The Department of Justice is removing Jack Smith as special counsel and dropping his two federal investigations into President-Elect Donald Trump following Trump’s dominant win in Tuesday’s election. Fox News reported that the DOJ is removing Smith because they have acknowledged that they cannot prosecute a sitting president. Smith will be gone from his position before Trump is inaugurated on January 20, 2025, Fox News reported. The network said that the move means that the DOJ is dropping its two criminal cases against Trump. The case involving Trump’s handling of classified material after he left office was already dismissed by a judge in Florida, but was being appealed by Smith. Smith’s other case surrounded Trump’s actions following the 2020 presidential election. MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+ BREAKING: The Department of Justice is getting rid of Special Counsel Jack Smith before Trump takes office They are dropping the two federal cases against Trump pic.twitter.com/YInAUzQ0Rx — Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 6, 2024

When Johnny Agar told his father, Jeff,  he wanted to walk in a race, Jeff was a bit concerned. Born with cerebral palsy, Johnny could not walk, but his father wanted to make his dream come true. Not only has Johnny Agar competed in marathons with the help of his father and crossed the finish line, but the pair also achieved Ironman status. Their story serves as an inspiration to many, a true testament to the love of a father. (Photo by Patrick Smith/Getty Images) Jeff And Johnny Agar Work Together As A Team Because Johnny cannot walk, his father pushes or pulls him when they compete. Jeff and Johnny Agar dreamed of completing the Ironman race in Kona, Hawaii, and attempted the journey at the end of October. Unfortunately, they did not meet the qualification time for the biking portion and ended up disqualified. Even though they didn’t finish, they made an incredible impact. Ironman posted about Jeff and Johnny Agar on their official Instagram page. View this post on Instagram A post shared by IRONMAN Triathlon (@ironmantri) “Did they finish? No. Did they inspire millions of people? Absolutely. Father & Son duo, Team Agar took on #IMWC Kona once again last weekend but unfortunately did not make the bike course cut off. Even though they did not finish the race, they have inspired countless people with their willingness to take world’s most iconic and toughest IRONMAN races. Team Agar will be back.” Jeff and Johnny Agar made a huge impression on this person, “The pros leave us in awe but these are the people that light that fire and inspire us.” (Photo by Patrick Smith/Getty Images) And this one, “I was cheering so hard for them and sad to hear of the DNF, however, that is nothing to hang your head! They are IRONMEN! They are the heart of what the Ironman motto is, ‘Anything is possible!’ They will be back and finish Kona before we know it, and I will cheer them on all the way there!” (Photo by Patrick Smith/Getty Images) This fan noticed how hard the father worked, “Both are inspiring, but the guy doing an Ironman, while pulling someone else along is insane.” Jeff and Johnny Agar make us all proud and help us realize that we can do anything with love. This story’s featured image is by Patrick Smith/Getty Images. The post Man & His Son With Cerebral Palsy Inspire Millions After Competing In Ironman appeared first on InspireMore.

