AG Steve Marshall opposes redefining “Sex” as “Gender Identity” in schools
On Monday, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall filed formal comment letters with the U.S. Department of Education opposing the Biden administration’s proposed Title IX rule to change the meaning of “sex” to “gender identity.” Opponents argue that this is an attempt to abolish female-only sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms in America’s schools. “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits schools that receive federal funding from discriminating ‘on the basis of sex,’ has played an important role in protecting the rights of women for half a century,” said AG Marshall. “Yet, during the 50th anniversary year of this landmark law, the Biden administration has launched an assault on women’s equality by undermining the very foundation of Title IX.” This effort to do away with gender specificity dates back to the waning days of the Obama Administration. In 2016, the State of Alabama joined a coalition of states to fight guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education purporting to require public schools to comply with many of the same provisions contained in the proposed Joe Biden rule. That guidance was halted by a federal district judge and was later rescinded by President Donald Trump. “President Biden’s proposed Title IX rule would erase all the gains made by women over the last five decades, denying them equal access to education programs and activities by allowing anyone who identifies as a woman to enter spaces and join activities designated for women alone,” Marshall commented. “As a result, women will lose opportunities and scholarships, not to mention be subjected to a greater risk for physical assault from potential predators. Equally disturbing, Biden’s proposed new Title IX rule forces schools to allow students to identify as a sex opposite to their biological sex, effectively stripping the right of parents to raise their children how they choose. In one fell swoop, the Biden administration will not only have reinstituted discrimination upon women in America’s schools, but it will have also upended the primary role of the family to safeguard the wellbeing of their children.” “The Alabama Legislature has already taken strong steps to protect our female students from genderless sports and bathrooms,” Marshall continued. “I will continue to do everything in my power to preserve our state’s sovereignty over these matters and am glad to join my fellow attorneys general and millions of Americans in demanding that the Biden administration immediately withdraw its fundamentally flawed proposed rule.” Monday’s letter was also signed by the state of Indiana, Tennessee, and Ohio. U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville has also recently spoken out against the Biden administration’s radical redefining of gender in America’s schools. “Congress made clear its intention to establish Title IX as a prohibition on discrimination against women at institutions that received Federal financial assistance,” Tuberville wrote. “By broadening the definition of “sex” based on weakly-associated case law and polarizing social concepts adopted by the progressive left, the intent of the law is destroyed, and women are marginalized yet again,” wrote Senator Tuberville.” “This proposed rule is a monumental setback for the generations of women who have benefited from Title IX’s enactment over the last fifty years,” Tuberville continued. “The Department should not move forward with this proposed rule, but instead, work with Congress on legislative action meant to strengthen the protections afforded women in the original statute.” Tuberville, best known for his coaching of college football, began his coaching career coaching girls high school basketball. Opponents to the radical new rule argue that by allowing students to declare their gender, rather than the sex they were actually born with, males will be able to compete in women’s sports, and actual women will get fewer and fewer scholarships, roster spots, and opportunities to play. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Bill Chitwood: A MAGA call to action following Joe Biden’s Red Speech
It’s being called the Red Speech, the Bloody Speech, and even Bloody Thursday. The White House calls it “Remarks…On the Continued Battle for the Soul of the Nation”. Time will tell what label it ultimately carries down in history, but one thing is certain. Thursday, September 1, 2022, was THE speech that will define Joe Biden’s presidency. The iconic picture has been seared into the national consciousness: Joe Biden, arms outstretched behind the Presidential podium, Independence Hall bathed in blood-red with white wings above and uniformed troops below. If you’re a fan of WWII documentaries on the History Channel, it was all too familiar in a nightmarish, I-can’t-believe-they-did-that kind of way. The staging was calculated to convey a message of strength and authority in support of a President with dismal ratings, an abysmal performance in office, and lingering (and steadily growing) concerns about the legitimacy of his election. What it did was invoke images of Nuremberg rallies, and the very Nazis Biden and his cronies accuse MAGA Republicans of being. The rhetoric started with the usual platitudes. Biden invoked the Declaration and the Constitution. He spoke about ‘We, the People.’ And then, he called his main political rival and all those who support him “an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” What’s more, Biden didn’t stop there. “But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country,” he said. The huge grinding sound just then was millions of brains stripping their mental gears. Threat to the country? Did he just say that we’re threats to democracy? Enemies of the State? No, he couldn’t; he wouldn’t…yeah, he did. As the shock set in, the rest of what Biden said just slid by. It was the most un-Presidential thing many of us can ever remember, even during the most vicious of elections. This wasn’t merely campaign rhetoric–it came across to many, on both sides of the aisle, as tantamount to a declaration of war against Biden’s opponents. President of all the people, Joe? Seriously? When you’ve just called 70+ million of Americans “threats to democracy”? The rest of the Red Speech was pretty standard Democrat pre-election fare: Big Lies about the election, economy, what evil things the Right does (basically, a laundry list of the Left’s playbook, projected on those across the aisle), and how awesome a future fueled by trans-empowered unicorn flatulence and pixie dust is going to be. As an exercise in primitive, infantile defense mechanisms thinly disguised as political rhetoric, the transcript is worth reading. Otherwise, now that the shock has worn off, it’s hardly worth the time. What will make the Red Speech remembered is just how far over the line it went, and how it perfectly laid out the mindset of the Democratic Party and its radical Leftist controllers in the 2022 election cycle. Old Joe said the country was at an “inflection point”. The Red Speech made sure of it. Biden’s handlers obviously realized they’d gone too far when the very next day, Biden repudiated his own statements about MAGA Republicans being “threats”. Of course, there are still the comments about MAGA Patriots being semi-fascists, and needing f-15s, and all the rest, but hey! Joe backtracked himself, so it’s okay, right? Sorry, no. What’s said is said. The country has been polarized for years, and it’s only been increasing since Biden took office. A YouGov.com poll done August 20-23 and released less than a week before the Red Speech showed that 66% of Americans thought political divisions had gotten worse since 2021, and 60% anticipate an increase in political violence in the next few years. Worryingly, 14% of Americans think a civil war is “very likely in the next decade”, and 43% say it’s “at least somewhat likely.” If you’re a “strong Republican”–one of those who Biden calls a “threat to this country”, those numbers are 22% and 33%, respectively. A poll by the Southern Poverty Law Center earlier this year found much the same. After the Red Speech? Five days later, the Trafalgar Group released a reaction poll, and 56.8% of all respondents asked about the Red Speech agreed that “It represents a dangerous escalation in rhetoric and is designed to incite conflict among Americans.” This wasn’t just a bunch of extreme Ultra MAGA semi-fascists. 18.7% of Democrats and 62.4% of Independents agreed with 89.1% of Republicans on this issue. YouGov’s trackers show that 52% of respondents think the economy is “getting worse,” and 63% think the country is going in the “wrong direction” isn’t helping, either. History’s verdict will be a long time coming, but right now, the Red Speech is shaping up to be the biggest Presidential event screw-up since Richard Nixon tried to cover up his 5 o’clock shadow with pancake makeup before his first debate with JFK. It was Barack Obama’s “bitter clingers” and Hillary Clinton’s “basket of Deplorables” on steroids, staged by Leni Riefenstahl and delivered by the Hair Sniffer in Chief. The Red Speech portends what we can expect if MAGA candidates lose in 2022. The Left believes it successfully won (or “reinforced”, without any real consequences) the election of 2020. With their Hopium Dreams of a Happy No-Carbon Climate, Diverse, Inclusive, Equitable Utopia so close at hand, they have no incentive NOT to do the same thing in this cycle, and again in 2024. The only thing standing in their way are those evil extremist semi-fascist Ultra MAGA Republicans and the Orange Man Bad who leads them. And so, the Red Speech was given, the gauntlet thrown, and the stakes made plain. If the denizens of the Left are allowed to continue unchecked, the full force of the Regime will be unleashed on the MAGA Movement. Lois Lerner’s IRS persecution of Tea Party members will be a fond memory compared to what Biden’s 87K “lethal force” IRS agents will do to every MAGA supporter
Obamas return to the White House, unveil official portraits
Former President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, returned to the White House Wednesday, unveiling official portraits with a modern vibe in an event that set humor and nostalgia over his presidency against the current harsh political talk about the survival of democracy. While her husband cracked a few jokes about his gray hair, big ears, and clothes in his portrait, Mrs. Obama, a descendant of slaves, said the occasion for her was more about the promise of America for people like herself. “Barack and Michelle, welcome home,” declared President Joe Biden as the gathering cheered. Biden, who was Obama’s vice president, praised his former boss’ leadership on health care, the economy, and immigration and said nothing could have prepared him any better for being president than serving with Obama for those eight years. “It was always about doing what was right,” he said. The portrait of Obama, America’s 44th and first Black president, doesn’t look like any of his predecessors, nor does Michelle Obama’s look like any of the women who filled the role before her. Obama stands expressionless against a white background, wearing a black suit and gray tie in the portrait by Robert McCurdy that looks more like a large photograph than an oil-on-canvas portrait. The former first lady, her lips pursed, is seated on a sofa in the Red Room in a strapless, light blue dress. She chose artist Sharon Sprung for her portrait. Scores of former members of Obama’s administration were on hand for the big reveal. Obama