Blog Front Lines and Frontiers In Defense of Adventure Tales: The Best of Planet Stories #1 by Leigh Brackett Leigh Brackett takes a stand for stories of daring exploits, courage, and derring-do! By Alan Brown | Published on October 29, 2024 Comment 0 Share New Share In this bi-weekly series reviewing classic science fiction and fantasy books, Alan Brown looks at the front lines and frontiers of the field; books about soldiers and spacers, scientists and engineers, explorers and adventurers. Stories full of what Shakespeare used to refer to as “alarums and excursions”: battles, chases, clashes, and the stuff of excitement. One of the many science fiction magazines that appeared on newsstands in the mid-20th century was Planet Stories, published from 1939 to 1955. It specialized in adventure stories, in the vein of space opera and planetary romance, and was often looked down upon by the more “serious” writers and readers of magazines like Astounding Science Fiction. But in a “Best of” anthology printed by Ballantine Books in 1975 and edited by frequent contributor Leigh Brackett, the author mounts a spirited defense of the magazine, both in her introduction to the volume and in her selection of some excellent stories from its run. And Brackett didn’t stop there. She took on the idea that adventure stories are somehow less valuable or estimable than stories that focus on the sciences. In her introduction to the volume, she points out that, “The tale of adventure—of great courage and daring, of battle against the forces of darkness and the unknown—has been with the human race since it first learned to talk.” She also showed a bit of disdain for the rigid guidelines Astounding’s editor John Campbell applied to fiction. Her choice of stories shows that there was a wide diversity of tales printed within the pages of Planet Stories. Brackett argues that just because a story is a fun read, that doesn’t prevent it from also having weight and meaning. I’ve spoken about Planet Stories magazine before in a review of one of Leigh Bracket’s collections, and you can find an Encyclopedia of Science Fiction article on the magazine here. Because the book I’m reviewing today is hard to find, and all the stories it contains (except one) are available to read online at Project Gutenberg, I’ve provided links so you can read the ones that sound interesting. About the Editor Leigh Brackett (1915-1978) was a noted science fiction writer and screenwriter, perhaps best-known today for one of her last works, the first draft of the script for Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. I’ve reviewed Brackett’s work before—the omnibus edition Eric John Stark: Outlaw of Mars, the novel The Sword of Rhiannon, the novelette “Lorelei of the Red Mist” in the collection, Three Times Infinity, the short story “Citadel of Lost Ships” in the collection, Swords Against Tomorrow, the collections The Best of Leigh Brackett and The Halfling and Other Stories, the novel The Long Tomorrow, and the Skaith Trilogy: The Ginger Star, The Hounds of Skaith, and The Reavers of Skaith. In each of those columns, you will find more information on Leigh Brackett, her career, and her works. And like many authors whose careers started in the early 20th century, you can find a number of Brackett’s stories and novels on Project Gutenberg. One and Done The Best of Planet Stories #1 was unfortunately a “one and done,” the only volume to appear in what had originally been intended as a series. It was published at a time when Leigh Brackett’s science fiction writing career was going through a period of renewal. She had revived her stories of adventurer Eric John Stark, sending him to a new world, Skaith, that orbited a faraway red sun. And she was soon to be tapped to write a script for the sequel to George Lucas’ surprise hit movie, Star Wars. But for some reason, Ballentine’s plans for the anthology series ended with the single volume. It might have been sales figures, it might have been Brackett being busy with other work, or it might have been down to the health issues that would cause her untimely death a few years later. But for whatever reason, this excellent collection stands alone. As a long-time science fiction fan, I am used to finding works I enjoy that turn out to be “one and done.” It started when I was a kid, and I would have to settle for whatever odd back-issues of used comics were available at the local convenience store, or choose from the limited selection of science fiction books available at the local library, which might only contain one random entry in a series, or maybe just a book