in Los Angeles prosecuting them when they regularly let repeat violent offenders go free. It’s even harder to imagine that recently impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, described as “derelict in his duty” by the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, would bother to arrest or deport illegal aliens for voting when his president and his political party oppose all efforts to verify the citizenship of registered voters and have facilitated mass illegal immigration. The White House claims that the SAVE Act was proposed “based on easily disproven falsehoods” about voter fraud. In fact, there are over 1,513 documented cases of election fraud in a database collated by The Heritage Foundation—and as the database website states, those cases are only a sampling of the actual fraud that occurs. The White House also claims, “States already have effective safeguards in place to verify voters’ eligibility and maintain the accuracy of voter rolls.” That is not true when it comes to citizenship. And in any event, some states do better than others, as another Heritage tool, the Election Integrity Scorecard, shows. Constant vigilance is required. Virginia removed 1,500 noncitizen voters from its rolls last year, of whom 20% had voted illegally. In Nevada, a citizen-led project aims to clean the voter rolls of voters who moved out of state or died. In North Carolina, The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight project recently interviewed people in a housing project who identified as noncitizens, of whom 10% said they had registered to vote. North Carolina is now considering amending its constitution to make it explicit that only citizens can vote, as are six other states. Seven states already have this clear condition. Lastly, the White House says that the SAVE Act “would make it much harder for all eligible Americans to register to vote …” That’s fiction, and the same false claim made about requiring voter ID. Numerous studies, including by both the National Bureau of Economic Research and the National Academy of Sciences, show that voter ID laws do not disproportionately burden any group of Americans. The SAVE Act simply requires people to furnish proof of citizenship before they can vote. If purported citizens don’t possess a single relevant identity document—which must be very rare—SAVE tells states to establish a process for determining their status. The last three presidential elections were close, as were numerous local and state elections. Claims of fraud have been made by members of both political parties. Measures to ensure election integrity should be supported by all who want not only the reality, but the appearance, of free and fair elections. In May, Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson said that with the millions of illegal aliens released and paroled into the country under Joe Biden, “We now have so many noncitizens in the country that if only one out of 100 of those voted, they would cast hundreds of thousands of votes.” That’s greater than the margin of victory for many contests. With the largest legal and illegal immigration levels in the world, the United States has a constantly fluctuating electorate. With the Biden administration now (arguably unlawfully) using federal resources for voter registration drives in areas with high populations of both legal and illegal immigrants while also encouraging mass illegal entry at the border, verification of potential voters to protect the value of U.S. citizenship has never been more needed. Activists on the Left attack efforts to confirm the identity of voters, ensure votes are counted properly, and screen out inadvertent or fraudulent attempts to vote. They claim any effort to shore up election integrity is not only pointless but motivated by racism and xenophobia. They litigate state by state to stop voter ID laws and other reasonable reforms that polls show most Americans agree with. It’s hard to see a motive for this fierce resistance other than political concerns. But it is reckless to sacrifice electoral integrity for short-term political gain. The electoral system that underpins our democracy should always come before party affiliation. Voters can’t just be told by partisans that the system is free and fair, they must see it for themselves. Commonsense election integrity measures like the SAVE Act would reduce many of the now-credible grounds that lead politicians and the public to believe that elections are unfair, rigged, or influenced by fraud. Rather than fight tooth and nail against integrity efforts, liberals should join with conservatives to pass bipartisan national and state laws to make our elections a model for the world. The BorderLine is a weekly Daily Signal feature examining everything from the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis at the border to immigration’s impact on cities and states throughout the land. We will also shed light on other critical border-related issues like human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, and more. Read Other BorderLine Columns: Yes, America Is Exceptional. Happy 4th of July! Supreme Court Confirms No ‘Right’ for Foreigners to Enter US Biden’s 5 Favorite Fudges on Immigration Law Illegal Immigration Crisis Drives European Voters to Conservatives Let’s Talk Some More About America’s Supposed ‘Rule of Law’ The post How Noncitizens Get to Vote in US Elections and How to Stop It: The BorderLine appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A former National Institutes of Health official testified to a Senate committee on Thursday that the agency did not suppress inquiries into the origins of COVID-19, even as Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., questioned her about private emails suggesting otherwise.  Carrie Wolinetz, who was the chief of staff for then-NIH Director Francis Collins during the pandemic, answered questions from members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee about federal oversight of risky virus research.  