noted that some of them in the East Room audience had started families in the intervening years and feigned disappointment “that I haven’t heard of anyone naming a kid Barack or Michelle.” He thanked McCurdy for his work, joking that the artist, who is known for his paintings of public figures from Nelson Mandela to the Dalai Lama, had ignored his pleas for fewer gray hairs and smaller ears. “He also talked me out of wearing a tan suit, by the way,” Obama quipped, referring to a widely panned appearance as president in the unflattering suit. Obama went on to say his wife was the “best thing about living in the White House,” and he thanked Sprung for “capturing everything I love about Michelle, her grace, her intelligence — and the fact that she’s fine.” Michelle Obama, when it was her turn, laughingly opened by saying she had to thank her husband for “such spicy remarks.” To which he retorted, by way of explanation, “I’m not running again.” Then the former first lady turned serious, drawing a connection between unveiling the portraits and America’s promise for people with backgrounds like her own, a daughter of working-class parents from the South Side of Chicago. “For me, this day is not just about what has happened,” she said. “It’s also about what could happen, because a girl like me, she was never supposed to be up there next to Jacqueline Kennedy and Dolley Madison. She was never supposed to live in this house, and she definitely wasn’t supposed to serve as first lady.” Mrs. Obama said the portraits are a “reminder that there’s a place for everyone in this country.” Tradition holds that the sitting president invites his immediate predecessor back to the White House to unveil his portrait, but Donald Trump broke with that custom and did not host Obama. So, Biden scheduled a ceremony for his former boss. Mrs. Obama said the tradition matters “not just for those of us who hold these positions, but for everyone participating in and watching our democracy.” In remarks that never mentioned Trump but made a point as he continues to challenge his 2020 reelection loss, she added: “You see the people, they make their voices heard with their vote. We hold an inauguration to ensure a peaceful transition of power … and once our time is up, we move on.” McCurdy, meanwhile, said his “stripped down” style of portraiture helps create an “encounter” between the person in the painting and the person looking at it. “They have plain white backgrounds, nobody gestures, nobody — there are no props because we’re not here to tell the story of the person that’s sitting for them,” McCurdy told the White House Historical Association during an interview for its “1600 Sessions” podcast. “We’re here to create an encounter between the viewer and the sitter,” he said. “We’re telling as little about the sitter as possible so that the viewer can project onto them.” He works from a photograph of his subject, selected from about 100 images, and spends at least a year on each portrait. Subjects have no say in how the painting looks. McCurdy said he knows he’s done “when it stops irritating me.” Obama’s portrait went on display in the Grand Foyer, the traditional showcase for paintings of the two most recent presidents. His portrait replaced Bill Clinton’s near the stairway to the residence, the White House tweeted Wednesday night. George W. Bush’s portrait hangs on the wall opposite Obama’s in the foyer. Mrs. Obama’s portrait was hung one floor below on the Ground Floor, joining predecessors Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Laura Bush, according to the tweet. Two spokespeople for Trump did not respond to emailed requests for comment on whether artists have begun work on White House portraits for Trump and former first lady Melania Trump. Work, however, is underway on a separate pair of Trump portraits bound for the collection held by the National Portrait Gallery, a Smithsonian museum. The White House Historical Association, a nonprofit organization founded in 1961 by first lady Jacqueline Kennedy and funded through private donations and sales of books and an annual Christmas ornament, helps manage the White House portrait process. Since the 1960s, the association has paid for most of the portraits in the collection. Congress bought the first painting in the collection, of George Washington. Other portraits of early presidents and first ladies often came to the White House as gifts. Republished with the permission of The
Florida judge who approved FBI warrant for raid on Mar-a-Lago was assigned to Donald Trump lawsuit against Clintons
Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, the Florida judge who approved the warrant for the FBI raid of former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, was formerly assigned to oversee a lawsuit in which Trump sued Hillary Clinton. He also previously represented former convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s employees in a sex trafficking case. In the case of Trump v. Clinton, Trump sued Hillary Clinton on March 24, 2022. He also sued the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, LLC, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Halliday Dolan Jr., Jakes Sullivan, John Podesta, Fusion GPS, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, and many others. The lawsuit alleges that Clinton “and her cohorts … maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent [Trump] was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.” The scheme included “falsifying evidence, deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly sensitive data sources,” and was “conceived, coordinated and carried out by top-level officials at the Clinton Campaign and the DNC.” Reinhart was assigned to the case on April 6, 2022, after the previous magistrate judge, Ryon McCabe, was recused. On April 15, Reinhart