The wild, wild west of college athletics continues

Russian aircraft ignored international aviation protocols

Firing incompetent generals is a good thing. In fact, it might be what the military needs right now to regain the confidence of the American people. According to a number of reports, President-elect Donald Trump will be creating a commission to review leaders in the military with the assumption that many of the top brass will be fired. Trump will be using a “warrior board” of retired officers, the Hill reported, to review our current crop of three- and four-star officers and will weed out the ones the commission disapproves of. That’s not all. Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth—an Army veteran who has been awarded two Bronze Stars, and who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—said in past interviews that it’s necessary to remove “woke” senior military officials who have left the U.S. armed forces in a sorry state. “First of all, you’ve got to fire [the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and obviously you’ve got to bring in a new secretary of defense, but any general that was involved—general, admiral, whatever—that was involved in any of the DEI woke s—, has got to go,” Hegseth said in an early November interview on “The Shawn Ryan Show” podcast. DEI is shorthand for diversity, equity, and inclusion. Pete Hegseth is ready for day one as Defense Secretary.'All the woke Generals must be fired immediately.'pic.twitter.com/ai9cqoImj4— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) November 13, 2024 Trump and Hegseth—the author of “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free” and “Modern Warriors: Real Stories from Real Heroes”—clearly intend to shake up the military at the top. The Left, however, isn’t taking it well. Legacy media is reporting on that development as if it’s some kind of ominous sign that Trump will “politicize” the military. They are even calling it a “purge.” One left-wing podcaster, Fred Wellman, who includes “democracy advocate” in his X bio, even posted that removing generals is “truly fascist.” This is truly fascist. The idea is they'll review and fire generals is chilling beyond measure and will damage our military for a generation. You don't make generals overnight. It takes decades. The good ones will leave early instead of waiting to be destroyed. (gift)…— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) November 12, 2024 Ah, yes, civilian control of the military, so fascist. For a quick history lesson, a president’s removal of generals and other high-ranking military leaders—especially after years of relative “peace”—has often been a significant boon, not a hindrance, to the military. Peacetime militaries—and I only use that phrase loosely to refer to our own era of near-constant, low-level asymmetrical conflicts—frequently calcify. Leaders who successfully navigate the bureaucratic treadmill to make it to the top ranks in those times are frequently not the best wartime leaders. Militaries need to be shaken up from time to time. In the War of 1812, many American military officers were holdovers from the American Revolution. Many had grown old and ineffective. The crucible of war allowed junior commanders like Winfield Scott to emerge as a brilliant young general who would prove instrumental in that war and future conflicts. In the Civil War, there was a tremendous shake-up of the senior ranks on both sides. Marginal officers like Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, who was almost entirely overlooked at the Virginia Military Institute, proved himself to be one of the most astoundingly gifted military commanders once he had a chance to prove himself in battle. Abraham Lincoln suffered through far too many mediocrities at the top before finding war winners like Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. Almost none of the top commanders at the beginning of the war ended up in the same place by the war’s end. Right now, the United States clearly needs a shake-up at the Pentagon in the worst way. The world is in turmoil, thanks in no small part to the Biden administration, and we are closer to seeing an actual peer-to-peer conflict than perhaps at any point since World War II. Yet, many on the Left are hyperventilating about the move. Why? It’s a pretty good sign that they know they’ve made serious inroads into military institutions that are historically traditional and conservative. They don’t want to lose their grip on the military, just as they fear losing control of any other institution they dominate. The primary issue, beyond typical military calcification, is that our current military leadership appears to be filled with those who have floated to the top amid the general woke-ification of American society and government. It’s not Trump who will be “politicizing” the military; it’s the military itself that has been politicized. DEI, critical race theory, and other radical ideologies have been force-fed into military institutions, and the Biden administration was only too