'It was incredibly painful'

Is the tide turning

'To tackle the climate crisis'

'vile practices of their insurance companies'

News autopsy room four Stephen King’s “Autopsy Room Four” Getting Feature Adaptation By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on December 11, 2024 Credit for Stephen King image: Kevin Payravi, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons Comment 0 Share New Share Credit for Stephen King image: Kevin Payravi, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons Another day, another announcement of a Stephen King adaptation. (I’m not complaining!) The latest project involves King’s short story, “Autopsy Room Four.” According to Deadline, Ranjeet S. Marwa, whose previous credits include Memoirs of a Sikh Soldier and the upcoming Dig Me No Grave, is on board to write and direct the film adaptation. His debut work, a 2012 short titled The Man Who Loved Flowers, was also reportedly inspired by King. “Autopsy Room Four” was first published in 1997 in King’s self-published collection Six Stories, and then later in 2002 in the traditionally published Everything’s Eventual. In it, a man finds himself paralyzed and presumed dead in an autopsy room after getting bitten by a snake. Grady Hendrix, in his Stephen King Reread series described the story as “well-written” though he acknowledges that even King recognized that “it’s basically ‘Breakdown,’ a 1955 episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, only instead of Joseph Cotton crying a single teardrop to let the pathologist know he’s alive, Howard Cottrell gets a boner.” This isn’t the first adaptation of the story. In 2003, a short film was based on it, and in 2006, it was featured in TNT’s Nightmares & Dreamscapes: From The Stories Of Stephen King. But there hasn’t been a film adaptation yet, and it will be interesting to see how Marwa takes the source material and expands it into a feature-length story. The project is apparently in its early days, so no news yet on who will play the presumably paralyzed Howard Cottrell or when the film will go into production. [end-mark] The post Stephen King’s “Autopsy Room Four” Getting Feature Adaptation appeared first on Reactor.

President-elect Donald Trump has once again promised to “end birthright citizenship” for the U.S.-born children of illegal and nonimmigrant aliens. But can he do this without amending the Constitution? Yes, he can—at least according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which, as I explained at great length in an earlier law review article and a pair of Heritage Legal Memos, is far different from the interpretation offered by most modern scholars. It’s certainly true that today, the mistaken majority view of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is that it grants what essentially amounts to universal birthright citizenship—in other words, that virtually all children born within the geographical boundaries of the United States are citizens, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status. It’s also true that the federal government has been abiding by a policy of treating the U.S.-born children of illegal and nonimmigrant aliens as citizens, even though it is not required and is a change from the way the 14th Amendment was applied after it was ratified in July 1868. Properly understood from an originalist perspective, however, nothing in the Citizenship Clause actually requires this practice. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.  Supporters of birthright citizenship ignore the second, critical condition in the amendment of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. While the Citizenship Clause eliminated race-based barriers to birthright citizenship, its framers and ratifiers manifestly intended that its language restrict birthright citizenship based on the strength of a person’s relationship to the United States and the lack of a relationship with another nation. For many decades after the amendment’s ratification, that was precisely how the nation’s courts and constitutional scholars also understood the Citizenship Clause to work. The government today doesn’t need to amend the Constitution to restrict citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal or nonimmigrant aliens. It can just simply stop abiding by a broad policy of universal birthright citizenship that the Constitution never required in the first place. Understanding the Purpose of the Citizenship Clause In the infamous 1856 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court determined that the U.S.-born descendants of African slaves were not and never could become citizens. That holding created a previously nonexistent permanent barrier to citizenship based on a person’s race or ancestral origin. In actual effect, it relegated black people—including those born in the United States and who logically owed allegiance to no other sovereign but the United States—to the status of perpetual aliens in the nation where they were forced to live and die.  