conducted a scheduling conference in the case, according to court documents obtained by The Center Square. He oversaw scheduling of a June 2 status conference on May 4 and 31 and oversaw the actual conference. Reinhart also signed another order on June 14, setting another status conference for July 6, but by June 22 Reinhart canceled the conference and recused himself. Less than two months later, on Monday, August 9, he signed a warrant for the FBI to raid Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate over an alleged dispute over White House documents. The search warrant remains under seal, and Trump’s attorney has told news outlets that they don’t know what the probable cause was to justify issuing the warrant, also maintaining Trump’s innocence and that he didn’t commit a crime. Many officials have called for the warrant to be unsealed, including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, has called for a congressional investigation into the raid, also saying the FBI’s tactics were like those of a third-world dictatorship. Rubio said, “the Justice Department under Joe Biden decided to raid … the home of the former president who might … be running against him … This is what happens in places like Nicaragua where last year every single person who ran against Daniel Ortega for president, every single person that put their name on the ballot, was arrested and is still in jail. That’s what you see in places like Nicaragua. We’ve never seen that before in America. You can try and diminish it, but that’s exactly what happened.” Gov. Ron DeSantis said the raid was a “weaponization of federal agencies against the Regime’s political opponents.” The White House has declined to comment on the raid, saying it was not made aware of it before it took place. The document dispute stems from a disagreement over which documents in Trump’s possession are presidential records or not. Under the Presidential Records Act, some records in question should have been transferred to the National Archives in January 2021 when Trump left office, the institution said in a statement at the time. Instead, Reinhart authorized the FBI to execute the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, which Trump said was “prosecutorial misconduct.” According to a report by the New York Post, Reinhart previously represented several of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s employees in a sex trafficking investigation. His ties to Epstein’s employees was first reported on by the Miami Herald, with whom he confirmed that clients were Epstein’s pilots, his scheduler, Sarah Kellen, and a woman Nadia Marcinkova. Reinhart also donated to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, according to the Post. Prior to becoming a magistrate judge in 2018, he spent ten years in private practice, according to Bloomberg News. He previously worked as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. According to Law.com, the Palm Beach Federal Court removed Reinhart’s contact information from the court’s website Tuesday. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Joe Biden nominates utility’s ex-board chair to rejoin panel
President Joe Biden has nominated the former board chairman of the nation’s largest public utility to rejoin the panel. Huntsville, Alabama attorney Joe Ritch is Biden’s pick to return to the board of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Ritch left the federal utility’s board in 2017 after a Republican-controlled Senate failed the previous year to confirm former President Barack Obama’s reappointment of Ritch and two others. Obama nominated Ritch to the board in 2012. The Senate confirmed him in 2013, and the board voted to make him chairman in 2014. The nine-member board currently has four vacancies, not counting two sitting members who are still serving after their terms expired in May. The seats come with five-year terms, but when a board member’s term expires, that person can keep serving until the end of the current congressional session, typically in December, or until their successors take office, whatever comes first. Ritch would fill a vacant seat with a term expiring in May 2025. Board member Beth Harwell’s run for U.S. House this election cycle could add more uncertainty if she wins. Ritch now joins five other Biden board picks awaiting Senate confirmation. Three of them were nominated in April 2021. The other two — Lyon County, Kentucky Judge, Executive Adam Wade White, and Bill Renick, a former Ashland, Mississippi mayor and state lawmaker — were nominated in June. Once confirmed, the nominees would give Biden a majority that could reshape the federal utility, which now features only board members appointed by former President Donald Trump. Environmental advocates have urged the new Democrat-appointed board members, once installed, to move more quickly in transitioning to 100% carbon-free electricity, citing the Biden administration’s goal of a carbon-pollution-free energy sector by 2035. TVA has set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2035, compared to 2005 levels. The utility has its own aspirational goal of net zero emissions by 2050. TVA provides electricity for 153 local power companies serving 10 million people in Tennessee and parts of six surrounding states, in addition to large industrial customers and federal operations. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Unexpected deal would boost Biden Administration pledge on climate change
