Kamala Harris and company are all in with radical, anti-life policies that could unsettle swing voters who might describe themselves as “moderately pro-choice” but hardly pro-abortion. The amorphous terminology built around the concept of personal autonomy has different meanings in different ears. In conversations with family members, friends, co-workers, and neighbors who are saturated with media reports designed to obscure the brutality of the abortion industry, practicing Catholics are at a perpetual disadvantage. The upshot is that when questions involving God-given innocent, human life are phrased with precision and sufficient detail, more Americans are willing to step in and restrict unsavory procedures. That’s one major takeaway from recent polling on abortion policy. Although it’s fair to say the pro-life movement has fumbled somewhat with state-level ballot measures and legislation that overreach public sentiment, the opposing side has offered practicing Catholics a potential gift in the form of Team Harris. There’s an argument to be made that the Democratic Party’s 2024 presidential ticket is the most anti-Catholic in American history. But this argument must be made consistently and vociferously to pliable Catholic voters who aren’t exactly in love with Donald Trump. Fortunately, Catholic voters who may not like Trump personally can recognize that it’s not just the sanctity of human life at stake, but also larger questions of religious freedom. If Vice President Harris is elected president, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is elected vice president, Catholics will experience an onslaught against their faith, their families, and the constitutional freedoms like never before. Moreover, the “culture of death” that was on display at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, compliments of Planned Parenthood, will become deeply ingrained in public policy if Trump doesn’t regain the presidency. But how can someone who has engaged in vulgar “locker room talk,” extramarital affairs with prostitutes, and crude language that religious-minded voters find unappetizing suddenly be viewed as their savior? A biblical view may be in order. Some of the most unlikely figures in history with a checkered past have answered God’s call to deliver a greater good. Trump—who is clearly devoted to his family, his country, and the concept of American exceptionalism— holds up well against many on this list. Before Saul of Tarsus became St. Paul the Apostle, he was a Roman citizen and a member of a religious party known as the Pharisees, who persecuted Christians. Saul was clearly complicit in violent acts, including the stoning of St. Stephen, a deacon in the early church who was the first to be martyred for his belief in Jesus Christ. Saul was brutish. The man known as St. Paul who emerged after his conversion is now viewed as one of the most influential apostles because of his major contributions to the New Testament. Catholics who have traditionally voted for Democrats and remain registered as such, could be a decisive factor in swing states if they understand what’s at stake. Harris’ Democratic Party is many steps removed from the Democratic Party of President John F. Kennedy, which championed Catholics who sought elected office. In fact, Harris is part of the Biden-Harris administration, which has explicitly targeted Catholics who attempted to exercise their free speech rights. Under a President Harris, the Justice Department could be further weaponized against Catholics who don’t fall in line with her administration’s views on abortion, marriage, transgender activism, and parental autonomy in education, to name a few key issues. Given her track record, it’s also evident that a President Harris would work to exclude Catholics from serving in government positions. Recall that during her almost four years as a U.S. senator from California, Harris openly attacked a judicial nominee for his membership in the Knights of Columbus. Harris achieved a perfect score from Planned Parenthood during her time in the Senate. A score like that indicates that Harris would be willing to jeopardize human life at any stage of pregnancy. Harris also introduced a Senate bill known as the “Do No Harm Act,” aimed at coercing Catholic doctors into performing abortions and transgender surgeries. If enacted, the bill could put religious charities, including Catholic schools and the Little Sisters of the Poor, out of business. Harris didn’t stop there. She also has been an ardent supporter of the Equality Act, legislation that would impose sanctions on Catholics who defy gender ideology initiatives. So, the Catholic case against Harris isn’t difficult to make. But can Catholics be sold on the idea that if Saul can become Paul, then perhaps Trump can become president again? Recent history says yes. In 2016, polls showed Trump trailing Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, by a significant margin. Clinton had picked Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., as her running mate. Although Kane was ostensibly Catholic, he also had a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood that didn’t go over well with Catholic voters when it was exposed. Trump ended up winning the Catholic vote over Clinton. Fast forward to 2020 and capturing the Catholic vote was a taller order when the incumbent Trump was up against Joe Biden, the