The most heated moment of the hearing began when Hawley pressed Wolinetz about a March 2020 journal article written by several scientists that attempted to invalidate the Chinese lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origins. He cited emails obtained by Congress showing that NIH officials were in contact with the authors and reviewed the article before publication.  Scientists at NIH teamed up to discredit the COVID lab leak theory before they even tested the hypothesis. And then lied about it. Repeatedly. So much for "follow the science" pic.twitter.com/eEUdTancMz— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) July 11, 2024 “What interests me is that your office was very involved in that paper, which was supposed to be an independent piece of scientific analysis,” Hawley told Wolinetz. He asked if it is “normal” for scientists writing a paper “to get together and talk about how their conclusion’s going to come out.”  Wolinetz answered that “it is quite common for scientists across biomedical research fields, while they’re in the process of doing research, to discuss … ” “… to pre-bake the outcome?” Hawley interjected. “I do not believe that … that is an accurate description of the conversations that took place,” Wolinetz replied before clarifying that she “was not present for those conversations.”  “My understanding, based on readouts, is there was a lot of interest in the origins and current understanding of [COVID-19],” Wolinetz told the Missouri senator.  Hawley then highlighted an email in which Collins called lab leak concerns a “very destructive conspiracy” shortly after the paper’s publication. The senator asked again why Collins’ office was “so intent on” quieting speculation that U.S.-funded experiments at a Wuhan, China, lab had created the virus.  “Is it because of the NIH’s role in funding gain-of-function research at the lab?” Wolinetz again said Hawley’s portrayal of events was “inaccurate.”  Under further tense questioning, she testified that she and her colleagues never “suggested that there wasn’t the possibility that a virus had escaped from a lab.” Hawley interrupted again, calling her claim “ridiculous.” The hearing came one day after Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced legislation requiring more oversight of federally funded virus research.  Paul said in opening remarks that his bill is in response to a “web of deception” from federal bureaucrats regarding the gain-of-function research in China “that may have caused the pandemic.” Some federal agencies such as the FBI have concluded that COVID-19 was most likely a lab creation. The post Hawley Clashes With Ex-Official Who Denied NIH Suppressed COVID-19 Lab Leak Inquiries appeared first on The Daily Signal.

All 47 Senate Democrats were silent when asked by The Daily Signal whether they support a pending bill to compel proof of citizenship for voters in federal elections. But the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, is gaining momentum among Senate Republicans. The House passed the SAVE Act on Wednesday by a 221-198 vote. The legislation would amend the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, known as the “motor voter law,” to require that states obtain documentary proof of U.S. citizenship from someone before he or she may register to vote in federal elections. The companion bill in the Senate, introduced by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has 20 co-sponsors—a significant spike from its original seven. “Only Americans should vote in American elections,” Lee told The Daily Signal. “I challenge my Democrat colleagues to explain to the American people why they think noncitizens should be able to fraudulently cast ballots.” Although five House Democrats voted for the bill sponsored by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, the other 198 House Democrats voted against it. Not a single Senate Democrat responded to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment on how they would vote on the SAVE Act. “The SAVE Act is the most common sense legislation possible,” Lee said, “and the vast majority of Americans agree that our elections should be protected from illegal foreign interference.” President Joe Biden has vowed to veto the measure if it passes the Senate and goes to his desk. “Almost every single Democrat voted against requiring proof of citizenship to vote,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told The Daily Signal, referring to the House vote on Wednesday. “The Democrats want illegal aliens to vote because they think they’re going to vote for Democrats—even though it’s illegal for illegal aliens to vote. Just about every Democrat yesterday voted against requiring proof of citizenship, and so we’re going to fight for this.” Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said every state should follow Iowa’s example by requiring proof of citizenship to vote. “As Democrats show they are adamantly against ensuring only American citizens vote in American elections,” Ernst said, “we must do more to secure election integrity.” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., supports Lee’s bill, according to his office. “Sen. Cassidy absolutely believes illegal immigrants should not be voting in federal elections,” a spokesperson said. As one of the bill’s co-sponsors, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said he “absolutely” supports the SAVE Act. “Illegals should never be allowed to vote in our elections,” Scott told The Daily Signal, “but unfortunately Biden and his radical Democrats are trying to give illegals more rights, support, and resources than are given to law-abiding American citizens.” Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said it is “plain and simple” that illegal immigrants shouldn’t vote in U.S. elections. “The SAVE Act would close existing loopholes in the National Voter Registration Act to require every potential voter in every state to prove they are an American citizen before casting their vote in a federal election,” Blackburn told The Daily Signal. Fred Lucas contributed to this report. The post Senate Democrats Silent on Bill Mandating Proof of Citizenship for Voters appeared first on The Daily Signal.