The Story: Voters in 10 states were asked to decide whether legalized abortion would be protected in their state constitutions. Here’s how they voted—and what it portends for the pro-life cause. The Background: In nine of the 10 states, voters were asked to adopt the incoherent and arbitrary standard of “viability” as the line for when restrictions on abortion could be allowed. In the United States viability is considered to be at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age, late in the second trimester of pregnancy. (New York was the outlier, voting to prevent the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn at any stage of pregnancy.) The initiative to expand abortion rights failed in only three states—Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Here are the initiatives each state adopted or rejected. Arizona Overturns the current ban on abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Makes abortion legal any time prior to fetal viability. Prevents the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn prior to viability. Allows late-term abortion if keeping the child would affect the mother’s “mental health.” Overturns current regulations on abortion: a parental consent requirement for minors, requirement that abortions be conducted by a licensed physician, requirement that the pregnant mother must undergo an ultrasound, and requirement for in-person notification of possible risks of abortion. Colorado Establishes a constitutional right for “reproductive freedom,” defined as “the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.” Prevents the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn prior to viability. Allows late-term abortion if keeping the child would affect the mother’s “mental health.” Overturns current regulations on abortion: a parental consent requirement for minors, a waiting period to schedule an abortion, and restrictions on late-term abortions. Florida An attempt to overturn the current ban on abortion after the first six weeks of pregnancy failed. That amendment needed 60 percent of the vote, and only achieved 57 percent. Maryland Overturns the current ban on all abortion. Establishes a fundamental right to abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Prevents the state legislature from being able to “directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” This change will likely lead to the overturning of the parental consent requirement for minors to obtain an abortion. Missouri Makes abortion legal any time prior to fetal viability. Prevents the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn prior to fetal viability. Overturns current regulations on abortion: a parental consent requirement for minors, a waiting period to schedule an abortion, and restrictions on late-term abortions. Montana Prevents the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn prior to fetal viability. (Abortion before viability was already the standard before the amendment.) Nebraska Nebraska had dueling initiatives. The one that passed amends the state constitution to not allow abortion in the second or third trimester, except in cases of medical emergency or for pregnancies resulting from incest or sexual assault. The initiative that was rejected would have overturned the current ban on abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and added a new section to the Nebraska constitution establishing a right to abortion until “fetal viability.” Nevada Prevents the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn prior to fetal viability. (Abortion before viability was already the standard before the amendment.) Nevada requires constitutional amendments to pass in two consecutive general elections, so this amendment will have to pass again in 2026 in order to take effect. New York  Prevents the state legislature from enacting any new laws to protect ​​the unborn at any stage of pregnancy. Changes the state’s civil rights protections to prevent discrimination based on “pregnancy outcomes and reproductive healthcare and autonomy” by considering it a protected class. South Dakota An attempt to overturn the current ban on all abortion failed. If the initiative had passed, the state would have resorted to a trimester framework for regulation: During the first trimester, the state would be prohibited from regulating abortion; during the second trimester, the state could regulate abortion, but “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman;” and during the third trimester, the state could not regulate or prohibit abortion, except “when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman’s physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman.” The rejected initiative would have allowed late-term abortions if a physician claims it is necessary to protect the mother’s health, including “mental health.” What It Means: Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Americans have voted 17 times on ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights. During those two years, the pro-abortion cause has won 14 times and lost three. The outcomes of these votes point to two crucial realities that both the church and the pro-life movement must confront. While millions of Christians consistently voted to protect life in each of these 17 states—including where abortion initiatives ultimately passed—the sobering reality is that pro-life Christians do not constitute a majority of American voters. This highlights our need to build broader coalitions and find allies both within the church and beyond. The creeping secularization of our culture, affecting both the political left and right, has eroded the moral foundations that once made Christian pro-life advocacy more effective. The national pro-life movement and the Republican Party also focused intensely on overturning Roe v. Wade but failed to sufficiently prepare for what came next. This oversight was both predictable and predicted by many within the movement. When nine judges gave the issue back to the states, ballot initiatives quickly showed there was not yet a pro-life majority willing to support restrictions on legal abortion. The path forward requires a dual strategy. First, we must continue strengthening pro-life education and formation within our churches. While many Christians already stand firm for life, we can always do more to articulate the profound moral and theological foundations for protecting the unborn. Yet we must also recognize that church-based advocacy alone will not be enough. As ballot initiatives continue across the country, protecting unborn life will require both strengthening our existing pro-life movement and expanding our outreach to new allies. The pro-life movement needs to broaden its approach beyond relying primarily on national organizations, which have begun to compromise their values by endorsing pro-choice candidates. We need to develop new strategies for engaging with Americans who might be open to protecting life even if they don’t fully embrace our religious convictions. This could involve emphasizing scientific evidence about fetal development, promoting discussions about human rights and dignity, and building coalitions around specific policies that protect both mothers and children. The future success of the pro-life cause will depend on our ability to build these broader coalitions while maintaining our core principles. We need to engage sympathetically with Americans who harbor reservations about stronger restrictions, understanding their concerns while making a compelling case for protecting life. This requires developing more nuanced and persuasive arguments that can reach beyond our existing base of support. As ballot initiatives continue across the country, protecting unborn life will require both strengthening our existing pro-life movement and expanding our outreach to new allies. While the challenges are significant, we are not without hope. The same God who turned the hearts of slave owners against slavery and moved Christians to lead the civil rights movement can transform hearts today. The question is whether we will have the courage to speak truth in a way that lovingly challenges our fellow citizens to align their votes with their professed beliefs, and to rebuild a culture of life within America before it’s too late. The lives of countless unborn children depend on our answer.

'I’m just sending out my prayers to any survivors, the families'

'I think it was surprising how well he did'

'We look forward to securing the border together and making this country safe again!'