After the Civil War, in a direct attempt to override Dred Scott and expand citizenship to the newly freed slaves, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That act defined the parameters of birthright citizenship for the first time in U.S. history: “[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”  Congress drafted and passed the 14th Amendment, which was subsequently ratified, primarily to strengthen the protections of the Civil Rights Act by writing them into the Constitution itself. Under the 14th Amendment, citizenship belongs to “all persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Some advocates of universal birthright citizenship argue that because the 14th Amendment’s definition of citizenship differs from that of the Civil Rights Act, Congress meant to override the Civil Rights Act and adopt the English common law’s jus soli (“right of soil”)—that is, the principle of citizenship by virtue of birth within a country’s geographical boundaries alone.  The legislative history of both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment strongly undercuts that  argument. The debates around the language in both cases show that while Congress sought to cement birthright citizenship for the freed slaves and remove race-based barriers, it simultaneously sought to exclude from birthright citizenship broad categories of individuals who maintained only a transient or limited allegiance to the nation.  As several congressmen put it, birthright citizenship was reserved for those who, like the freed slaves, were subject to “the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” To be “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant that a person was not meaningfully subject to a foreign power, such that his or her allegiance to the United States was divided or qualified.  Sen. Lyman Trumbull, R-Ill., a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant not owing allegiance to any other country.  It seems obvious that a child born to Mexican citizens illegally in the U.S. is a citizen of Mexico, owes his political allegiance to Mexico, and does not meet this jurisdictional requirement in the amendment. The change in language between the statutory definition in the Civil Rights Act and the constitutional definition in the 14th Amendment was clearly and exclusively the result of disagreements over how best to exclude tribal-affiliated Native Americans from birthright citizenship. It in no way reflected a desire by Congress to fundamentally change the principles of citizenship initially laid out in the Civil Rights Act. Moreover, the purpose of the 14th Amendment wasn’t to override or counteract the Civil Rights Act, but to constitutionally solidify its provisions. The statutory and constitutional definitions of citizenship existed side-by-side for the next 70 years in a single legal framework and were roundly considered by contemporary courts and legal scholars as being complementary, not competitive—a person who was “subject to a foreign power” for purposes of the Civil Rights Act was not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” under the 14th Amendment, and vice versa. That’s consistent with how most courts and constitutional scholars interpreted the 14th Amendment in the decades after its ratification. In the famous Slaughterhouse cases of 1872, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the jurisdictional requirement was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Notably, even modern advocates of universal birthright citizenship agree that at least some individuals were (and still are) excluded from citizenship because they owed only a qualified allegiance, despite having been born “in the United States.”  For example, few people seriously argue that the Citizenship Clause applies to Native Americans who are born subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments. Though born “in the United States,” their allegiance is divided between the United States and their tribal governments, which were (and still are) considered “quasi-foreign nations.” In fact, the Supreme Court confirmed that in 1884 in Elk v. Wilkins when it denied citizenship to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States. The U.S. citizenship of American Indians comes not through the 14th Amendment, but through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.  There would have been no need for this law if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship on all individuals born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter the legal status of their parents. The same legislative history that so clearly excludes tribal Indians from birthright citizenship also makes clear that the Citizenship Clause does not cover the U.S.-born children of other individuals who owe only a minimal, qualified, or temporary allegiance to the United States.  