longtime U.S. senator from Delaware who served as Barack Obama’s vice president. Despite consistently pushing policies at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church to which he belongs, Biden benefited from congenial press coverage and COVID-19 pandemic measures that enabled him to avoid scrutiny on the campaign trail. Even so, the Catholic vote in 2020 split about evenly between Biden and Trump. Before Biden dropped his reelection bid in July and endorsed Harris for the top of the ticket, polls showed he was trailing Trump among Catholics by a clear margin. Catholics make up about 27% of the electorate. That’s not an insignificant number; if they vote as a bloc against anti-Catholic figures, they could provide the margin of victory in critical states. If Catholic voters can be persuaded that Donald Trump in effect stands between them and the loss of religious liberty, they could make St. Paul proud. The post If Saul Can Become Paul, Why Not Trump as Unlikely Defender of Catholic Faith? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The UK government has launched the Office for Digital Identities and Attribute (OfDIA) – a digital ID watchdog within the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology, tasked with encouraging the growth of the digital ID market under the leadership of chief executive Hannah Rutter. With this, the Labour government picked up where the Conservative one left off, considering that the Office was first announced by the previous cabinet in 2022 when it was envisaged as an “interim” entity for introducing digital ID in the UK. “Convenience” is once again at the center of the way the authorities explain the need for such a push: Rutter is quoted as saying that instead of a “patchwork of paperwork” – and she’s referring to paperwork from both government and private entities – needed as proof of identity today, there is “a better way.” “Digital identity can make people’s lives easier, and unlock billions of pounds of economic growth,” Rutter said, without further breaking down the numbers that helped her arrive at the “billions of pounds” figure. The system OfDIA is in charge of does not include developing a government-issued ID card, and can be used on a voluntary basis, she continued. Rutter made sure to address one of the criticisms regarding the security of such schemes – centralization – by saying that the system her office is working on does not have a centralized digital database, either. That’s certain at least for right now – and it’s up to potential users to decide if the model OfDIA has chosen looks more trustworthy: “You’ll be able to choose from a range of digital identity and attribute providers, based on the private and charities sectors,” Rutter sought to reassure them. Currently, OfDIA is working to create “a trusted and secure digital identity market” and this work focuses on five areas, starting with developing and maintaining the digital identity and framework, and then being in charge of a register of accredited organizations that meet the framework’s requirements. The Office’s jurisdiction at the same time encompasses issuing “trust marks” to companies – currently, there are reportedly 49 meeting one of the three criteria. And then, there is international cooperation, the goal of which is to ensure interoperability, i.e., transnational viability of the scheme(s). If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Government Makes Major Digital ID Push appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Amidst the recovery efforts following Hurricanes Helene and Milton—a catastrophic period marked by significant loss of life and damages in the billions—a contentious debate has arisen within political circles regarding the suppression of “disinformation.” A cohort of Democratic lawmakers, led by House Homeland Security Committee ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), with support from 36 others, has introduced a resolution that criticizes the dissemination of what they label as disinformation about the storms and the government’s response. We obtained a copy of the resolution for you here. This initiative reflects a broader tension between the principles of free expression and the need to combat harmful misinformation in times of emergency. The resolution specifically rebukes what it terms “malicious rumors,” which have implicated even elected officials in the spread of misleading or false information about FEMA’s role in disaster response. Bennie Thompson highlighted the gravity of the situation with his remark, “It’s inexcusable that many, including elected officials and candidates for office, have weaponized and politicized a tragedy in the final days of the election season to spread disinformation and conspiracy theories for political gain regarding the response to Hurricanes Helene and Milton.” The disinformation targeted by the resolution varies, ranging from claims of governmental weather manipulation to misleading statements about FEMA’s relief efforts. FEMA has expressed concern that such misinformation has complicated its recovery efforts, creating unnecessary fear among its employees. FEMA Administrator Dean Criswell stated, “I need to make sure I can get the resources to where they are needed, and when you have this dangerous rhetoric like you’re hearing, it creates fear in our own employees.” The resolution, also backed by House Transportation and Infrastructure ranking member Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), argues that the dissemination of false information has endangered FEMA workers and hampered their ability to conduct aid operations effectively, necessitating temporary halts in door-to-door assistance. Democrats are also continuing to pressure social platforms over “misinformation” related to hurricanes Helene and Milton. Seven members of Congress have urged House committees—Judiciary, Oversight, and Energy and Commerce—to investigate the role of platforms like X, Meta, TikTok, and Discord in spreading what they allege is misinformation. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Democrats Push a Resolution To Condemn the Spread of Hurricane “Disinformation” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Closing Trump Message: 'We Fight'

The Washington Post's owner Jeff Bezos was absolutely right when he said that Americans don’t trust the news media. One of many reasons why the public no longer trust the Regime Media is because of their insistence in repeating Democrat-friendly narratives that spring forth from online video clips that are stripped of context. Case in point, what is now known as The Cheney Hoax. During a recent town hall with Tucker Carlson, former President Donald Trump mused about how a “war hawk” such as Liz Cheney might feel were the guns pointed toward her, and were she to deal with the consequences of having to go wars she (and her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney) are all too willing to start.  This is the standard “chickenhawk” argument we’ve heard since Vietnam and, most recently, during the runup to Operation Iraqi Freedom. “Fortunate Son” in plain Trumpspeak, which becomes obvious to reasonable individuals, regardless of their position on American foreign policy, once the statement is played in its full context. However, that is not what happened. Democrat operatives and their allies in the media seized (or pounced, if you will) on the partial clip and howled that Trump threatened political violence against Liz Cheney. What’s worse, they continued doing so even after the full video emerged online. The Regime Media lied, and continue to lie with the presidential election less than two days away. Watch as the Regime Media’s Sunday political affairs shows all continued to showcase the partial clip as proof evident of violent rhetoric, compared to the remarks in their full context (click “expand” to view transcript): ABC THIS WEEK 11/3/24 11:04 AM GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Even appearing to suggest that fellow Republican Liz Cheney, now a Harris supporter, should face gunfire. DONALD TRUMP: She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle, standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained at her face. NBC MEET THE PRESS 11/3/24 10:01 AM KRISTEN WELKER: Plus, violent threats. Donald Trump suggests sending Liz Cheney to war and says she should have guns trained on her face. DONALD TRUMP:  Let’s put her with a rifle, standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it… KAMALA HARRIS: Anyone who wants to be President of the United States, who uses that kind of violent rhetoric, is clearly disqualified and unqualified to be President. CBS FACE THE NATION 11/3/24 10:32 AM MARGARET BRENNAN: Will the gender gap widen with Trump's sexist comments and his violent rhetoric like this mention of Liz Cheney? DONALD TRUMP: She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle, standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained at her face. FOX NEWS THE FAULKNER FOCUS 11/3/24 11:34 AM HARRIS FAULKNER: Well, here is exactly what the former president said, complete with full context. DONALD TRUMP: She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle, standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained at her face. You know, they're all war hawks when they're sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, “oh, gee, we’ll- let's send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.” But she's a stupid person. And I used to have- I'd have meetings with a lot of people, and she always wanted to go to war with people. So whether it's her, whether it's -- I was surprised a little bit with Dick Cheney. I didn't know him at all. I only had, essentially, the one or two phone calls, and it was only a call saying “thank you very much for doing that for Scooter Libby, that was nice.” And Scooter Libby, by the way, was beyond -- he couldn't believe that it happened. Nobody would do it. They should have done that for him years before. But I was a little surprised because I actually thought that Dick Cheney would go with me over his daughter, and he didn't. And you know what? I understand it, it's your daughter and you go. But she’s a- she’s a bad person. Despite clear contextual video evidence, the Regime Media insist on telling viewers that Trump is threatening violence against a political opponent. “Without evidence”, as the Regime Media like to say. This hoax, like all the others, is disseminated in clear service of a political agenda, and can be added to the ever-growing pile of hoaxes and outright lies that the Regime Media have foisted upon the public over the past nine years. Jeff Bezos is right. Americans don’t trust the news media, and blatant falsehoods like the Cheney Hoax are a big reason why.  