that never had a sequel. Sometimes, I would find a sequel and have to imagine what came before it, or find a book with a cliffhanger ending without ever having it resolved. That problem became less common as I got older and gained access to more sources for reading material, but even with additional sources, I wasn’t protected from occasional disappointment. One of the areas where this kind of disappointment ran rampant was in science fiction on television. In my youth, it seemed that most science fiction shows were doomed to short runs. I loved Time Tunnel, but it ended after a single season. And the same thing happened to Jonny Quest, despite it being the greatest cartoon show in the history of mankind. Star Trek (the original, that is), lasted for three whole seasons, but my boyhood home was out of range of the nearest NBC station. Things did get somewhat better, as there were more TV stations to choose from, and there were shows that ran for multiple seasons, including the many other Star Trek shows, Babylon 5, and a whole host of others. But then a show like Firefly would come along and remind me that disappointment was still an option. In the end, however, I suppose having a book or show that leaves me wanting more is preferable to one that outstays its welcome. The Best of Planet Stories #1 The book opens with the long story “Lorelei of the Red Mist” by Leigh Brackett and Ray Bradbury (read it here). The publisher required Brackett to include one of her own tales in each volume of the anthology series, and from a marketing standpoint, it didn’t hurt to include a story whose junior author had become one of the most widely known and acclaimed authors of science fiction in subsequent years. The story is a great example of a planetary romance tale, set among a strange and decadent civilization in a lost corner of Venus that exists under a sea of swirling red mist. The consciousness of an escaping criminal is transferred into a barbarian warrior by a witch who hopes to have him kill her enemies. But the protagonist has his own ideas on how to live, given this second chance at life, and soon is careening from battle to battle. Leigh Brackett’s work has been a subject of many of my reviews, which are included in the biography above (including a link to a longer review of “Lorelei of the Red Mist”). You can also find my most recent review of Ray Bradbury’s work here, which contains links to my other reviews of his work. The next story in the collection, “The Star-Mouse,” is by Fredric Brown, a writer who frequently wrote humorous stories, and whose tongue was firmly in his cheek when writing this tale (read it here). It tells the story of a Professor Overburger, who fled a nation that wanted to use his rocket-building skills for evil purposes (and reminds me a bit of Willy Ley). In the best pulp fiction tradition, he is able to build a small but advanced rocket in his home workshop. Wanting to study the effect of rocket travel on living beings, he captures a mouse in his home, planning to use the rodent as a test subject. As a lonely old man, he holds a running one-sided conversation with his tiny friend as he builds the rocket. In his heavily accented English, he names the mouse Mitkey, after a cartoon character. His rocket works so flawlessly, it achieves escape velocity, and heads out on what the Professor believes will be a one-way journey. But instead, the rocket is captured by tiny aliens who inhabit an asteroid passing near the Earth. The aliens boost Mitkey’s intelligence, and learn about the Earth through examining his memories. Amusingly, because heavily accented English is the only language Mitkey has heard, he speaks the same way, and so do the aliens who learned from him. They send Mitkey home with a machine that can boost the intelligence of other mice, planning for him and his kin to disrupt human civilization. But fortunately for humanity, the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry… Fredric Brown (1906-1972) was a popular science fiction author, best known for his humorous approach in works like the novel Martians, Go Home. This is the first time I have looked at Brown’s work in this column. Raymond Z. Gallun’s “Return of a Legend” is an atmospheric tale that follows the adventures of some of the first humans on Mars, who hear the call of the wild, and leave the fledgling Earth colony for life on their own (read it here). This Mars is much harsher than the planet as it was portrayed in many planetary romances, although still more habitable than the world our space probes have revealed. There is life clinging to the planet