It is the difference between temporary, territorial jurisdiction—which subject all foreigners who enter the U.S. as a tourist to the jurisdiction of our laws—and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well. A tourist can be prosecuted for violating our criminal laws, but cannot be called for jury duty or drafted into the military because that tourist is not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. If that tourist has a baby while here, her child is a citizen of her home country and owes no political allegiance to the U.S. Thus, the child is not a U.S. citizen. While the concept of “illegal immigration” didn’t exist at the time of the 14th Amendment’s passage, the same principles would disqualify individuals who are illegally present in the United States.  Is Birthright Citizenship Really ‘Law of the Land?’ Even when faced with the reality of the 14th Amendment’s original meaning, advocates of universal birthright citizenship today often claim it doesn’t matter because the Supreme Court has allegedly declared their interpretation “the law of the land.” It’s true that, in an 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that the U.S.-born child of Chinese immigrants who were lawfully present and permanently domiciled in the United States was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. But the holding in Wong Kim Ark only deviates from the original meaning of the 14th Amendment if one chooses to read it under the assumption that the Supreme Court intended to upend decades of precedent and supersede Congress’ clear intent. That assumption is unnecessary, illogical, and dangerous.  At its core, Wong Kim Ark was about the government’s attempt to circumvent the 14th Amendment and keep Chinese immigrants and their children from ever becoming citizens, by any means, just because they were Chinese. At the time, federal law barred Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens, and they were, according to treaty obligations with China, perpetual Chinese subjects.  Much like the freed slaves that Congress had in mind when drafting the 14th Amendment, Chinese immigrants were—entirely because of their race—prohibited from subjecting themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. Despite owing no tie of allegiance to any other nation, Wong Kim Ark had been relegated to permanent alienage in the country where he’d been born and raised and rightfully considered his own.  This type of race-based discrimination in citizenship was precisely what the 14th Amendment was intended to prohibit, and the Supreme Court rightly recognized the system for the unconstitutional travesty it truly was. While the opinion can also be read as affirmatively adopting jus soli and universal birthright citizenship as the “law of the land,” it can just as easily be read as adopting only a flexible, “Americanized” jus soli limited to the factors of lawful presence and permanent domicile.  That second interpretation renders the holding consistent with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment. It is also precisely what many legal commentators at the time thought the Supreme Court meant, too.  In plain language, the holding of that case only applies to the children of permanent, resident aliens, and cannot be used to justify any claim that it extends citizenship to the children of aliens illegally present or temporarily here legally. Lessons for Today In short, while the U.S. government today may continue treating all U.S.-born children as citizens, it’s not because the Constitution requires it or because the Supreme Court has mandated such a policy. Neither illegal nor nonimmigrant aliens meet the requirements of lawful permanent residency envisioned by Congress and relied upon by the Supreme Court in the decision. They, therefore, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the original meaning of that condition in the Citizenship Clause. And, importantly, their failure to meet the conditions of lawful permanent residency aren’t the result of other race-based legal barriers. As I wrote during Trump’s first term, embracing the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause isn’t about racial prejudice or a disdain for immigrants. Rather, such a move recognizes that American citizenship is reserved for all who, regardless of their race or former allegiances, have taken meaningful legal steps toward solidifying permanent bonds with the American people, have taken up the duties and responsibilities inherent to those bonds, and do not owe political allegiance to any other nation. A return to national citizenship policy that more accurately reflects the original understanding of the Citizenship Clause is something to be celebrated by citizens and would-be citizens alike. The post Trump Can End Universal Birthright Citizenship. The Constitution Never Required It. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