NYT: Say, Why Is Team Biden Testing Kamala as a Candidate?

LIVE Blog: Joe Biden Takes on the Media at NATO Press Conference

Is a Gaza Ceasefire Deal Now 'Within Reach?'

Wednesday’s dispatch from Puck’s Dylan Byers fetched some comical bits about the fallout from ABC anchor and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos’s hidden camera admission he doesn’t believe President Biden is fit to (or can) serve another four years, calling him a “consummate professional” who’s not only “ever-disciplined” and “often soft-spoken”, but an “institutionalist” disturbed by Trump. Cue the laugh tracks for Byers’s lede in setting the table for TMZ’s sting operation against Stephanopoulos (emphasis mine):  On Tuesday afternoon, the ever-disciplined, often soft-spoken, and normally besuited veteran politico and newsman George Stephanopoulos was marauding up Fifth Avenue in a t-shirt and gym shorts when he was accosted by a passerby, who sought to extemporaneously follow up on the anchor’s recent newsmaking interview with embattled president Joe Biden. After rehashing Stephanopoulos’s take that Biden wouldn’t make it through another term, ABC having denounced the take, and Stephanopoulos insisting he shouldn’t have engaged, Byers said one thing we can all agree on: Of course Stephanopoulos meant it. Byers added it was “another meaningful vote of no confidence” for Biden as he had not only “recently sat down with him in person, but from a 30-year veteran journalist and former Democratic White House senior advisor and de facto press secretary who has deep respect for the office and the institution.” “Deep respect for the office and institution”? Cue another set of laugh tracks. Byers said he talked to “Stephanopoulos’s friends and longtime colleagues”, who “wondered whether this was a gaffe or simply his subconscious attempt to reckon with his frustrations as a concerned American institutionalist” with one saying this election “deeply upsets him” considering he deeply hates Trump as “a clear and present danger”. Wait, isn’t Stephanopoulos a journalist and thus not supposed to be putting his thumb on the scales? At any rate, the same source added Stephanopoulos obviously thinks “Biden is manifestly in decline and unfit...[w]hich is why the inner agony came out to a random person on the street. He couldn’t contain it. It matters too much to him.” Ah, yes, the ole caring too much argument. Byers returned to Stephanopoulos at the end of his piece to say that, separate from the newsroom drama at, say, CNN and The Washington Post, Stephanopoulos will “be just fine” as he spent the prime of his career “during the ascendant glory years in this business, when the paychecks were fat and the medium really mattered.” In recent years, Byers noted, Stephanopoulos had already “ceded some of those duties and went back to writing history bestsellers and making Hulu shows” thanks to his own production company while still being “the perfect guy for these big interviews: a consummate professional and disciplined TV animal who maintains his figure.” “[O]therwise,” he explained, Stephanopoulos will be able to “enjoy life with his very beloved wife, actress Ali Wentworth, sip a martini at East Hampton’s 1770 House just down the way from their Sagaponack summer home, and play golf”. There aren’t enough eye roll emojis to full express the silliness. One other nugget in his dispatch concerning the future of the national press in what could be a second Trump era thanks to the left finally acknowledging Biden’s cognitive impairment: As I noted last week, the Biden press corps has the bit firmly between its teeth and is relentlessly pursuing scoops and chronicling developments on the Biden-in-decline beat with a collective tenacity and urgency unseen in years. In the process, they are pressing an evasive Karine Jean-Pierre for answers in a manner that has made the Brady Briefing Room once again a relevant theater for live coverage. “We are miffed around here!” CBS News’s Ed O’Keefe shouted at her the other day, calling to mind the tensions of the Sarah Huckabee Sanders era. (For what it’s worth, the vast majority of briefing room denizens I surveyed this week think Jean-Pierre has lost all credibility. Alternatively, one White House reporter said the press corps “looked like bitchy little babies who carried on about a story that had no basis in fact because they’re trying to fetch their way into a coverup.” In any case, it’s interesting again.) “[L]ooked like bitchy little babies who carried on about a story that had no basis in fact because they’re trying to fetch their way into a coverup”?!?! Meeeow.