happy to accelerate that transformation. They justified DEI by saying that it would create a better, more cohesive military and deepen the pool of recruits. That was the same unproven, bogus argument corporate America made when it went whole hog on “diversity” to the point of climbing aboard the discrimination bandwagon. But much like the corporate DEI push—which proved a financial liability, rather than a boon—the military DEI advocacy has failed to “succeed” by even the most basic measures. Nearly every branch of the military now faces a historic recruitment crisis, not to mention a surge in worrisome incidents that suggest a decline in competence and warfighting capability. To make matters worse—and this is why Trump’s shake-up is almost certainly necessary—the military has failed to hold anyone at the top accountable for notable failures on the international stage. Those failures have significantly weakened this country’s prestige and credibility abroad. Most notably was the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. After that failure, nobody at the top got fired. The Biden administration and the military moved on, as if nothing had happened. If we can’t handle our business against the Taliban, isn’t it worth questioning our ability to counter far greater potential adversaries, such as China? To underscore the notion that the military has lost all accountability at the top, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin disappeared for nearly a week early this year to take care of a health issue before notifying the president. If these are the sorts of “invaluable” leaders we may lose if Trump gets his way, it’s hard not to see the president-to-be’s “warrior board” as a net positive. This country should expect a lot better of its military. This seems like an important moment for a “democratic” correction to a military that has seen a sharp decline in public trust. Under Biden, the buck stopped nowhere. With Trump, maybe more capable leaders will have a chance to rise to the top and get our military back to focusing on preparedness and defending the American people. The post Firing Incompetent and Woke Generals Is Necessary, Not ‘Fascism’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Republicans accuse Democrats of not accepting the results of the Senate election in Pennsylvania, but trying to steal it instead from GOP challenger Dave McCormick and hand it to incumbent Democrat Bob Casey Jr. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, and officials in  his administration insisted before and on Election Day that the state would have secure and fair elections.  After the election, though, as a recount of the Senate race unfolds, the Casey campaign—declared the loser by most news organizations—alleges that McCormick and the Republicans want to “disenfranchise” voters.  Casey supporters also claim that McCormick—declared the winner by most media outlets—is trying to “silence Pennsylvanians.” The McCormick campaign and other Republicans have challenged the legitimacy of mail-in and provisional ballots in the election. Meanwhile, the Casey campaign and other Democrats have argued against disqualifying ballots from those not listed on voter rolls.  Before the election, the general consensus was that the Keystone State and its 19 electoral votes provided the key to the presidential election.  That wasn’t the case, however, as former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, swept all seven battleground states Nov. 5 to win the popular vote as well as a total of 312 electoral votes to defeat Vice President Kamala Harris, Democrats’ nominee.  But the Senate race in Pennsylvania came down to the wire. Decision Desk HQ formally called the race Thursday for McCormick. The Associated Press had called the race for McCormick the previous Friday, Nov. 8.  Decision Desk HQ projects David McCormick (R) wins the US Senate election in Pennsylvania.#DecisionMade: 2:25pm ETFollow live results here:https://t.co/jw2B5WP4ly pic.twitter.com/Nrk81zyDUy— Decision Desk HQ (@DecisionDeskHQ) November 14, 2024 That outcome, if it holds, would give Republicans a 53-seat majority in the Senate. But it won’t be a certainty until the day before Thanksgiving.  Here are six things to know about the Pennsylvania recount.  1. What’s Happening With Undated or Improperly Dated Ballots? The key question in the recount for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania is what votes are subject to the recount.  In a win Thursday for the Casey campaign, Bucks County voted to count ballots that weren’t dated or were improperly dated under state law.  ???#BucksCounty Democrat Commissioners violate the rule of law and ignore PA Supreme Court ruling!Democrat Commissioners Diane Marseglia and Bob Harvie voted today to count illegal ballots, against PA Supreme Court ruling, in an attempt to aid former Senator Bob Casey.… pic.twitter.com/qAdFlVchmh— Bucks GOP (@BucksGOP) November 14, 2024 On Nov. 1, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that mail-in ballots must be dated to count in the Nov. 5 election. However, Democratic officials in some counties now are seeking to count undated or incorrectly dated ballots.  