He is, ah, not well

A post shared to X claims that X owner Elon Musk changed an animation feature linked to the platform’s like button to promote Donald Trump during the election. ?BREAKING: Elon has officially changed the like icon to promote Donald Trump during the elections! If you’re in support, like and retweet this to show your stance!#Election2024 […]

'Holly’s a family member. That was tough'

Voters in 10 states decided Tuesday either to protect life or to enshrine abortion up to birth in their constitutions, with pro-life advocates prevailing in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota.  Five largely pro-abortion states—Colorado, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, and New York—and five largely pro-life states—Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota—voted in the weeks leading up to Election Day on ballot measures to legalize unlimited abortion.  Here is a roundup of the results, with updates throughout the night. South Dakota Pro-Lifers Score Win South Dakotans struck down an abortion amendment that would have allowed abortion right up until birth for nearly any reason that a doctor thinks is a “health” risk to the mother.  Almost 60% of South Dakota voters rejected what some opponents called a radical abortion initiative.  Because the amendment would override existing state laws, opponents said it would remove parental consent requirements for a minor to get an abortion and also would force doctors and nurses to perform abortions without exemptions from conscience protections. South Dakota pro-lifers say they experienced physical threats, verbal abuse, doxing, and stalking from a pro-abortion group that collected signatures for the ballot measure. Dakotans for Health “used Antifa-style actions, lies, and abuse to illegally get Amendment G on the ballot,” said Chris David, a South Dakota resident and volunteer with the pro-life organization Life Defense Fund. To get the question on the ballot, Dakotans for Health gathered 55,000 signatures, many of which the Life Defense Fund contends are likely invalid. South Dakota was the only state where pro-life opponents of an abortion amendment had more funding than the pro-abortion side. To fight it, pro-lifers invested double the amount of Dakotans for Health.  “We are grateful to God and to the people of the state of South Dakota,” co-chairs of Life Defense Fund, Leslee Unruh and Jon Hansen, said in a formal statement. “As South Dakotans learned the truth about the extreme dangers of Amendment G, they sent a message loud and clear today: We protect mothers and children.” “We are so thankful that South Dakotans rejected this extreme abortion measure that would’ve allowed abortion through all nine months, canceled basic health and safety protections for women, and stripped parents’ right to know if their minor daughter was being coerced into having an abortion,” Unruh and Hansen said. “This effort took an army of people who devoted so much time, energy, and resources to defeat this extreme effort, and for that, we are incredibly grateful.” Nebraska Voters Decide to Protect Life Nebraska voters said “no” to a ballot initiative that would have enshrined a right to abortion up to viability in the Nebraska Constitution. The initiative defined fetal viability as “the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the patient’s treating health care practitioner, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.” The measure would have allowed abortion after fetal viability if necessary to protect the “life or health of the pregnant patient,” effectively legalizing abortion up to birth due to the Supreme Court’s broad definition of “health” of the mother.  In the Supreme Court’s Doe v. Bolton decision, issued the same day in 1973 as Roe v. Wade, the justices defined “health” of the mother as referring to “all factors” affecting the pregnant woman, including “physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial” factors and “the woman’s age.” Nebraska had a dueling pro-life measure on the ballot, which voters approved.  The measure, called Protect Women & Children, will make Nebraska the first state in the nation to protect life in its constitution. It amends the Nebraska Constitution to align with current law: Unborn children are protected from abortion in the second and third trimesters, with exceptions for a medical emergency, sexual assault, or incest. Nebraska already protected unborn children after 12 weeks’ gestation, with exceptions for sexual assault, incest, and to preserve a woman’s life.  Arizona Voters OK Abortion Throughout Pregnancy Arizona voted to enshrine abortion up to birth in the state Constitution. Arizona’s amendment establishes a “fundamental right to abortion” and prohibits laws that deny, restrict, or interfere with abortions after fetal viability when the procedures are “necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.” The pro-abortion lobby reportedly outspent the pro-life side 26 to 1.  Montana Pro-Abortion Lobby Achieves Win Montana voters approved a ballot question to enshrine limitless abortion in the state Constitution. Pro-abortion advocates of the amendment outspent the pro-life side 86 to 1.  Montana currently allows late-term abortions if a woman’s life is in danger.  