An unexpected deal reached by Senate Democrats would be the most ambitious action ever taken by the United States to address global warming and could help President Joe Biden come close to meeting his pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, experts said Thursday, as they sifted through a massive bill that revives action on climate change weeks after the legislation appeared dead. The deal would spend nearly $370 billion over ten years to boost electric vehicles, jump-start renewable energy such as solar and wind power, and develop alternative energy sources like hydrogen. The deal stunned lawmakers and activists who had given up hope that legislation could be enacted after West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin said he could not support the measure because of inflation concerns. While analysts were still studying the 725-page bill, the deal announced late Wednesday includes a long-term extension of clean energy tax credits that “could plausibly put the U.S. on track to reduce emissions by 40% in 2030,″ said Ben King, associate director of the Rhodium Group, an independent research firm. Additional action by the Biden administration and Democratic-controlled states could “help close the rest of the gap to the target of a 50-52% cut in emissions by 2030,″ King said. But approval of the bill is far from certain in a 50-50 Senate, where support from every Democrat will be needed to overcome unanimous Republican opposition. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who forced changes in earlier versions of the plan, declined to reveal her stance Thursday. In the narrowly divided House, Democrats can lose no more than four votes and prevail on a possible party-line vote. Still, Biden called the bill “historic” and urged quick passage. “We will improve our energy security and tackle the climate crisis — by providing tax credits and investments for energy projects,″ he said in a statement, adding that the bill “will create thousands of new jobs and help lower energy costs in the future.″ Environmental groups and Democrats also hailed the legislation. “This is an 11th-hour reprieve for climate action and clean energy jobs, and America’s biggest legislative moment for climate and energy policy,″ said Heather Zichal, CEO of America’s Clean Power, a clean energy group. “Passing this bill sends a message to the world that America is leading on climate and sends a message at home that we will create more great jobs for Americans in this industry,″ added Zichal, a former energy adviser to President Barack Obama. Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president of the League of Conservation Voters, summed up her reaction in a single word: “Wow!” Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., tweeted that she was “stunned, but in a good way.″ Manchin, who chairs the Senate energy panel, insisted that he had not changed his mind after he told Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer two weeks ago that he could not support the bill because of inflation concerns. “There should be no surprises. I’ve never walked away from anything in my life,″ he told reporters on a Zoom call from West Virginia, where he is recovering from COVID-19. Manchin called the bill an opportunity “to really give us an energy policy with security that we need for our nation” while also driving down inflation and high gasoline prices. The bill, which Manchin dubbed the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,” includes $300 billion for deficit reduction, as well as measures to lower prescription drug prices and extend subsidies to help Americans who buy health insurance on their own. Besides investments in renewable energy like wind and solar power, the bill includes incentives for consumers to buy energy-efficient appliances such as heat pumps and water heaters, electric vehicles, and rooftop solar panels. The bill creates a $4,000 tax credit for purchases of used electric vehicles and up to $7,500 for new EVs. The tax credit includes income limits for buyers and caps on sticker prices of new EVs — $80,000 for pickups, SUVs, and vans and $55,000 for smaller vehicles. A $25,000 limit would be set on used vehicles. Even with the restrictions, the credits should help stimulate already rising electric vehicle sales, said Jessica Caldwell, senior analyst for Edmunds.com. Electric vehicles accounted for about 5% of new vehicle sales in the U.S. in the first half of the year and are projected to reach up to 37% by 2030. The bill also invests over $60 billion in environmental justice priorities, including block grants to address disproportionate environmental and public health harms related to pollution and climate change in poor and disadvantaged communities. Beverly Wright, executive director of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, called the bill a step forward but said she was concerned about tax credits for “polluting industries” such as coal, oil, and gas. “We need bolder action to achieve environmental and climate justice for ourselves and future generations,″ she said. The bill would set a fee on excess methane emissions by oil and gas producers while offering up to $850 million in grants to industry to monitor and reduce methane. The bill’s mixture of tax incentives, grants, and other investments in clean energy, transportation, energy storage, home electrification, agriculture, and manufacturing “makes this a real climate bill,″ said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. “The planet is on fire. This is enormous progress. Let’s get it done.” But not all environmental groups were celebrating. The deal includes promises by Schumer and other Democratic leaders to pursue permitting reforms that Manchin called “essential to unlocking domestic energy and transmission projects,″ including a controversial natural gas pipeline planned in his home state and Virginia. More than 90% of the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline has been completed, but the project has been delayed by court battles and other issues. The pipeline should be “at the top of the heap” for federal approval, Manchin said and is a good example of why permitting reform is needed to speed energy project approvals. Manchin, a longtime supporter of coal and other fossil fuels, said environmental reviews of such major projects should be concluded within two years instead of lasting up
