'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.

Democrats Did It to Themselves

NBC Panel: Maybe Conducting a Bait-and-Switch Coup Was a Bad Election Strategy

"Why fear something when you can understand it better and marvel at its diversity and complexity?”

Voters in Alameda County, California, appear to have chosen to remove two George Soros-backed politicians from office amid a devastating crime surge that has prompted many businesses to flee the area.Ahead of the November election, separate recall efforts were launched against Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao (D) and Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price (D).'The phony "progressive" movement is officially dead.'Recall campaign leaders, who blamed Thao and Price for the county's recent crime surge, gathered enough local signatures to force an election to keep or remove the politicians.With 100% of the 108 precincts tallied, nearly 32,000 residents, 65.19%, voted to oust Thao. With full results from all 570 precincts, more than 134,000 locals, 64.79%, voted to remove Price. The recall efforts to replace Price, Save Alameda for Everyone and Supporters of Recall Pamela Price, spent approximately $2.6 million on their campaigns. According to KGO-TV, they were backed by several police officers' unions, PG&E, and hedge fund executive Philip Dreyfuss.In addition to a recall effort launched by Oakland United to Recall Sheng Thao, Thao faced calls to resign from the Oakland Police Officer's Association. In August, the union urged Thao to step down to allow residents to vote for a new mayor in the November election.Union president Huy Nguyen stated, "Today we are asking Mayor Sheng Thao to recall as mayor immediately for a lot of the failures in this city, going from crime, the budget crisis, the distraction of the FBI raid that prevents our ability to function as a city."Thao is currently wrapped up in an FBI investigation; however, no charges have been filed against her.She refused the union's calls to step down and accused it of "playing politics."While the final outcomes have not been officially announced as of Wednesday afternoon, if the results hold, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors will appoint a DA in Price's place to finish out her term, and the Oakland City Council will step in for Thao.In the summer of 2023, even the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Oakland branch acknowledged that the area's crime "doom-loop" resulted from "progressive policies and failed leadership."Businesses that have fled the area under Thao's and Price's leadership include Denny's, In-N-Out, Black Bear Diner, Subway, and Starbucks, to name a few. Clorox Company, Blue Shield of California, and Kaiser Permanente were forced to increase their security due to the area's uptick in criminal activity.Seneca Scott, the founder of Neighbors Together Oakland and a recall spokesperson, stated, “The phony ‘progressive’ movement is officially dead. May it rest in pieces.”Neither Thao's nor Price's campaigns responded to KGO's requests for comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

As it became clear Donald Trump would become the next president, Democrat Juan Williams tried to blame Kamala Harris' humiliating loss on sexism and racism. But his fellow Fox News panelists refused to let that excuse slide. 'To suggest that somehow black men are racist because they supported a white man is just too far.' After first accusing Trump of having "led an insurrection against the United States government" — a crime for which Trump has never been charged — Williams doubled down on the media's most trite narrative to explain away Harris' loss. "I'm not sold on this idea that it was the cost of eggs," Williams said. "I worry that it was, 'Well, I'm not voting for this woman.' Or, 'I'm not voting for this black woman.'" Fox News anchor Bret Baier immediately fact-checked Williams. "Well, no, that's not what we see in our data," he pointed out. When Williams tried defending his position, anchor Martha MacCallum interjected to point out that many black male voters feel "that Democrats and elites put immigrants before" them. Undeterred, Williams responded by attributing Trump's win to a "bro strategy and the white male turnout and white grievance politics." "He's trailing among his prior 2020 numbers with whites," Brit Hume shot back, putting a dagger in Williams' narrative. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy then noted that Trump increased his share of support among black men and Hispanics, more evidence disproving Williams' narrative that Harris is a victim of political racism. Finally, Karl Rove prescribed Williams a dose of reality. "I just think it is extremely odd to suggest that black men are somehow prejudiced because they vote for a white candidate who says, 'I want to make certain that everybody has an opportunity to succeed in our great economy. I want you to be more prosperous, and I will do things that will make it possible for you to make a better life,'" Rove said. "That is an appeal to their best instincts," he explained. "He did not go out and say, 'Vote for me because I'm not a woman. Vote for me because I'm a white man.' That would not have attracted those votes. They got attracted to him because they thought he was a strong, effective leader, and they thought he would do something about the issues they cared the most about, which is an economy in which they think they get the short stick, inflation, which has decimated their purchasing power, and illegal immigration, which has affected their communities deeply." "And to suggest that somehow black men are racist because they supported a white man is just too far, Juan," Rove chided. Unfortunately, Williams refused to budge. In the end, he claimed that men supported Trump because he talks about "women in the most disparaging way." "I think they supported him in spite of that — not because of it. They supported him because he offered to make their life better," Rove fact-checked. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!