When Clementine Breen began getting puberty blockers at age 12, she had no idea she was agreeing to become a lifelong patient. Breen, now a 20-year-old detransitioner, filed a lawsuit last Thursday against prominent child-gender specialist Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, alleging medical negligence. Breen says Olson-Kennedy pushed her into irreversible transgender medical interventions at only 12 without proper psychological testing or monitoring of her mental health and the side effects of hormone regimens. “I think telling me that the only treatment for my body issues was transitioning was kind of the worst thing for me, because in retrospect, I just have PTSD,” Breen told The Daily Signal. “I just needed treatment for what happened to me when I was a kid.” Breen, currently a student at University of California-Los Angeles, not only began taking puberty blockers at 12 and testosterone at 13; she then had “top surgery”—a double mastectomy—at 14. When she was 12, Breen went to her school guidance counselor to discuss negative feelings about her body. She didn’t know that her history as a victim of sexual abuse could be causing her discomfort with her identity as a woman. “I was sexually assaulted when I was really young,” she said in an interview, “so I had a lot of like negative feelings about being a girl and being female. When I first expressed those feelings and looked for answers about that online, the first thing that came up was gender dysphoria and possible gender incongruence.” Breen and the school guidance counselor reached the conclusion that she was transgender. But the counselor told her parents and teachers before she was sure that was the identity she wanted to claim, Breen said. Breen’s parents took her to see Olson-Kennedy, medical director of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. The hospital didn’t respond to The Daily Signal’s emailed request seeking comment from Olson-Kennedy about Clementine’s claims. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles told The Economist, which first reported on the lawsuit, that it doesn’t comment on pending litigation or patients and their treatment. Although Breen said her parents expected Olson-Kennedy to conclude that their daughter wasn’t transgender, since Breen experienced no gender dysphoria as a child, the doctor immediately affirmed that the preteen was a boy. “At first it was a lot of surface-level questions about how I fit in and how I felt with my peers and how I felt about being a girl and what I wanted my future to look like,” Breen said. “I had so many negative feelings about being a girl, so I felt weirdly very validated when [Olson-Kennedy] told me that there was a very clear diagnosis of something physically wrong with my body and that it wasn’t me that was the problem.” Olson-Kennedy convinced her parents to allow her to begin taking puberty blockers by telling them that the process was reversible, Breen told The Daily Signal. Shortly before she turned 14, Olson-Kennedy started her on testosterone. “She proposed the idea of ‘Would you rather have a dead daughter or living son’ to my parents, and I was not suicidal at the time,” Breen recalled. “So I think she was sort of presenting that and the really grave statistics that are actually somewhat inaccurate to my parents, to incentivize them to keep going with the treatment.” But the drugs only made Breen’s mental health worse. “I was never actively suicidal before testosterone, but I was actively suicidal post-testosterone,” she recalled, “and I was much more symptomatic of things like depression or things that they were saying to my parents that they were treating with the cross-sex hormones.” At 14, Breen underwent a double mastectomy to remove her breasts. Her mental state immediately got worse, and her anxiety developed into what she describes as a “psychotic break.” “What really, really upset me is that I will never be able to breastfeed, and I will have to get surgery every 10 years to replace the implants, and it won’t look as natural as it should have been,” she said. “I will never know what my body should have looked like.” "I will never know what my body should have looked like."?Detransitioner Clementine Breen, 20, is suing top child gender doctor Johanna Olson-Kennedy for medical negligence.She now regrets her double mastectomy and years taking hormones, which she was told were reversible.… pic.twitter.com/bre3ct3Bha— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) December 10, 2024 Earlier this year, Breen began to discuss the past sexual abuse in therapy and to accept her female body. “It wasn’t until I had actually gone through therapy that I started thinking, ‘Why am I really doing this?’ And I started actually picturing my future and when I got to college and I was in an all-male dorm,” she said, “and I just started looking around me. And I didn’t feel like I was living as myself.” “I was living as somebody I created to run away from myself,” Breen told The Daily Signal. At first, the 20-year-old didn’t want to go public. But as she reflected on her experience with Olson-Kennedy and the specialist’s “egregious” standard of care, Breen said, she became sure she needed to speak out. Detrans Law, also known as the Law Firm of Campbell Miller Payne, is the legal representative for Breen in coordination with LiMandri & Jonna LLP and the Center for American Liberty. “It would feel great to know not just that I would be getting justice, but that in the future, children would be treated better,” she said. “Because I think every child is entitled to proper diagnoses, proper mental health care, and I really hope that this [lawsuit] can change something about the standard of care.” The butchery of young girls in the name of transgenderism must stop, Mark Trammell, executive director and general counsel of the Center for American Liberty, told The Daily Signal. “It’s alarming how many young girls have been victimized by the gender-industrial complex,” Trammell said. “It’s imperative that every American takes a bold stand in the face of cancel culture to defend these girls’ innocence and basic human rights. If they’re not old enough to consent to a tattoo, they’re certainly not old enough to consent to double mastectomies and cross-sex hormones that alter their future.” Olson-Kennedy came under fire in October for admitting to hiding the results of a two-year, $10 million, taxpayer-funded study that showed puberty blockers don’t improve children’s mental health. The physician directed the study, which involved putting 95 children who struggled with gender dysphoria on puberty blockers. The data won’t be released because “the findings might fuel the kind of political attacks that have led to bans of the youth gender treatments in more than 20 states, one of which will soon be considered by the Supreme Court,” New York Times reporter Azeen Ghorayshi writes, summarizing Olson-Kennedy’s reasoning. Based on her own experiences, Breen said, transgender medical interventions for children should be illegal. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last Wednesday in a case that is expected to decide whether states may ban irreversible transgender medical interventions for children. In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court will decide whether a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers, hormone replacement regimens, and transgender surgeries for children is constitutional. “I think it is important to tell kids that there’s nothing wrong with them physically, they’re perfect the way they are. And if they feel ashamed of who they are and ashamed of their body, that’s not their fault,” Breen said. “It’s other people’s fault for making them feel that way, and learning to love yourself is the best thing you can do for yourself.” Breen is hesitant to say transitioning is the wrong choice for everyone. But she doesn’t think kids can consent to procedures that are so “life-altering and impact fertility, impact function, impact your health, cholesterol, [and] bone density,” she said. “A child can’t consent to becoming a lifelong patient,” Breen said. When Clementine started puberty blockers at age 12, she had no idea it would irreversibly impact her health, fertility, bone density, and more. "A child can't consent to becoming a lifelong patient," she told @DailySignalNow, she's suing Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy for pushing… pic.twitter.com/Oi5ePQSWd4— Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell (@TheElizMitchell) December 11, 2024 When Clementine Breen started on puberty blockers, she was a 12-year-old child with no idea she wanted children of her own one day, she said. She shouldn’t have been allowed to make a decision that would potentially make her infertile, Breen added. “I really hope in the future I can just move forward from this and live a happy life as a woman,” she said. “I really hope to be a mother one day. Hopefully, that’s possible. I have no idea. I hope I can just move forward from this and spend the rest of my life as who I was supposed to be.” Looking back, Breen told The Daily Signal, she wishes that rather than prescribing puberty blockers, Olson-Kennedy had told her that puberty is uncomfortable for everyone, especially girls who experienced sexual abuse. “If she had just asked me if I had gone through sexual abuse, or if I had weird experiences in my childhood that may change my opinions about gender, I think I might have come to a different conclusion,” Breen said. “So I really wish she sort of interrogated my ideas about womanhood.” The post ‘I’ll Never Know What My Body Would’ve Looked Like’: Detransitioner Sues Doctor Who Pushed Irreversible Trans Hormones, Surgery appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Other than your typical uses for glycerin, there are also other amazing uses that you may not be aware of. This article will show you 9 uses of glycerin all of which you can do at home! RELATED: 31 DIY Household Products For Cleaning The Homestead | Homesteading Glycerin | 9 Uses That Will Surely Amaze You What Is Glycerin What is glycerin exactly? It is a liquid, organic compound made of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen. It’s thick, odorless, and colorless and is used in a wide range of beauty products such as moisturizers, soaps, and more. Glycerin is also used in the printing industry, in pharmaceuticals, and in food as a sweetening agent. When you buy glycerin, it is important to know that there are 2 varieties. The first variety is a natural one which is derived from plant oils. The second variety is a synthetic that is derived from petroleum-based oils. The natural one is toxic-free and safe to use. Synthetic glycerin can harm your body. There are many uses for glycerin and in today’s article, I will cover 9 amazing uses such as: Helping to improve dry and flaky skin Serving as a skin moisturizer Serving as a skin toner Working as a lip moisturizer Soothing cracked heels Reducing skin aging Treating mouth ulcers Giving nails a brighter look Preventing frizzy hair Let’s get started! 