in all sorts of interesting forms, along with the ruins left by a lost intelligent race. The story is full of compelling adventure, as one person after another leaves the colony to find a way to live on their own terms. Raymond Z. Gallun (1911-1994) was an American science fiction author who was a prolific contributor to the field, especially in the pre-WWII pulp magazines. This is the first time I have looked at Gallun’s work in this column. In the “Quest of Thig,” by Basil Wells, alien warriors of the “Horde” capture a human being, and one of them, Thig, is imprinted with his memories and surgically altered to resemble him—a process so convincing that even his wife and children are fooled (read it here). Thig is a scout whose job is to determine whether the Earth is ripe for conquest, and like others of his kind, he’s beem raised without love or affection. But in his months on Earth, he learns that there are other ways to live, and in the end, it is not military might that saves the Earth, but simply the love of a wife and children for their husband and father. Basil Wells (1912-2003) was an American writer of short stories in science fiction and other genres. This is the first time I have looked at Wells’ work in this column. Keith Bennett’s “The Rocketeers Have Shaggy Ears” is one of my favorite science fiction stories of all time, a gritty and realistic tale of survival (read it here). A ship full of “Rocketeers,” members of a new branch of the military, has crashed miles away from their Venus base, and the unit must fight the rest of the way through forbidding jungles full of dangerous plants, animals, and even hostile intelligent inhabitants. Due to scarce resources, the Rocketeers are at risk of being disbanded, and their members incorporated back into the older branches of the military. They are desperate for a success that will prove their worth. And if they can survive, the small band of warriors making their way through the jungle may provide the spark the new service needs. There is little information on author Keith Bennett on the internet, and this is the first time I have looked at his work in this column. What little information I could find on Bennett was contained in an older Reactor article by David Drake, who cited this story as an early influence on his work, and you can certainly see that influence in Drake’s novel Redliners. “The Diversifal,” by Ross Rocklynne, is a tale of time travel. Bryan Barrett is told by a man who has traveled back in time that he and a woman he will meet will have a child who becomes the catalyst for the end of humanity. The time traveler constantly meddles with Bryan’s life, and the two grow to hate each other. But with the fate of the world in the balance, how important is one man’s happiness? I’ve only reviewed Rocklynne’s work once in this column (find it here), and you can find biographical information in that review. Poul Anderson, always an entertaining writer, gives us “Duel on Syrtis,” a gripping tale of hunter and hunted (read it here). Riordan, a ruthless human big-game hunter who has killed his way across the solar system, wants to hunt a Martian native, or “owlie.” An unscrupulous local agent helps him identify a target, a wily old warrior named Kreega, who in his time was a fierce opponent of human imperialism during the conquest of Mars. Riordan scatters radioactive material to trap Kreega within a five-mile radius of his home, and the hunt begins. The human has a heavy rifle, survival gear, and support from a trained Martian hound and hawk. But this is Kreega’s planet, and his home turf. Soon the roles of hunted and hunter are reversed, and the story ends with a twist worthy of an Edgar Allan Poe tale. You can find my most recent review of Anderson’s work here, which contains links to my other reviews of his work, and biographical information on the author. Final Thoughts The Best of Planet Stories #1 is an excellent collection of tales from the mid-20th century, proof that not all good science fiction of the era was printed in the pages of Astounding. While not every tale in Planet Stories was worthy of note, Brackett makes a good case that, at its best, the magazine could stand equal to the finest of the genre. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these tales, and on science fiction adventure stories in general. And I’m curious to hear what science fiction works you’ve been disappointed to find falling into the category of “one and done.”[end-mark] The post In Defense of Adventure Tales: <i>The Best of Planet Stories #1</i> by Leigh Brackett appeared first on Reactor.