Since President Biden’s disastrous performance in the first debate, fake Republican Ana Navarro of ABC’s The View had been desperately trying to get people to stop talking about the President’s failing mental situation and pledging her allegiance to the Cult of Biden. But she got more than she bargained for during a Wednesday appearance on CNN’s NewsNight where she was confronted by real Republican Scott Jennings, and host Abby Phillip turned on her. Before the schooling, Jennings was bringing the heat by pointing out how we were experiencing “the first time” the media wasn’t going along with the lies Biden had told about himself: The reason he's having so much trouble with all this is because he spent his entire career getting used to his own largely fabricated personal narrative being successfully covered up. This is disorienting for him. This is the first time in his life that his personal narrative is not being covered up either by Democrats or by media looking the other way. This led to an argument with Jamal Simmons, former communications director of Vice President Kamala Harris, who clownishly tried to suggest Jennings was claiming the deaths of Biden’s first wife and daughter and the death of his son Beau were lies. “Do you want to go through and rehash all the stories he has taught to?” Jennings warned him. But before he could finish his point, Navarro interrupted Jennings to denounce him because supposedly, “you support Donald Trump.” “No I haven't announced who. I work here. I don’t work for anybody. You give money to Joe Biden. I don’t give money to anybody,” he shot back at her. “You’re obviously not supporting Joe Biden,” she huffed as she bragged about giving money to Biden’s floundering reelection effort.     Navarro tried to insanely claim the Biden administration had never uttered a lie in the almost four years it’s been limping around. Jennings rightly laughed in her face as she doubled down on her falsehood: NAVARRO: I think you got it all wrong. When I think it was -- Listen, this is not an administration that has lied. It just hasn't. [Scott Jennings bursts out laughing] Okay, you can laugh or you can scoff. JENNINGS: Not one lie? NAVARRO: No, but you supported an administration that lied about the size of the crowd at the inauguration. That lied for a living. Navarro then went on to take embarrassing swings at the media, suggesting they were the ones lying about Biden’s deteriorating mental condition Americans witnessed themselves on the debate night (Click “expand”): NAVARRO: I think you're confusing administrations. And I think part of the reason that this hasn't been shut down, frankly, is because there's been breathless and somewhat reckless reporting by media -- JENNINGS: The journalists? You're saying the journalists are wrong? NAVARRO: Yes, I do. I think that was journal – JENNINGS: Oh, Ana! NAVARRO: No. Okay. Let me give you examples. I think that when journalists jump on the George Stephanopoulos interview and talk about how Mark Warner didn't run, I think they're wrong. Mark Warner ran. He ran for five hot minutes, but he got close enough to run. JENNINGS: I'm sorry, we have to defend -- NAVARRO: But Joe Biden is saying that it's not a lie. “We have to defend the journalists. I'm sorry, we have journalists at CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, these are journalists,” Jennings tried to reason with her, fruitlessly. “I think that when journalists jump to conclusions about a Parkinson's specialist that has been part of the White House medical unit for over a decade,” Navarro screeched, interrupting host Abby Phillip. Phillip tried to get things under control and pivot to actor George Clooney’s op-ed in The New York Times calling for Biden to exit the race. “No way. Hold on, Abby,” Navarro snapped at her again, wanting to continue sparring with Jennings. Possibly fed up with Navarro’s disrespect, Phillip upended her argument about the concern being just a “media narrative” by pointing out the debate ratings: PHILLIP: Ana I hear what you're saying, but there's no question that it's not a media narrative. 50 million people -- NAVARRO: You don't think the media had – You don't think there's been reckless reporting by some media? PHILLIP: 50 million people watched the president on that debate stage. Navarro seemed to be in a state of disbelief at being countered by a CNN host as Phillip took back control and moved the panel along. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillips July 10, 2024 10:18:06 - 10:23:29 p.m. Eastern ABBY PHILLIP: Joe Biden has not shut this down. I mean, the governor suggested that he has, that he said he's going to stay in the race, but this just keeps coming back. COLEMAN HUGHES: No, it's -- it's been an issue in my view for at least 18 months really. If you look at him on camera and after the debate, everyone saw what they saw now. We were all watching it at once, and that's why the dam broke with the debate. So, I think, absolutely, if he wants to make a statement, he should absolutely do a cognitive test with multiple witnesses from both parties in the room. The longer he doesn't do it, the more he is saying to people, I'm afraid to do it because I'm afraid of the results. ANA NAVARRO: Okay, I'm not advocating a cognitive test with multiple witnesses. It's not like a virginity test, okay, in the medieval ages. SCOTT JENNINGS: His issue is not a one-off cognitive test. His issue is that he's super