1. Helps to Improve Dry & Flaky Skin Glycerin helps to form a barrier on the skin which helps to lock in moisture. It also helps to keep toxins from entering the skin. The combination of the two helps to greatly reduce inflammation associated with certain skin conditions. For psoriasis on the scalp: Combine equal parts of glycerin and aloe vera gel and leave on the scalp for 30 minutes. Next, shower as normal. Do this process 2 to 3 times a week until you see that the condition has improved. For eczema: Combine equal parts of glycerin and water. Using a cotton ball, apply this mixture to the affected areas and leave it on for 15 minutes. Next, rinse the affected area with warm water. For best results, do this twice a week. 2. Acts as a Skin Moisturizer The humectant properties help keep moisture locked in which makes for really smooth skin! How to use it as a moisturizer: Generously apply glycerin to your skin, making sure to cover those areas that may be extra dry. Leave on for a few hours. Rinse off with warm water. Do this 2 or 3 times a week. 3. Acts as a Skin Toner Glycerin is a great facial toner, especially for those who may suffer from dry skin. It also helps to improve the pH levels in your skin which, in turn, helps to reduce the appearance of scars. How to use it as a facial toner: Mix thoroughly 1 teaspoon of glycerin with 2 tablespoons of rose water. Add mixture to a spray bottle. Wash your face as normal. Spray the toner onto your face and apply moisturizer. You can use the facial toner every day. This mixture should be kept in the refrigerator for up to 1 week. 4. Acts as a Lip Moisturizer Other than lip balm, applying glycerin to your lips will make them extra soft and keeps them hydrated. How to use it as a lip moisturizer: Combine equal amounts of glycerin and rose water. Apply this mixture to your lips a few times every day to keep them soft and hydrated. RELATED: 5 Easy Natural Disinfectants You Can Make Straight From Your Pantry 5. Remedy for Cracked Heels Glycerin is an extremely effective remedy for dry and cracked heels! How to use for dry and cracked heels: Soak your feet in warm, soapy water for 5 minutes. Using a loofah, scrub your feet to remove any dead skin. Pat dry. Apply and massage onto your heels for 5 minutes. Put on socks and leave overnight. When you wake up the following morning, rinse your feet with warm water. You can do this daily to achieve the best results. 6. Helps to Reduce Skin Aging Glycerin is an effective remedy for maintaining that youthful look! How to use to reduce skin aging: Combine 1 teaspoon of glycerin and 1 teaspoon of vitamin E oil. Gently massage this mixture onto your face and neck area. After 15 minutes, rinse with warm water. For best results, do this nightly before bed. 7. Treats Mouth Ulcers Glycerin is a quick and effective way to help treat mouth ulcers. How to use for treating mouth ulcers: Using a cotton ball, dab a small amount of glycerin onto the affected area. Allow the glycerin to remain on the affected area for at least 30 minutes. Rinse your mouth with cool water. For best results, do this 3 or 4 times a day. 8. Gives Your Nails a Brighter Look After frequent use of nail polish, your nails can become dry. Glycerin is an effective way to moisturize them, making them look healthy and bright. How to use on your nails: Combine 2 tablespoons of rose water with 2 tablespoons of hydrogen peroxide (3%) into a bowl. Add 1 tablespoon of glycerin and mix well. Using a cotton ball, rub a generous amount of this mixture onto your nail. After 10 minutes, rinse with warm water. You can do this 2 to 3 times a week. 9. Helps to Prevent Frizzy Hair If you constantly battle with frizzy hair, try this very effective remedy. How to use to help prevent frizzy hair: Dampen your hair and apply glycerin. After a few minutes, wash your hair as normal. For smooth and healthy hair, you can do this 2 to 3 times a week. Watch this video by Sneha S on how to use glycerin for young-looking skin:  There you have it! Amazing uses of glycerin that are easy and straightforward. By using it as is or mix it with other natural components, you'll have instant homemade remedies for your skin, lips, hair, nails, and mouth. Is glycerin part of your everyday routine? Share your experience with us in the comments section below! Up Next: 5 Natural Remedies For Hair Loss Avoid These 17 Ingredients For Naturally Beautiful Skin At Any Age Creative Valentine’s Day Ideas | Sustainable Crafts For Your Love Fellow homesteaders, do you want to help others learn from your journey by becoming one of our original contributors? Write for us! Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and Twitter! Editor’s Note – This post was originally published in November 2019 and has been updated for quality and relevancy.