Joe Biden awards Medal of Freedom to Fred Gray, John McCain, Gabby Giffords
President Joe Biden on Thursday presented the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to 17 people, including gymnast Simone Biles, the late John McCain, the Arizona Republican whom Biden served with in the Senate, and gun-control advocate Gabby Giffords. “Today, she adds to her medal count,” Biden said as he introduced Biles, a former foster child whose 32 Olympic and World Championship medals make her the most decorated U.S. gymnast in history. “I don’t know how you’re going to find room,” for another medal, Biden joked. The 25-year-old is an advocate for athletes’ mental health, foster care children, and sexual assault victims. She’s also the youngest person to ever receive the medal, Biden said. The Democratic president, who took office at a critical point during the coronavirus pandemic, also honored Sandra Lindsay, the Queens, New York, nurse who was the first person to be vaccinated against COVID-19 outside of clinical trials during a live television appearance in December 2020. It was the first time Biden had awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His recipient list included both living and deceased honorees, some of them representing various stages of the president’s life, from the Catholic nuns who taught him as a boy growing up in Claymont, Delaware, to Republican lawmakers he served with in the Senate to a college professor like his wife, Jill, to advocates of tightening access to firearms. Biden introduced Giffords as “one of the most courageous people I have ever known.” The former Arizona congresswoman founded the organization named Giffords to campaign for an end to gun violence and restrictions on access to guns. The Democrat almost died after she was shot in the head in January 2011 during a constituent event in Tucson. Biden noted that he recently signed the most sweeping gun-control legislation in decades — though he and others would like even more restrictions — and credited Giffords and families like her own whose lives have been altered by gun violence for helping to make it happen. “She’s the embodiment of a single signature American trait: never, ever give up,” Biden said. Biden also recognized former Republican Sens. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and John McCain of Arizona, recalling a less partisan era of Washington in which members of different parties would argue over issues during the day and then meet over dinner at night. McCain died of brain cancer in 2018. He spent more than five years in captivity in Vietnam while serving in the U.S. Navy. He later represented Arizona in the House and Senate and was the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, competing against Democrats Barack Obama and Biden. Biden said he didn’t appreciate the political competition, but “I never stopped admiring John … I knew his honor, his courage, and commitment.” The 17 people receiving honors “have overcome significant obstacles to achieve impressive accomplishments in the arts and sciences, dedicated their lives to advocating for the most vulnerable among us, and acted with bravery to drive change in their communities, and across the world, while blazing trails for generations to come,” the White House said. Biden himself knows what it’s like to receive the medal. Then-President Obama honored Biden’s decades of public service by awarding him a Presidential Medal of Freedom “with distinction” during a ceremony shortly before they left office in January 2017. Biden closed the ceremony by declaring, “This is America.” The other 13 medal recipients are: — Sister Simone Campbell, a member of the Sister of Social Service and a former executive director of NETWORK, a Catholic social justice organization. — Julieta Garcia, a former president of the University of Texas at Brownsville. Garcia was the first Latina to become a college president, the White House said. — Fred Gray, one of the first Black members of the Alabama Legislature after Reconstruction. He was a prominent civil rights attorney who represented Rosa Parks, the NAACP, and Martin Luther King Jr. and, at age 91, continues to practice law. — Steve Jobs, the co-founder, chief executive and chair of Apple Inc. He died in 2011. — Father Alexander Karloutsos, the assistant to Archbishop Demetrios of America. Karloutsos has counseled several U.S. presidents, the White House said. Biden said he is “one of my dear friends.”ADVERTISEMENT — Khizr Khan, an immigrant from Pakistan, Khan’s Army officer son was killed in Iraq. Khan gained national prominence, and became a target of Donald Trump’s wrath, after speaking at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. — Diane Nash, a founding member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee who organized some of the most important 20th-century civil rights campaigns and worked with King. — Megan Rapinoe. The Olympic gold medalist and two-time Women’s World Cup soccer champion captains the OL Reign in the National Women’s Soccer League. She is a prominent advocate for gender pay equality, racial justice, and LGBTQI+ rights. Biden said she is the first soccer player to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. — Alan Simpson, who served in the Senate with Biden and has been a prominent advocate for campaign finance reform, responsible governance, and marriage equality. Biden called Simpson the “real deal” and joked that “he never takes himself too seriously nor takes me seriously.” — Richard Trumka, who had been president of the 12.5 million-member AFL-CIO for more than a decade at the time of his August 2021 death. He was a past president of the United Mine Workers. — Wilma Vaught. A brigadier general, Vaught is one of the most decorated women in U.S. military history, breaking gender barriers as she has risen through the ranks. When Vaught retired in 1985, she was one of only seven female generals in the Armed Forces. — Denzel Washington, a double Oscar-winning actor, director, and producer. He also has a Tony award, two Golden Globes, and the Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award. He is a longtime spokesperson for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Washington could not attend Thursday’s ceremony after testing positive for COVID-19, the White House said. Biden said Washington
Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in, becomes 1st Black woman on Supreme Court
Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in to the Supreme Court on Thursday, shattering a glass ceiling as the first Black woman on the nation’s highest court. The 51-year-old Jackson is the court’s 116th justice, and she took the place of the justice she once worked for. Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement was effective at noon. Moments later, joined by her family, Jackson recited the two oaths required of Supreme Court justices, one administered by Breyer and the other by Chief Justice John Roberts. “With a full heart, I accept the solemn responsibility of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States and administering justice without fear or favor, so help me God,” Jackson said in a statement issued by the court. “I am truly grateful to be part of the promise of our great Nation. I extend my sincerest thanks to all of my new colleagues for their warm and gracious welcome.” Roberts welcomed Jackson “to the court and our common calling.” The ceremony was streamed live on the court’s website. All the justices except for Neil Gorsuch attended the swearing-in, the court said. There was no immediate explanation for Gorsuch’s absence. Jackson, a federal judge since 2013, is joining three other women — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett. It’s the first time four women will serve together on the nine-member court. Biden nominated Jackson in February, a month after Breyer, 83, announced he would retire at the end of the court’s term, assuming his successor had been confirmed. Breyer’s earlier-than-usual announcement and the condition he attached was a recognition of the Democrats’ tenuous hold on the Senate in an era of hyper-partisanship, especially surrounding federal judgeships. The Senate confirmed Jackson’s nomination in early April, by a 53-47 mostly party-line vote that included support from three Republicans. Jackson had been in a sort of judicial limbo since, remaining a judge on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., but not hearing any cases. Biden elevated her to that court from the district judgeship to which she was appointed by President Barack Obama. Glynda Carr, president of Higher Heights for America, an organization that advocates for the growth of Black women’s political power, said the timing of Jackson’s swearing-in was bittersweet. “Although we celebrate her today, one Black woman or a cohort of Black women can’t save this democracy alone. We are a piece of it and we are doing our work, our part. She’s going to forever reshape and shape that court. But she’s just a piece of the work that needs to happen moving forward,” Carr said. Because of Jackson’s appointment, Judith Browne Dianis, a Black lawyer in Washington, said she intends to end her protest against joining the Supreme Court Bar. She started it when Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed in 1991. She said that even the series of conservative rulings from the court over the past week cannot take away from the significance of Thursday’s ceremony. “This is a momentous occasion and it’s still a beautiful moment,” said Dianis, executive director of the civil rights group Advancement Project. But, Dianis added, “she’s joining the court at a time when conservatives are holding the line and trying to actually take us back, because they see the progress that’s being made in our country. It’s like the Civil War that never ended. That’s the court that she’s joining.” Jackson will be able to begin work immediately, but the court will have just finished the bulk of its work until the fall, apart from emergency appeals that occasionally arise. That will give her time to settle in and familiarize herself with the roughly two dozen cases the court already has agreed to hear starting in October as well as hundreds of appeals that will pile up over the summer. She helps form the most diverse court in its 232-year history and is the first former public defender to be a justice. The court that Jackson is joining is the most conservative that it has been since the 1930s. She is likely to be on the losing end of important cases, which could include examinations of the role of race in college admissions, congressional redistricting and voting rights that the court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, will take up next term. Today’s court now is surrounded by fencing, and justices and their families have 24-hour protection by the U.S. Marshals, the result of a law passed days after a man carrying a gun, knife and zip ties was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland house after threatening to kill the justice. The bill was introduced in May shortly after the leak of a draft court opinion that would overrule Roe v. Wade and sharply curtail abortion rights in roughly half the states. The court issued final opinions earlier Thursday after a momentous and rancorous term that included overturning Roe v. Wade’s guarantee of the right to an abortion. One of Thursday’s decisions limited how the Environmental Protection Agency can use the nation’s main anti-air pollution law to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, a blow to the fight against climate change. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Democrats, Republicans fight to a redistricting stalemate