As recently as two years ago, only three states banned surgeries on children to address gender dysphoria, up from just one a year earlier. Today, exactly half the states have such bans, and more are considering them. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in a Tennessee case challenging those bans on Dec. 4. These procedures, advocates insist, almost never happen and are largely a myth concocted by the Right to scare people. As the LGBTQ+ magazine Them put it, “Contrary to modern conservative propaganda, gender-affirming surgeries for minors are exceptionally rare.” Similarly, the Human Rights Campaign rebuts what it alleges is a “concerted disinformation campaign” by declaring that with “rare exceptions,” “transgender and nonbinary people typically do not have gender-affirming surgeries before the age of 18.” The Association of American Medical Colleges echoes that theme, asserting that this type of “surgery among youth is rare.” But just how rare are these surgeries on children? According to a new study by the medical advocacy group Do No Harm, 5,747 sex-change surgeries were performed on children in the U.S. between 2019 and 2023. Given that there are about 12.5 million children between the ages of 15 and 17—the ages of minors who receive these surgeries—the annual rate of surgeries to remove and modify sex traits and organs on children works out to be 9.2 per 100,000. That rate might sound very rare until you compare it to other rates involving children. For example, drowning kills about 0.8 per 100,000 young people between the ages of 14 and 17 each year. That means such deaths are about 1/11th as common than gender surgeries among children of roughly the same ages. But we don’t act as if drowning deaths among children are so rare as to be inconsequential. Instead, we devote significant resources to ensuring that lifeguards are present at beaches and pools. We push families to enroll their children in swimming lessons. Indeed, the AAMC is so concerned about drowning deaths that it joined other organizations in crafting a letter earlier this year urging Congress to avoid cuts in funding to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control that would “eliminate several key programs,” including “drowning prevention.” The AAMC even cited increased drowning deaths as a reason to fight climate change, listing drowning as one of “the particular health risks that climate change poses to people in coastal areas.” Yet that same organization wants you to believe that major surgeries that often destroy the sexual functions of children—a procedure 11 times more common among teenagers than drowning deaths—are “rare.” The Do No Harm study identifies a “Dirty Dozen” set of hospitals that it considers the biggest promoters of sex-change procedures for children. You might expect that most of the Dirty Dozen would be located in deep-blue liberal states, where there was the most interest from potential patients and the strongest support from state politicians. But both the No. 1 and No. 11 hospitals on Do No Harm’s Dirty Dozen list are located in the decidedly purple state of Pennsylvania. The Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania—ironically known by the acronym CHOP—is identified as the dirtiest of the Dirty Dozen and UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh comes in 11th. Pennsylvania policymakers considered legislation to restrict insurance payment for these procedures, but officials at these two hospitals successfully opposed those efforts. You can’t fool people forever. Eventually people realize that sex trait-modifying surgeries are happening on children in alarming numbers. And eventually people in purple states realize that their leading medical institutions are promoting procedures that run counter to their state’s values. Pennsylvania may be among the dirtiest of the Dirty Dozen performing these ghoulish procedures on children, but that cannot last. Eventually, policymakers there and in the rest of the states will end these barbaric practices, and it can go from allegedly “rare” to truly nonexistent. The post How ‘Rare’ Are Sex-Trait Modification Surgeries on Children? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. On Monday, the New York Times reached out to mostly conservative figures Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson, and up to 30 others, seeking their input for an article examining the political discourse surrounding the upcoming elections on YouTube. The request, as detailed by the commentators on the social media platform X, cited an analysis by Media Matters for America, a left-leaning activist group known for its online censorship pressure. A snippet from the Times’ message to both pundits read: “I wanted to give you an opportunity to comment on an upcoming article that takes a look at how political commentators have discussed the upcoming elections on YouTube. We rely on an analysis conducted by researchers at Media Matters for America.” Established in 2004 by journalist and activist David Brock, who is described by Time magazine as “one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party,” Media Matters consistently targets what it perceives as conservative misinformation online and in the media. The organization came into the limelight last year following a defamation lawsuit by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who alleged that Media Matters had deliberately juxtaposed images of advertiser content on X’s platform with extremist content, seeking to create a false association. The communication from the Times also mentioned the demonetization of election-related content on YouTube, referring to a study from Media Matters which pointed out 286 videos spreading allegedly false election information. The implication appears to be that the commentators should be demonetized and punished for their commentary. Shapiro publicly criticized the Times’ use of Media Matters’ data, expressing skepticism about the motivations behind the article. He argued that the newspaper aimed to influence YouTube into penalizing conservative content creators, particularly as the election neared. He sharply remarked: “What, precisely, is NYT doing? It’s perfectly obvious: using research from Media Matters, a radical Left-wing organization whose sole purpose is destroying conservative media (see below), in order to pressure YouTube to demonetize and penalize any and all conservatives ONE WEEK FROM THE ELECTION,” adding, “That’s the entire game here. Run an article in America’s ‘most trusted newspaper’ that declares pretty much every major conservative a purveyor of ‘misinformation’ on YouTube, thus strong-arming YouTube into taking action against conservatives.” Shapiro emphatically concluded his response with, “So, The New York Times wants comment? Here’s my comment: kindly, go f*ck yourself.” Carlson’s response echoed Shapiro’s discontent. He accused the Times of collaborating with what he termed a “left-wing hate group” to undermine critics of the Democratic Party, stating: “So the New York Times is working with a left-wing hate group to silence critics of the Democratic Party? Please ask yourself why you’re participating in it,” he said. “This is why you got into journalism? It’s shameful. I hope you’re filled with guilt and self-loathing for sending me a text like this. Please quote me.” When asked to further comment on the subject, Carlson bluntly refused, further criticizing the approach of the reporter: “Would I like to participate in your attempt to censor me? No thanks,” Carlson asserted. “But I do hope you’ll quote what I wrote above and also note that I told you to fuck off, which I am now doing. Thanks.” The New York Times hit piece is expected to drop as early as tonight. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post New York Times Leverages Pro-Censorship Group To Pressure YouTube Against Political Commentators appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

DNC Operatives CBS Working Overtime to Earn a Top Spot on Trump's Hit Lit

PM Keir Starmer's Approval Rating Drops Off a Cliff as He Rolls Out First Budget

The young are thought to measure just 6 centimeters (2.4 inches) when first born.

Sometimes there’s only safety in numbers in the middle – it just attracts attention to everyone else.

CNN’s very own Anderson Cooper and newly-rehired Brian Stelter got together and, in an exchange devoid of fundamental self-awareness, chided Jeff Bezos for pulling the plug on endorsements at The Washington Post. The two went right to the line of accusing Bezos of improprieties, with a hysterical Stelter suggesting that this is the beginning of autocracy. Below is video of that full exchange (click “expand” to view transcript): CNN ANDERSON COOPER 360 10/28/24 8:56 PM ANDERSON COOPER: More breaking news tonight: Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos is defending his decision that the paper not endorse a presidential candidate this year. This, as thousands of Washington Post  readers canceling their subscriptions and at least three members of their editorial board quit over the move. Tonight, Bezos wrote an op-ed for the paper with the headline, quote, “The hard truth: Americans don't trust the news media- a note from our owner.” Bezos argues and I quote, “presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election.” He adds, what presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it's the right one.” Joining us with more, CNN Chief Media Analyst, Brian Stelter. It's interesting that he wrote this, you know,  “presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election.” BRIAN STELTER: Right. COOPER: Is that what this is about?  