New Hampshire 2nd Congressional District candidate Lily Tang Williams delivered a blistering assault on Thursday against her opponent, Maggie Goodlander.Goodlander is a former Biden administration Department of Justice official. She is married to national security adviser Jake Sullivan.During a Thursday debate, Goodlander accused Tang Williams of catering to the wealthiest Americans by supporting tax breaks. 'You pretend you are poor.'"She believes that we should give a break to the wealthiest and the biggest corporations and hope for the best, hope that the results will trickle down to hardworking people," Goodlander stated."I take a very different approach. I believe that the middle class deserves a tax cut, and I believe that we will do a lot for this country by ensuring that we don't continue this disastrous tax policy," she added.Without missing a beat, Tang Williams fired back, accusing Goodlander of being a multimillionaire herself who is out of touch with the struggles of everyday Americans."You are wealthy. You're worth $20 million to $30 million. How do you know about regular people's suffering? Do you go shopping? Go to Walmart? Buy food? I talk to those people. And you pretend to be a renter in Nashua a few months ago, move back to run for this open seat with millions of dollars from Washington, D.C., insiders," Tang Williams told Goodlander. Goodlander rents an apartment in Nashua. If she wins the election, she has stated she will purchase property in the district, according to the New Hampshire Center for Public Interest Journalism."I don't have money to run a TV ad, and you pretend you are poor, complain rent is so high," Tang Williams continued. "You do not understand regular people's concerns.""Just go back to your $2 million home in Portsmouth," she remarked. "You do not understand regular people's concerns."Tang Williams' fiery rebuttal went viral on social media. According to the Daily Beast and the New York Times, Goodlander and Sullivan purchased a $1.2 million home in Portsmouth in 2018.Earlier this year, Goodlander was torched for complaining that rent costs are "too damn high" while holding millions of dollars in real estate.Tang Williams was raised in China during Mao Zedong's cultural revolution. She came to the United States with only $100 and became a citizen in 1994.Following the viral debate moment, Tang Williams posted on X, "I have the fire in my belly to fight for the people in #NH02. I will always tell the truth."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Have you ever wondered why reporters don’t seem to hesitate to say and repeat things about Donald Trump that simply aren’t true — as if they have no fear of defamation liability? This sort of thing happens because the U.S. Supreme Court about 60 years ago invented a First Amendment doctrine that protects the media from defamation liability, at least in lawsuits brought by public figures. The 'actual malice' standard technically allows the media to defame politicians of both parties equally. But they don't. Not by a mile. If you’re wondering which words in the First Amendment tell reporters they are free to defame activists, politicians, and other public figures without fear of being sued, you’re on the right track. Nothing in the text, structure, or original public understanding of the First Amendment talks about or even leads logically to an absurd rule insulating the media from defamation liability. The fact that the Constitution doesn’t support this rule didn’t stop the Supreme Court from deciding in a 1964 case called New York Times v. Sullivan that a defamation action brought by a public figure cannot succeed unless the defendant acted with “actual malice.” The Supreme Court defined “actual malice” to mean knowledge of the offending statement’s falsity or reckless disregard as to its truthfulness. For obvious reasons, the news media industry loves Sullivan, as it gives reporters and media companies almost a complete pass when it comes to defaming public figures. But the fact that media companies love the Sullivan case doesn’t change the fact that the Supreme Court invented this doctrine out of thin air. Even if one thinks immunizing media companies against defamation liability might be a good idea for policy reasons, that doesn’t change the fact that it finds no support in the Constitution. As a practical matter, moreover, it’s become apparent that New York Times v. Sullivan disproportionately — indeed, overwhelmingly — helps Democrats and creates a severe disadvantage for Republicans in the political process. Think about it: The media are all but immune from defamation liability when speaking about public figures, including politicians, so, given that the media are almost seamlessly aligned with Democrats, they can hit Republicans more or less all they want without fear. And they do! In essence, all the media must do to avoid liability when attacking Donald Trump and other Republican politicians is have some thin, arguable basis to show that when they defamed a Republican, they didn’t know they were speaking falsely. That means they can be negligent when speaking falsely about Republican politicians like Trump. Of course, reporters will insist “that’s not fair to say New York Times v. Sullivan allows us to single out Republicans. After all, the same standard applies regardless of a politician’s party affiliation.” But that overlooks the overwhelming, increasingly obvious bias within the news industry in America. So yes, the “actual malice” standard technically allows the media to defame politicians of both parties equally. But they don't. Not by a mile. Thus, not only is the Sullivan decision wrong because it isn’t rooted in the Constitution (but claims to be), but it also leaves countless victims of defamation without recourse, encourages lazy journalism, and provides a huge, unfair advantage to Democrats in politics. Some jurists and legal scholars have noted that it may be time for the Supreme Court to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan and that litigants facing this standard should begin making arguments for overturning that unfortunate precedent. In any event, it’s wrong for Democrats to enjoy an unfair advantage arising out of a fake constitutional doctrine created out of thin air by the Supreme Court 60 years ago. Editor’s note: This article has been adapted from a thread that appeared on X (formerly Twitter).

Sen. Mike Lee Lists 5 Consequences 'If Kamala Wins & Dems Take Control of Both Chambers'

Dairy State Dispatch: Wisconsin Early Voting Data Continues to Look Good for Trump (GO VOTE!)

'Sopranos' Actress Drea de Matteo: 'Half of Hollywood Is Voting for Trump'