Without a date on a ballot, it’s not clear whether it was cast on or before Election Day. Arguing Thursday morning before the state Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Republican Party opposed counting undated ballots.  “While Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dave McCormick currently holds an insurmountable lead of nearly 30,000 votes over his Democrat opponent Bob Casey, numerous County Boards of Elections including Philadelphia, Bucks, Centre, and potentially others took an impromptu vote to count undated or improperly dated mail-in ballots, in bold defiance of Pennsylvania law and two State Supreme Court orders,” the state’s Republican Party said Thursday in a post on the social media platform X.  The PA GOP is before the State Supreme Court this morning asking the Court to uphold the law. While Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dave McCormick currently holds an insurmountable lead of nearly 30,000 votes over his Democrat opponent Bob Casey, numerous County Boards of… pic.twitter.com/U0INM46Jtx— PA GOP (@PAGOP) November 14, 2024 The Republican National Committee joined the state Supreme Court argument and filed a separate lawsuit in Bucks County to halt the counting of undated and improperly dated ballots.  “Dave McCormick won this election and is already participating in Senate orientation meetings,” RNC Chairman Michael Whatley said Thursday in a public statement. “Meanwhile, Democrat officials and scam lawyers are aiding and abetting Bob Casey’s shameful attempts to steal back a Senate seat which he lost decisively.”  “The RNC is filing a motion in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to ensure that Pennsylvania’s democratic process is not undermined by the inclusion of illegal ballots in the final vote count,” Whatley said. “Pennsylvanians are ready to move forward with Dave McCormick representing them in the Senate as Bob Casey torches whatever legacy he had with these anti-democratic schemes.” Casey’s campaign manager, Tiernan Donohue, criticized the GOP lawsuits and claimed that a large number of votes could be tossed as a result. “David McCormick and his allies are trying to disenfranchise Pennsylvania voters with litigation designed to throw out large tranches of votes that they’ve admitted in legal filings could impact the outcome of the election,” Donohue said in a public statement. “Sen. Casey wants all Pennsylvanians’ voices to be heard as local county election officials continue to count votes. This democratic process must be allowed to play out to determine the result of this election.”  2. Will Unregistered Voters Count? The Casey campaign has challenged the dismissal of provisional ballots and mail-in ballots cast by voters whose names weren’t found on voter registration lists. Casey’s campaign sent a letter Wednesday to Lackawanna County Solicitor Donald Frederickson to challenge the county’s rejection of some provisional ballots and mail ballots. Lackawanna County includes Scranton, President Joe Biden’s much-mentioned hometown. The Casey campaign challenges the rejection of voters who were “not on the poll list on Election Day and were subsequently determined by the Board [of Elections] not to be registered,” the letter says. “We are asking the board to undertake several additional steps to confirm the voters’ eligibility.” The incumbent Democrat’s campaign “challenges the rejection of provisional ballots based solely on the board’s staff’s failure to find voters’ names on registered-voters lists,” the letter adds later.  “In fact, officials in York County recently discovered that 13% of ballots rejected as ‘not registered’ were done so in error.”  McCormick campaign manager Matt Gruda posted on X that this was “proof” the Casey campaign wants to count illegal votes.  PROOF: @Bob_Casey submits letter memorializing their ILLEGAL challenges to allow ballots from UNREGISTERED voters. Casey and his team have lots of explaining to do. pic.twitter.com/ejRkP67nbh— Matt Gruda (@Matt_Gruda) November 13, 2024 Ari Fleisher, first press secretary for President George W. Bush, posted on X:  “Casey’s case for a recount comes down to him trying to convince a court that people who aren’t registered should be allowed to vote. Keep your eyes on this, folks.  This is how D lawyers do it. Good thing Dave’s lead is too big to rig.” Great. Just great. Casey’s case for a recount comes down to him trying to convince a court that people who aren’t registered should be allowed to vote. Keep your eyes on this, folks. This is how D lawyers do it. Good thing Dave’s lead is too big to rig. https://t.co/ZeSUWRLNKr— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) November 13, 2024 The Daily Signal contacted the Casey campaign about the push to count the votes of unregistered voters. A spokesperson didn’t respond by publication time.  