STELTER: For Bezos, it might be. And this might be the right decision., but at the wrong time. And he acknowledged this in his note tonight. By the way, I've never seen him write an essay like this. It's a reaction to the unprecedented pressure the Post is under. But I think he wrote this tonight because tens of thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands of subscribers have bailed on the Post in the past few days. Even more might do it in the days to come out of a fear that he's capitulating to Donald Trump, that he's giving in to Trump. Bezos is saying that's not the case. He's doing this and says principled decision, but he's doing it on the eve of an election. And that's really the issue at the heart of this. He acknowledges maybe he had some poor timing, maybe he should have announced this earlier, but he's doing it because he wants to win back people's trust over time. In the short-term, though, he's lost a lot of his audience's trust.  COOPER: The- he also wrote, “there's no quid pro quo of anytime or there's- no quid-pro-quo of any kind is at work here.” That's a quote. The head of his Blue Origin had met with Trump, apparently, on the day the announcement was made, he says he didn't know about that meeting and it was an unfortunate… STELTER: Total coincidence, that’s right. A person close to Bezos says, no, there's nothing to do with it. There's no quid pro quo. Here's the thing: there's hard pressure, a quid pro quo, a deal with Trump, and then there's a form of soft pressure. And the real concern I'm hearing from Post reporters, from editors, from columnists, is it that- the form of soft pressure being applied here. The author of On Tyranny, Timothy Snyder, has talked for years about the idea of obeying in advance. That in democracies that are sliding toward autocracies, people try to obey in advance. That wealthy businessmen, the media leaders, that powerful people start to give in to the aspiring authoritarian whims in advance. And that's exactly the concern that exists here. In fact, Snyder came out over the weekend, said that's what he thinks is happening at The Washington Post  and The Los Angeles Times.  COOPER: Has Bezos said who he would vote for in this election? STELTER: He has not. But the paper under Bezos, when he owned the paper, did endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016, and endorsed Joe Biden in 2020. Strangely, Anderson, the paper actually endorsed the Maryland Senate Democrat candidate for the Senate just four weeks ago. So  this sudden change in endorsement, it's the timing that's created such controversy. COOPER: The owner of The Los Angeles Times sudden not to endorse as well. STELTER: Yes. And there's been the same kind of fallout. Not quite as many subscriber losses, but there as well, more than 10,000 subscribers canceling subscriptions. Basically an active protest. The only kind of protest that an audience member can have if you're paying for a publication that you can back out and the fear at both The L.A. Times and The Washington Post  is the same. That these owners are giving in to pressure from Trump ahead of the election, expecting that he will win. It's interesting Bezos cites of former editor or owner, I think, of The Washington Post  back, I think, decades and decades ago as somebody who didn't want there to be endorsements. COOPER: Right. STELTER: And this is true 50, 60 years ago, the Post did not endorse. But in modern history thePost has. More importantly, for a lot of the Post columnists, the opinion writers, they don't believe it is as important to endorse Harris as it is to condemn Donald Trump. They believe Trump is a threat to the American free press, and that he will impose draconian restrictions. And those fears are palpable in other newsrooms as well. I think that's why this story has resonated so wide and so far. But Bezos, he's saying he's trying to do the right thing, trying to restore trust in the media.  COOPER: Brian Stelter. Thanks so much. STELTER: Right. It is interesting that Stelter gets trotted out to talk about compliance here. STELTER, of all people, who did everything demanded of him by Jeff Zucker, no matter how ridiculous and over the top, which contributed in no small part to the absolute cratering of CNN’s ratings, which continues to this day.  That cratering bolsters the Bezos argument that underlies this segment, which is that no one trusts the media anymore. To put a finer point on it, people no longer trust the Regime Media. Thus, we witness Cooper but mostly Stelter fueling conspiratorial talk about quid pro quo and about the supposed chilling of speech, and of  voluntary compliance ahead of the incoming Trump Dictatorship. A more serious CNN would have contemplated the reasons underlying the public’s loss of trust in the media. “Democracy died” both in bias by omission and bias by commission. Bezos, at least, was honest enough to recognize this- even if his newsroom and their peers at CNN have not.  