old. He is in obvious decline from when he ran in 2020 and from when he served as vice president. And no, I mean, no test is going to reverse what we've seen. The reason he's having so much trouble with all this is because he spent his entire career getting used to his own largely fabricated personal narrative being successfully covered up. This is disorienting for him. This is the first time in his life that his personal narrative is not being covered up either by Democrats or by media looking the other way. This is the first time we've seen on full display the truth, the truth of Joe Biden. They have covered this up -- JAMAL SIMMONS: Scott -- Scott -- Scott -- Scott -- JENNINGS: -- for too long, for so long, and it's a scandal. SIMMONS: Scott, when you talk about covering up personal narrative, are you talking about the loss of his wife and daughter? Are you talking about the loss of his son to cancer? JENNINGS: Are you saying Joe Biden has never made up a story about his personal -- SIMMONS: No. But what I'm saying his personal narrative is a narrative about a man who has been steeped in pain, steeped in things that most of us would struggle to get through, who kept battling away at it, kept showing up for people, kept fighting for the middle class, who grew up in small town, Scranton, that's his personal narrative. That's what it is that attracts people to Joe Biden. It's been a thing that sort of held him up the entire time in his political career. And I think it's kind of like not right for anybody to say that he's covering that up because that's so honestly true about his life. JENNINGS: First of all, he has told lie after lie after lie about his life. SIMMONS: Did I say anything right now that was a lie? JENNINGS: But the biggest lie – SIMMONS: Did I just say anything that was a lie? JENNINGS: Do you want to go through and rehash all the stories he has taught to? But here's the deal. [Crosstalk] JENNINGS: No let me finish my point. NAVARRO: Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott. No, no, no let me just say this -- you support Donald Trump. This is a guy who began -- JENNINGS: No I haven't announced who. I work here. I don’t work for anybody. You give money to Joe Biden -- NAVARRO: You’re obviously not supporting Joe Biden -- JENNINGS: I don’t give money to anybody. NAVARRO: I will give happily give all my money to Joe Biden, because if the other choice is Donald Trump, that's a binary choice. But, okay, the other choice is a guy who began lying about how to dodge the draft because of made up bone spurs. He doesn't even remember which foot he had those supposed-- JENNINGS: So, what level of lying is acceptable? This is what I don't get about this Biden versus Trump lying debate. Apparently, if you tell one less lie than Donald Trump, that's good enough. Is that the bar you want to set? This is a scandal. What has been covered up about Biden for the last three and a half years or more by his staff, by Democrats, look at this George Clooney op-ed. Well, three weeks ago, you know, we all saw it. Why didn't anybody say anything that night? It's not that they care about the office of the president. It's that they care they're losing. That's why it's coming apart. NAVARRO: I think you got it all wrong. When I think it was -- listen, this is not an administration that has lied. It just hasn't. [Scott Jennings bursts out laughing] Okay, you can laugh or you can scoff. JENNINGS: Not one lie? NAVARRO: No, but you supported an administration that lied about the size of the crowd at the inauguration. That lied for a living. JENNINGS: Do you honestly expect us to believe that they've never lied? NAVARRO: I think you're confusing administrations. And I think part of the reason that this hasn't been shut down, frankly, is because there's been breathless and somewhat reckless reporting by media -- JENNINGS: The journalists? You're saying the journalists are wrong? NAVARRO: Yes, I do. I think that was journal – JENNINGS: Oh, Ana! NAVARRO: No. Okay. Let me give you examples. I think that when journalists jump on the George Stephanopoulos interview and talk about how Mark Warner didn't run, I think they're wrong. Mark Warner ran. He ran for five hot minutes, but he got close enough to run. JENNINGS: I'm sorry, we have to defend -- NAVARRO: But Joe Biden is saying that it's not a lie. JENNINGS: We have to defend the journalists. I'm sorry, we have journalists at CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, these are journalists. PHILLIP: Let me just – Scott and Ana. Can we just take a pause here for a second? NAVARRO: I think that when journalists jump to conclusions about a Parkinson's specialist that has been part of the White House medical unit for over a decade. JENNINGS: That they've lied about. They lied about it. NAVARRO: What part of it did they lie about? What part did they lie about? PHILLIP: Let's just take a pause for a bit because I want to talk about the George Clooney of it all? NAVARRO: No way. Hold on, Abby. JENNINGS: Karine has repeatedly lied about this. NAVARRO: No, she has not. JENNINGS: And about whether Biden was in the meeting. She talked about it. NAVARRO: No, they have not. This is a White House medical unit doctor who has been part of this since Obama. During the Obama administration, he visited the White House over 20 times. Did Obama have Parkinson's? They have said -- JENNINGS: I think you need to catch up on the news tonight. That's all I'm saying. NAVARRO: No, I think you need to go read the truth. And you see, this narrative is part of the reason why all of these questions have not been shut down. And I do think there's been reckless reporting. PHILLIP: Ana I hear what you're saying, but there's no question that it's not a media narrative. 50 million people -- NAVARRO: You don't think the media had – You don't think there's been reckless reporting by some media? PHILLIP: 50 million people watched the president on that debate stage. (…)