In a video statement Wednesday, Casey said, “The American democratic process was born in Pennsylvania and that process will play out.” Across our Commonwealth, close to 7 million people cast their votes in a free and fair election.The American democratic process was born in Pennsylvania and that process will play out. pic.twitter.com/R2RirIa09j— Bob Casey Jr. (@Bob_Casey) November 12, 2024 3. What Assurances Did Pennsylvania Voters Have Pre-Election? After the election, the Casey campaign accused opponents of large-scale voter disenfranchisement. But before Election Day, Democrats mostly assured the public of a clean and honest election.  Shapiro, the Democrat governor, dismissed concerns about potential irregularities in a Fox News interview that aired in late October.  “I think everybody needs to take a deep breath and understand that it is our fellow Pennsylvanians who are running these elections, and we will, again, have a free and fair, safe and secure election,” Shapiro said. Shapiro was on Harris’ short list of possible running mates before she opted for Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.  “Pennsylvania’s Nov. 5 election will be free, fair, safe and secure,” Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt, a registered Republican appointed by Shapiro, said a day before the election. Before the election, Schmidt also  told The New Yorker: “We’re in an environment where anything could be interpreted as being intentional and malicious and seeking to alter the outcome of the election.”  4. How Costly and How Necessary Is the Recount? The recount of the Senate election in Pennsylvania will cost taxpayers over $1 million, according to Schmidt’s office.  Schmidt announced Wednesday that the Senate race between Casey and McCormick was close enough to trigger an automatic recount.  Secretary Schmidt announced today that unofficial results in the Nov. 5 general election race for U.S. Senate have triggered a legally required statewide recount. Read more: https://t.co/qzeXC8SWgD pic.twitter.com/xyasNtNm0y— PA Department of State (@PAStateDept) November 13, 2024 The current vote tally shows McCormick with 3,380,310 votes, or 48.93% of the total, to Casey’s 3,350,972 votes, or 48.5%.  Since the difference between the two totals is within one-half of one percentage point, the margin triggers a recount under state law.  5. When Will We Know the Outcome? The Pennsylvania counties involved are required to start recounting votes in the Senate race no later than Nov. 20 and must complete their recounts by Nov. 26 at noon.  The counties must report results to the secretary of state’s office by noon on Nov. 27. By this point, an official winner should be clear. 6. How Frequent Are Recounts in Pennsylvania? This is the eighth time an automatic recount has been triggered in the state since legislation known as Act 97 was passed in 2004, according to the secretary of state’s office.  Interestingly, the last time a recount happened was in 2022, when Mehmet Oz narrowly beat McCormick in a Republican primary for Senate. That statewide GOP recount cost $1 million.  In the general election that followed, Oz lost to Democrat John Fetterman.  This turn of fortune’s wheel prompted Casey supporters to troll McCormick about it on X.  One post on X asks: “In 2022, Dave McCormick wanted every vote to be counted. What changed? Now he’s trying to silence voters prematurely. We won’t let him get away with it! Every vote must be counted.” In 2022, Dave McCormick wanted every vote to be counted. What changed? Now he's trying to silence voters prematurely. We won't let him get away with it! Every vote must be counted. #PennsylvaniaNotForSale#DemsUnited pic.twitter.com/NPlE0htjoP— Justice Seeker ? ?? ~ Keep moving forward (@tizzywoman) November 13, 2024 Another post asserts that “McCormick is trying to silence Pennsylvanians & claim victory prematurely. Not gonna happen. Every vote must be counted.” BREAKING: With over 100,000 votes still to be counted, Dave McCormick is trying to silence Pennsylvanians & claim victory prematurely. Not gonna happen.Every vote must be counted. #PennsylvaniaNotForSale pic.twitter.com/OxmrMt7vxM— Red2Blue (@Red2Blue_org) November 13, 2024 Other recent examples of recounts also came with a big price tag. A recount of a 2021 judicial race for Commonwealth Court cost taxpayers $1.1 million, according to the secretary of state’s office.  A 2011 recount in a primary for another Commonwealth Court judgeship cost $525,000. In 2009, taxpayers paid $541,698 for a recount of a general election for Superior Court.  