A Republican Party official was arrested at a polling station in Pennsylvania on Monday after she repeatedly encouraged voters to stay in line despite the lengthy wait.On Monday, a video of the arrest of a woman at a polling station in Delaware County went viral. "Do not get out of line," the woman insists as several officers place her in handcuffs. They then escort her out of the area where many people were standing in line."Wow!" the man filming the arrest repeatedly states. "You locked her up? That is insane, man!" "That's crazy."The woman arrested on the video was later identified as Val Biancaniello, a Pennsylvania Republican Party state committeewoman.'President Trump's supporters should not be intimidated at the polls.'Following the incident, Biancaniello claimed on X that an official with the Delaware County Bureau of Elections had told people gathered at the polling station that they "should only be in this line if [they] have a pressing reason to vote."Biancaniello called such a directive "VOTER SUPPRESSION." "No one requires a 'pressing need' to vote by mail," her X comment continued, "that is why it is called 'no excuse mail in voting.'"Biancaniello also alleged that an elections worker warned voters that the lines could be hours long, ostensibly in an effort to dissuade them from staying. "Can you imagine if we said this to a long line of Democrat voters?" she asked rhetorically.Biancaniello claimed she was marched out of the area, handcuffed to a bench, and later released with a citation for disorderly conduct."I will fight that. I broke NO laws. I encouraged people to stay in line and vote. There are plenty of witnesses who know the truth," her X comment added.A woman standing in line alleged in the video of the arrest that Biancaniello had been "influencing people," but the man filming the video denied that accusation. "She is not influencing people," he immediately replied. "She is not at all."Pennsylvania law forbids voter intimidation.RNC co-chair Michael Whatley shared the video on X, claiming that it showed the left engaging in "voter suppression.""A supporter of President Trump's was arrested today for encouraging people to stay in the early voting line and cast their ballots freely in Pennsylvania," he wrote. "This follows reports from across the commonwealth that voters are being turned away in conservative areas. This is voter suppression from the left. Do not let them turn you away. GO VOTE!"The Trump campaign likewise released a statement calling the incident an example of "voter suppression.""Election officials in Pennsylvania must immediately secure a fair and transparent election for Pennsylvania voters," the statement said in part. "President Trump's supporters should not be intimidated at the polls."Neither Biancaniello nor the Delaware County Bureau of Elections responded to a request for comment from Blaze News.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump released a poignant campaign advertisement on Monday afternoon that illustrates the heartbreaking consequences of the Biden-Harris administration’s open-border policies.The ad features Alexis Nungaray, the mother of 12-year-old Jocelyn, who was allegedly brutally murdered by two illegal aliens from Venezuela. The men were initially captured by Border Patrol and released into the interior of the country just weeks before the murder in Houston, Texas.'I truly believe this all could have been prevented.'The suspects, Johan Jose Martinez-Rangel, 22, and Franklin Jose Peña Ramos, 26, are being investigated for potential ties to the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which has increased its presence in the U.S. under the current administration’s leadership.On June 17, 2024, the men allegedly lured Jocelyn under a bridge as she was walking back home from a nearby convenience store. The suspects were accused of stripping her, binding her hands and ankles, sexually assaulting her for hours, and ultimately strangling her to death.In Trump’s latest campaign ad, Jocelyn’s mother details the horrific murder and reaffirms her support of more robust border policies.Alexis Nungaray said she woke up that morning to find her daughter was not home. She noticed her phone’s location was pinging a couple of minutes from their home. “I start driving to the direction the phone was being pinged at, and I see a couple cop cars with lights on. I see yellow tape. And immediately my heart drops and sinks to the bottom of my stomach,” Nungaray stated.“Kamala Harris was in charge of immigration and our borders,” she continued. “If we had better border policies and not open border and not these catch-and-release policies, I truly believe this all could have been prevented.”“Under her being vice president of this country, my daughter’s life was ripped away from her,” Nungaray added. “She had her entire life ahead of her. My daughter is six feet in the ground based off of policies that she allowed to keep. Kamala Harris did have one job, and she not only failed, not me, she failed my daughter.”Nungaray explained that Trump reached out to her after Jocelyn’s murder and gave her “his sincerest condolences as not a former president, but just as a father — someone who cares.”She stated that with Trump back in office, “I can at least know that my next child will be safe in this country.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!