Philip Bump Goes Full Robin DiAngelo on America

When news broke on Wednesday that FBI Director Christopher Wray intends to resign before Donald Trump takes over in January, the cast of CNN News Central was distressed. Rather than claiming that everything that led up to Trump’s intention to fire Wray, the cast claimed the idea that Wray would need to resign before Trump takes office was what was a sign of the Bureau’s “politicization.” Senior justice correspondent Evan Perez reported that not everyone inside the Bureau was thrilled with Wray’s decision, and judging by his reaction, Perez agreed with them, “There also was pushback from people inside this building, also from people at the FBI, which is not normalizing what Donald Trump is doing, which is to just habitually replace FBI directors that he doesn't like. These people are supposed to serve ten-year terms for a reason, to try to remove them from the influence of politics, and here, Donald Trump is now about to have his second FBI director, in this case with Christopher Wray pushing him out ahead of the time that he takes office.”     The 10-year term is clearly at odds with the idea of separation of powers. The only reason the courts haven’t nuked it yet is precisely because the president can fire the director any time he wants. As it was, co-host Brianna Keilar agreed, “Yeah, it's a real politicization of the FBI, even as people argue, ‘Oh, it's been politicized. So there needs to be change.’ It's sort of this wheel in a way that keeps going on this issue, Evan. I wonder if you have a sense of how people working inside the FBI are feeling about this and the effect that this may have internally on those folks who are doing this work day in and day out." After Perez recalled how Wray is popular inside the FBI, he added, “That has obviously not worked out that well for, especially among Republicans who have been very critical of a number of things, including, of course, investigations of Donald Trump. The Mar-a-Lago search is something that Donald Trump himself raised in his interview over the weekend with NBC.”  Moving on to Wray’s likely replacement, Perez continued: So, there's a lot of concern because you have heard from Kash Patel, who is the incoming president's pick to run the FBI next. You've heard that they're planning to try to, they want to go after the former president—the president's political enemies. And so inside the FBI, there's a lot of concern that the bureau is going to be turned essentially to go after Trump's enemies and take its eye off the ball on things that are actually a threat to this country, including, of course, the threat from China, from Russia, from Iran, the national security threats, terrorism, all of those things that really are the bread and butter and the vast majority of what the FBI does. Keilar casually dismissed the “it’s been politicized” claims, but that view doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. The entire argument, which has been backed by a special councel, for Patel is that the FBI, as currently constituted, seems more interested in going after Trump than all those real threats Perez listed. At the same time, incoming Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has recently deplored Wray's tenure, not just about the Mar-a-Lago raid that Perez mentioned, but non-partisan matters like how "FBI’s ongoing mishandling of sexual harassment claims made by the FBI’s female employees." Here is a transcript for the December 11 show: CNN News Central 12/11/2024 2:10 PM ET EVAN PEREZ: But there also was pushback from people inside this building, also from people at the FBI, which is not normalizing what Donald Trump is doing, which is to just habitually replace FBI directors that he doesn't like. These people are supposed to serve ten-year terms for a reason, to try to remove them from the influence of politics, and here, Donald Trump is now about to have his second FBI director, in this case with Christopher Wray pushing him out ahead of the time that he takes office. So at this hour, we know that the FBI director is talking to FBI employees. He wanted to make sure they heard the news from him, while he also tries to make it clear that he plans to get out of the way before the new president takes over. Boris? BRIANNA KEILAR: Yeah, it's a real politicization of the FBI, even as people argue, “Oh, it's been politicized. So there needs to be change.” It's sort of this wheel in a way that keeps going on this issue, Evan. I wonder if you have a sense of how people working inside the FBI are feeling about this and the effect that this may have internally on those folks who are doing this work day in and day out. PEREZ: There's a lot of concern inside the FBI. Look, Chris Wray is actually pretty popular inside the Bureau because, you know, one of the things he has done is he has tried to lower the temperature for the FBI. There's a lot of criticism from the previous leadership of the FBI, James Comey, and the way, how he handled the office, especially when Donald Trump first took office in the first term. So, inside the FBI, Chris Wray has been seen actually as a very thoughtful, as a very quiet leader, someone who is trying to restore the reputation of the FBI. That has obviously not worked out that well for, especially among Republicans who have been very critical of a number of things, including, of course, investigations of Donald Trump. The Mar-a-Lago search is something that Donald Trump himself raised in his interview over the weekend with NBC.  So, there's a lot of concern because you have heard from Kash Patel, who is the incoming president's pick to run the FBI next. You've heard that they're planning to try to, they want to go after the former president— the president's political enemies. And so inside the FBI, there's a lot of concern that the bureau is going to be turned essentially to go after Trump's enemies and take its eye off the ball on things that are actually a threat to this country, including, of course, the threat from China, from Russia, from Iran, the national security threats, terrorism, all of those things that really are the bread and butter and the vast majority of what the FBI does.