The post Undated Ballots and Unregistered Voters? What’s Behind Recount in Pennsylvania Senate Race  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Conservatives know that when the American Left wants us to “have a conversation” about an issue, it means they get to talk incessantly until we agree with them. To progressives, there is one, approved view on a given issue and all others are atavistic throwbacks to an era before “progress.” Observe that humans (and all mammals) come in two sexes, and you are a “transphobe.” Suggest it is unfair for males to compete against females in sports and unsafe for men to share prison cells with women, and it is “hate speech.” Declare that America is about equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, and uphold merit over race- and sex-based discrimination, and you are racist and misogynistic. Argue against mass illegal immigration, and you are xenophobic at best, racist at worst. The Washington Post recently printed an opinion piece by David Bier of the Cato Institute. Bier and I have appeared together several times on panel discussions, so I know his views. Bier is a libertarian. He believes that immigration should be constrained only by supply and demand, not limited by the government. Where there is a willing employer and a willing employee, he argues, who are we to interfere? To support this view, Bier also argues that immigrants are net contributors to the U.S. economy and that they commit less crime.   My view—shaped by a career serving as a diplomat overseas in developing countries—is that worldwide demand for the American lifestyle exceeds any possible supply, so we need numerical and other limits. It is Congress’ prerogative to set those parameters in law. And it is the president’s constitutional duty to enforce these laws, not ignore them or circumvent them by executive fiat. Bier and I do agree on a few things; first, that open borders cannot long coexist with a welfare state that provides any newcomer with free health care, education, housing, and income. Second, we agree that whatever the limits, criminal aliens should be kept out and removed. Bier is not a leftist, but he agrees with them on immigration, so his argument is acceptable to The Washington Post. My view—opposing mass illegal migration—never darkens the publication’s pages (its choice, not mine). If The Post really wanted to have a “conversation” instead of a weekly lecture to the echo chamber of its readership, I would make the following counterpoints. First, it is often said by the Left that “studies show” immigrants commit less crime than natives. The main rebuttal here is that unlike crimes by Americans or legal residents, any crime committed by an illegal alien is preventable. But there is also other research to show that, in fact, illegal immigrants offend at higher rates than legal immigrants or natives. When the Left cites its figures, it says “immigrants” and deliberately lumps both legal and illegal immigrants together when the real issue being discussed is primarily about illegal immigrants. It is by no means proven that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than those who legally reside in the United States. Research on the subject is limited by bias and poor data. The City Journal recently reported that we’re not just “imagining a migrant crime spree” with issues from drug trafficking to shoplifting—linked to the Biden-era migrant surge—on the rise in even remote parts of the country. Second, as to whether immigration is an economic benefit to the country, I’d point out that illegal immigrants are overall lower skilled than U.S. born workers, with only 30% educated beyond high school. Of U.S. households headed by illegal immigrants, 59% use at least one welfare program. Over a lifetime, the average illegal immigrant takes an estimated $68,000 more in benefits than he puts in. Daniel Di Martino of the Manhattan Institute estimates that the millions of illegal and paroled immigrants who entered under the Biden administration will cost taxpayers an estimated $1.15 trillion over their lifetimes. While young, educated immigrants reduce the U.S. budget deficit, “those without a college education and all those who immigrate to the U.S. after age 55 are universally a net fiscal burden by up to $400,000” each over their lifetimes. The immigration of low-skilled workers also reduces the wages of many U.S.-born workers. Heritage Foundation economist EJ Antoni writes that between 4.9 million and 7.3 million employable Americans left the labor market during COVID-19 and haven’t returned. Meanwhile, “all the net job growth over the last year went to foreign-born workers” while “native-born Americans lost over 900,000 jobs.” Harvard economist George Borjas wrote in 2016 that “decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment … especially for African American and Latino workers.” He says that “immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program,” concluding that “the total wealth redistribution from the native losers [lower-skilled employees] to the native winners [employers and stockholders] is … roughly a half-trillion dollars a year.” These are just financial costs. I could also discuss the social costs to towns like Charleroi, Pennsylvania; Lockland, Ohio; and Logansport, Indiana, where schools, housing, police, and other services faced a sudden influx of needy migrants thanks to federal policies these communities had no say in. But The Post, like the other legacy papers that are losing market share along with the trust of the American people, doesn’t really want to have a “conversation” on this. Its mind’s