Fort Liberty issued a statement after getting backlash online when it was revealed the pro-life movement was labeled as a terrorist movement as part of a briefing to soldiers.First reported by X user @samosaur, the slide in question clearly states organizations such as National Right to Life are "terrorist groups.""They also included a screenshot of a license plate with 'IM4IT,' which is a plate many Pro-Life citizens put on their car which implies normal citizens are terrorists if they display this plate. ... They also falsely attribute the bombing of abortion clinics to National Right to Life. Keep in mind they’re not labeling them as extremist organizations (which would still be crazy), but as terrorist organizations," @samosaur wrote. 'National Right to Life has always, consistently, and unequivocally, condemned violence against anyone.'The slide noted the groups' opposition to Roe v. Wade but misspelled it as "Row v. Wade.""After conducting a commander’s inquiry, we determined that the slides presented on social media were not vetted by the appropriate approval authorities, and do not reflect the views of the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Liberty, the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense," Fort Liberty Garrison Public Affairs Office said in a statement to Blaze Media."The slides were developed by a local garrison employee to train Soldiers manning access control points at Fort Liberty. These slides will no longer be used, and all future training products will be reviewed to ensure they align with the current DoD anti-terrorism guidance," the statement added.“In a presentation that is deeply offensive to pro-life Americans across the nation, Fort Liberty promoted outright lies about National Right to Life in a demonstration of lazy scholarship,” Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, said in response to the slide. “In our over 50-year history, National Right to Life has always, consistently, and unequivocally, condemned violence against anyone.” — (@) “One must wonder how a license plate that raises funds for pregnancy resource centers could be construed as a symbol of terrorism," Tobias continued.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Biden presidential campaign got hit with another damaging debacle after a progressive radio station in Wisconsin admitted it was asked to excise portions of an interview with the president. Civic Media, a talk-radio network, said in a statement Thursday the decision to follow through with the campaign request did not meet "journalistic interview standards." 'I don’t know if they even call for their hanging or not, but he — but they said ...'The Biden campaign has been barraged by daily revelations about the president's mental and cognitive deficiencies since he stumbled through a debate against former President Donald Trump on CNN. The interview in question was conducted by popular host Earl Ingram on July 3 and published the next day on the Fourth of July. "On Monday, July 8th, it was reported to Civic Media management that immediately after the phone interview was recorded, the Biden campaign called and asked for two edits to the recording before it aired," the company said. "Civic Media management immediately undertook an investigation and determined that the production team at the time viewed the edits as non-substantive and broadcast and published the interview with two short segments removed," it explained. The two edits appeared to be made to keep listeners from hearing President Joe Biden make non-sensical statements. The station said it would release the full interview and documented the two edits. "... and in addition to that, I have more Blacks in my administration than any other president, all other presidents combined, and in major positions, cabinet positions," said Biden in the first edit. The second edit was in reference to a controversial call from Trump for the death penalty of five suspects who were accused of rape and murder in Central Park in 1989. They were originally convicted but exonerated years later. “I don’t know if they even call for their hanging or not, but he–but they said [...] convicted of murder," said Biden in the second edit. Civic Media went on to say that listeners rightfully expected higher journalistic standards with a high-profile guest like the president. "We did not meet those expectations. Civic Media disagrees with the team’s judgments in the moment, both with respect to the handling of the interview questions and the decision to edit the interview audio," the company concluded. The campaign said that the questions were not pre-requisites for the interview, and Ingram said he used four of the five question suggestions it offered. Wisconsin is widely considered to be one of the more important swing states that could help determine the final victor in the electoral college. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!