Missouri Approves ‘Fundamental Right’ to Abortion Voters in Missouri approved a ballot measure to include a fundamental right to abortion in the Missouri Constitution. Missouri’s ballot measure, titled “The Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative,” enshrines the right to abortion in state law. The measure allows the state Legislature to pass laws regulating abortion after fetal viability, but also prohibits lawmakers from restricting abortions “needed to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.” The measure leaves the decision about what is necessary to protect a woman’s “health” to “health care professionals,” rather than medical doctors. Missouri currently protects unborn children, with an exception to preserve a woman’s life. The pro-abortion side reportedly spent 103 times more than the pro-life side. Colorado Voters Pick Limitless Abortion Colorado voters opted to enshrine abortion up to birth in the state Constitution. Voters approved a ballot initiative repealing a previous measure that prohibited funding for abortion in health insurance plans and state Medicaid coverage. Colorado currently has no restrictions on abortion and a statute already protects it. New York OKs Pro-Abortion Measure New Yorkers cast their ballots to expand the state’s “Equal Rights Amendment” antidiscrimination protections by including abortion.  New York already had virtually no protections for unborn life in the womb.  Pro-abortion activists have said the amendment is a “necessary bulwark” against any pro-life efforts, Politico reported. With 29% of the vote in, 72.9% of New Yorkers voted “yes” on the pro-abortion amendment to the state Constitution. Maryland Voters Solidify Pro-Abortion Stance In Maryland, voters decided to protect the “right” to abortion up to birth in the state Constitution.  Maryland already had broad health exceptions for late-term abortion and a right to abortion already was protected by statute. With almost half of the vote counted, 74.3% of Maryland voters were in favor of Question 1. Florida to Remain a Pro-Life State Florida’s Amendment 4 will not gain a large enough majority of voters to enshrine abortion up to birth into the state Constitution, said Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican. With polls now closed in Florida — Amendment 3 has failed.Amendment 4 has failed.— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) November 6, 2024 With 83% of the vote in, 57.4% of Florida voters cast their ballots in favor of the initiative, which would allow abortion up to the moment of birth if it is deemed “necessary to protect the patient’s health.” A favorable vote of at least 60% was needed to make Amendment 4 part of the state Constitution.  Abortion currently is banned in Florida after six weeks. Floridians Protecting Freedom, the pro-abortion group behind the ballot initiative, spent 8.3 times as much as pro-lifers opposing the proposed amendment.  Pro-lifers filed a lawsuit Oct. 16 against Floridians Protecting Freedom, citing fraudulent practices to put the amendment on the ballot. More than 100 paid petition circulators associated with the organization engaged in the fraudulent practices, according to a Friday report from the Florida Office of Election Crimes and Security.  DeSantis has used his platform to oppose Amendment 4.  “If Amendment 4 passes, it would get rid of every commonsense rule and regulation on the books in Florida that could possibly ‘delay or restrict’ elective late-term abortion,” he said on X.  If Amendment 4 passes, it would get rid of every commonsense rule and regulation on the books in Florida that could possibly "delay or restrict" elective late-term abortion.Amendment 4 would:– Remove parental consent– Overturn laws that prevent taxpayer funding of abortion-… pic.twitter.com/N7EAXKjQ90— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) October 29, 2024 By using their voices to raise awareness about radical pro-abortion ballot initiatives, DeSantis and other GOP leaders help “fill the gaps” in funding on the pro-life side, said Kelsey Pritchard, director of state public affairs at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. “In all of these states, and particularly in Florida, what we have seen from the majority of the mainstream media is just a level of hostility that is unprecedented,” Pritchard told The Daily Signal. She said she hopes this win sends a signal to the mainstream media that Americans don’t want abortion advocates writing their news.  “The way they have painted people who oppose these ballot measures, particularly Ron DeSantis, they have painted him like a dictator,” she continued. “And so to win in a place like Florida, after they have thrown everything they have to try to win these abortion ballot measures for the Left, for the abortion industry, that would be a huge victory.”  Background Each of the 10 states’ proposed constitutional amendments includes a wide-ranging “health of the mother” clause that would make it legally and practically impossible to pass laws restricting abortion. In the Supreme Court’s Doe v. Bolton decision, issued the same day in 1973 as the high court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, the justices defined “health” of the mother as referring to “all factors” affecting the pregnant woman, including “physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial” factors and “the woman’s age.” Because the opposed amendments to state constitutions contain no limitations on what “health” means and no definitions of “health care professional,” the measures would legalize abortion at any stage of pregnancy. In most of the 10 states, the pro-abortion lobby far outspent their pro-life opponents. “The abortion industry can afford to pour millions into these fights,” said Pritchard, the director of state public affairs at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. “They will see an ROI [return on investment] if these abortion measures pass in their state, and they will be able to profit exponentially off of aborting more children and off of the health and safety of women and girls, when they don’t have to follow any regulations in their industry.” This article is being updated as results are announced for each state’s vote on its abortion ballot question. The post Florida, South Dakota, and Nebraska Voters Reject Abortion Amendments: Results From 10 Ballot Initiatives on Life appeared first on The Daily Signal.