made up. The Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, chose not to endorse Kamala Harris for president in the recent election—to the outrage of practically his entire staff and about 250,000 subscribers who canceled their subscriptions. I canceled my print copy long ago but might re-up if the paper makes some effort to restore balance to its coverage. Bezos has reportedly been urged to hire a few conservative opinion writers to add perspective. Other leftist media outlets are also looking to add actual conservatives to help their readers and viewers understand what more than half the country thinks. So, Jeff, sign me up. I promise to deliver 800 words a week for half what you pay token conservative Jennifer Rubin to reliably fawn on Joe Biden and Harris, and vilify Donald Trump. I’ll go down into the bunker where we conservatives live, confer with rest of the “garbage” gang as we eat My Patriot Supply emergency-preparedness meals and chug Black Rifle Coffee, then tell your readers what “deplorables” think about the issues. But I fear the legacy media’s ship has sailed. Abandoned by conservatives, such media outlets are now losing leftists because they are not far-left enough. Anyone who studied the Chinese, French, or Russian Revolutions could have told them this day would come. Too bad for them they didn’t have a clue. 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 such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, and more. Read Other BorderLine Columns: The Mass Hysteria Over Deportation What Would Harris and Trump Do Differently on Immigration? My Job Was Getting Countries to Take Back Their Criminal Illegal Aliens. Under Biden-Harris, I’d Be Unemployed Biden Administration Gives Panama ‘Jack’ to Help Control Border What I Saw on My Visit to Springfield, Ohio The post The Truth About Immigration the Left Chooses to Ignore: The BorderLine appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Oh, Dear - It's Little Green Knickers Twitching Time

The last thing anyone wants is to focus on another election. But to break the cycle of electing red-state RINOs, we need to start recruiting for the 2026 midterms soon.Conservative supporters of President Trump are frustrated that most Republican senators from deep red states backed John Thune (S.D.) or John Cornyn (Texas) for Senate majority leader on Wednesday. They have a right to be disappointed, as these senators squandered a historic mandate by choosing a younger version of Mitch McConnell’s worldview to lead the Senate. But they should also look in the mirror.Ten years into the MAGA movement, there’s no excuse not to have DeSantis-level leaders in states Trump won by a landslide.I personally opposed nearly every current Senate RINO in red-state primaries for years, while others ignored the primaries. This year, red-state RINOs like Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota easily won renomination with support from Trump and his movement. I featured some of their primary challengers on my show multiple times, but the major names in the industry largely overlooked them. Now, Ukraine supporters like Wicker, who backed Thune for majority leader, will chair powerful committees. In Wicker’s case, he’ll head the Armed Services Committee.The majority leader vote confirms that we did ourselves no favors by nominating candidates like Tim Sheehy from Montana and Jim Justice from West Virginia when we had the chance to rally Trump behind better candidates. Bernie Moreno from Ohio was the only freshman who supported Rick Scott, likely due to the influence of fellow Ohioan JD Vance.This time must be different. As we look ahead to 2026, we have a chance to correct past mistakes and activate our base in the primaries. Here’s a list of Senate seats from reliable red states that are in cycle. Nineteen Republican senators are up for re-election from solid red states. North Carolina is the only state that might be competitive in a tough year, but Republicans have won there recently. All incumbents are expected to run again, except Mitch McConnell, who will likely retire. But how many of these incumbents deserve renomination in the primary? What have they done for us?Only a few supported Rick Scott for majority leader. At best, I see five of the 19 as potentially decent, although none stand out as superstars. But Shelley Moore Capito, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Lindsey Graham, Thom Tillis, Pete Ricketts, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Bill Cassidy, Joni Ernst, James Risch, and Dan Sullivan? Seriously? Is this the best we can get from solid red states?Democrats, meanwhile, will need to defend swing-state senators who Republicans are likely to target in states such as Georgia, Michigan, and possibly New Hampshire. Republicans will also need to defend a seat in Maine. But the majority of competitive races should happen in primaries in deep red states, and there are plenty of those this cycle. Shouldn’t we start strategizing for those states right now?Now, let’s look at the race for governor. Most red-state governorships are up for re-election in 2026. Why do we only have one DeSantis? If he could turn Florida to the right while governing as one of the most conservative executives in recent memory, why can’t we have leaders like him in even more conservative, rural red states? The 2026 midterms offer a rare opportunity, with several open seats in play. Here’s a list of red states with governor’s elections on the ballot: If we exclude Georgia, 14 reliably Republican states will hold governor’s elections, many with open seats. Besides Kim Reynolds of Iowa and Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas, no one else is close to DeSantis’ level. DeSantis himself is term-limited in Florida. Conservatives have a golden opportunity to flip open seats in Alabama, Alaska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming.Ten years into the MAGA movement, there’s no excuse not to have DeSantis-level leaders in states Trump won by a landslide. We also need to find a successor for DeSantis, challenge RINO Brad Little if he runs for a third term in Idaho, and consider giving Greg Abbott a serious challenge if he confirms his bid for a third term in Texas.It’s not all bad news. Excitement and focus on politics have surged after Trump’s landmark victory. The race for Senate majority leader captured strong attention. Now, we must channel that enthusiasm into primaries, special elections, off-year elections, and down-ballot races. This time, it must be different.

Last night, pro-life warrior Allie Beth Stuckey faced off with actress Sophia Bush on Instagram over the subject of abortion. Bush pushed the typical leftist talking point that abortion bans in certain states prevent women from getting life-saving care when they’re experiencing a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy. Like so many pro-choice women, what Bush gets wrong is the difference between how insurance companies code procedures (often the word abortion is used) and what is actually illegal. “A D&C IS AN ABORTION. It is THE SAME PROCEDURE,” Bush wrote on Instagram. “Despite what the pro-forced birth folks want to tell you, these laws prevent doctors from giving care,” she ranted in a reel, before accusing Allie and other pro-lifers of having “blood on [their] hands.” Of course, that’s far from correct. “An abortion is the purposeful termination of the life of an unborn child, and that is exactly how it is defined in every pro-life law that has been passed since Dobbs, which means that there is no law in any state that is restricting or prohibiting miscarriage care or the removal of an ectopic pregnancy,” Allie explained in the following Instagram reel. See on Instagram Bush referenced Nevaeh Crain and Josseli Barnica, two Texas women whose stories have become leftist propaganda, as they both died because doctors claim they were fearful of prosecution due to the Heartbeat Law. Once again, this is false information. Allie explains that in both of these cases, neither woman sought an abortion and actually died due to medical negligence. “They take these stories, they stoke fear, and they tell women that if you are pro-life, then you are for killing women,” Allie told Live Action founder and president Lila Rose on a recent episode of “Relatable.” “There's not a single pro-life law in the country that prohibits emergency medical care to a mother that might involve an early delivery if it's an emergency or that prohibits miscarriage care or that prohibits care for an ectopic pregnancy,” Rose reiterated. To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above. - YouTube youtu.be 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.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally on September 19, 2023, under the headline “Enough with the Justice Department ‘independence’ myth.” We’re republishing it today because President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday nominated Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to be his attorney general, and the Democrats — and more than a few Republicans — lost their minds. Gaetz, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “will end Weaponized Government, protect our Borders, dismantle Criminal Organizations and restore Americans’ badly-shattered Faith and Confidence in the Justice Department.” But Gaetz’s critics don’t see it that way. They say Gaetz would politicize the Justice Department and threaten its “independence” — an independence that Deion Kathawa carefully explains does not exist, either in the Constitution or the law.*** A powerful and entrenched myth plagues American politics — namely, that the Department of Justice is, to some degree, “independent” of the president. The idea is plainly unconstitutional, actively harmful to the intended operation of our system of government, and a major contributor to the derangement of our common life. A critical step toward restoring sanity in our politics requires its eradication from our day-to-day practices and the people’s collective consciousness. If the president is truly in charge of the entire executive branch, then he must have control over all of his officers and employees. The myth originates from the Watergate scandal 50 years ago. For those unfamiliar with the history, a brief summary is in order. The series of events that most contributed to the birth of the myth of the Justice Department’s “independence” began on the evening of Saturday, October 20, 1973 — the “Saturday Night Massacre.” President Richard M. Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson to fire Archibald Cox, who in 1973 had been appointed as the special prosecutor to oversee the federal criminal investigation into the Watergate burglary and related crimes. Richardson refused to fire Cox and resigned. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus likewise refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered the next most senior department official, Solicitor General Robert H. Bork, to fire Cox. Bork carried out Nixon’s order. Nixon’s actions that night set off a firestorm, culminating in his resignation from the presidency in the face of the House of Representatives’ threat of impeachment and the Senate’s near-certain conviction, as well as the eventual passage of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. A section of the EGA that authorized independent counsel investigations came before the Supreme Court in 1988. In Morrison v. Olson, a 7-1 majority (Justice Anthony M. Kennedy recused himself) held that the independent counsel provisions of the law “do not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, or the limitations of Article III, nor do they impermissibly interfere with the President’s authority under Article II in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.” Justice Antonin Scalia, the decision’s lone dissenter, penned what is widely considered his best opinion. He famously observed the case was about: the allocation of power among Congress, the President, and the courts in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium the Constitution sought to establish — so that “a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department,” Federalist No. 51, p. 321 (J. Madison), can effectively be resisted. Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf. Scalia’s basic point was that the independent counsel provisions of the EGA were void because prosecutorial power is quintessentially executive power and that because Article II of the Constitution provides that “the executive Power” — all of it — “shall be vested in a President of the United States,” any diminishment of the president’s authority is ipso facto unconstitutional. Scalia noted that although the majority agreed with him that “the conduct of a criminal prosecution (and of an investigation to decide whether to prosecute)” is “the exercise of purely executive power” and that independent counsel provisions “deprive the President of the United States of exclusive control over the exercise of that power,” it nonetheless upheld those provisions because they did not completely eliminate the president’s control over the independent counsel — the counsel could still be fired for “good cause.” Ultimately, Congress did not renew the independent counsel statute, which, as the Washington Post reported in June 1999, “gave rise to Kenneth W. Starr, the impeachment of President Clinton, and 20 other investigations of high-level federal officials over the past two decades.” On both constitutional and pragmatic grounds, this was the right outcome. Scalia’s Morrison dissent was prophetic. If the president is truly in charge of the entire executive branch (the academic literature refers to this as the “unitary executive theory”), then he must have control over all of his officers and employees. As a practical matter, of course, the president cannot personally “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” as Article II, Section 3 commands, but if he cannot, when necessary, direct the actions of his subordinates — and remove them if they do not comply — then he is not really in charge. After all, if the buck does not stop with the president, what on earth is the point of all the billions of dollars’ worth of drama we go through as a country every four years to elect one?

While setting blistering lap times and fine-tuning your car to be the ultimate apex-kissing machine has its thrills, the art of drifting is just one big dopamine hit. Sliding an immensely powerful rear-drive car in a cloud of its own tire smoke is one of the most satisfying things you can do in some of the big open-world racing games like Forza Horizon 5 and Test Drive Unlimited Solar Crown. However, drifting is often resigned to a way to earn some skill points or its own particular event type - how about an open-world racer completely dedicated to going sideways? That’s where JDM: Japanese Drift Master comes in. Continue reading Japanese Drift Master, a manga-infused racing game, just set its launch window MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best racing games, Best open world games, Best single-player games