After nearly a year of partisan battles, number-crunching, and lawsuits, the once-a-decade congressional redistricting cycle is ending in a draw. That leaves Republicans positioned to win control of the House of Representatives even if they come up just short of winning a majority of the national vote. That frustrates Democrats, who hoped to shift the dynamic so their success with the popular vote would better be reflected by political power in Washington. Some Republicans, meanwhile, hoped to cement an even larger advantage this time. But both parties ultimately fought each other to a standstill. The new congressional maps have a total of 226 House districts won by Biden in the last presidential election and 209 won by Trump — only one more Biden district than in 2020. Likewise, the typical congressional district voted for Biden by about two percentage points, also almost identical to 2020. “It’s almost perfect stasis,” said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard law professor who follows congressional redistricting. “If you compare the maps we had in 2020 to the maps we’re going to have in 2022, they’re almost identical” in terms of partisan advantage, he added. The specific lines of congressional districts have, of course, changed as some states added new ones — or lost old ones — to match population shifts recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2020. Redistricting is the once-a-decade adjustment of legislative lines to match the Census’ findings. It is typically an extraordinarily partisan process, with each major party trying to scoop up enough of its voters to guarantee wins in the largest number of districts. This cycle was no different, but the end result is virtually no change to the overall partisan orientation of the congressional map. That leaves the map tilted slightly to the right of the national electorate since Joe Biden won the presidency by more than four percentage points. In a typical year, Democrats would have to win the national popular vote by about two percentage points to win a House majority, while the GOP could capture it, theoretically, with just under 50%. Republicans pointed to that as a victory. “If we’re fighting to a draw on a map that everyone agrees is good for Republicans, that’s good for Republicans,” said Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, which coordinates redistricting for the party. Democrats noted that it’s still a far better place than where they were after the last round of redistricting in 2011, fresh off a GOP sweep of statehouses that allowed them to draw a far more slanted series of congressional maps. “We are in a stronger position than in 2020 and in a way stronger position than in 2012,” said Kelly Ward Burton, executive director of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. The assessment became possible this week after New Hampshire became the final state to adopt a congressional map on Tuesday. On Thursday, Florida’s Supreme Court ruled it wouldn’t consider a Democratic challenge to a map pushed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis before the November election, ending the last significant legal uncertainty over the maps this year. The odds are the national map will improve for the GOP after November, however. If Republicans do well in the election — as is widely expected — they could capture seats on state supreme courts in North Carolina or Ohio that’d allow them to redraw more slanted maps previous courts rejected. Similarly, if the GOP seizes power in some other state legislatures or governor’s mansions, the party could redraw new maps in those states in 2023 that would be implemented for the coming decade. And the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority has indicated it will reconsider some of the guidelines that govern legislative line-drawing nationally next year, which could open the door to even further Republican gains. It’s a reversal from earlier this year, when Democrats were poised to lessen the partisan bias of the congressional map, at least in 2022. But the centerpiece of that effort — an intensely pro-Democratic map in New York state — was ruled an illegal partisan gerrymander by the state’s Democrat-appointed top court, and the court’s redrawn map favored the party less. A similarly pro-Democratic map in Maryland was replaced by a more equitable map. But Florida’s strongly pro-GOP map, which DeSantis pushed the Republican-controlled legislature into adopting, was not overturned by its majority-GOP-appointed high court, bringing the national partisan pendulum back to the center. Democrats were already fighting on an uneven playing field during this round of redistricting. They only controlled the drawing of maps in states representing 75 House districts, while Republicans held the pen in ones with 187 districts. That’s partly because of GOP statehouse gains in 2010 lingering, partly because many Democratic-controlled states like California, Colorado, and New Jersey ceded their power to draw lines to independent commissions to take partisan politics out of redistricting. The Democratic Party has embraced that approach nationally, pushing for it in all 50 states as part of its voting overhaul that floundered in the Senate earlier this year amid unanimous GOP opposition. But some members of the party have questioned whether it amounts to unilateral disarmament in the partisan cage match of redistricting. After this cycle, Stephanopoulos said, there’s no longer much debate. “If all the blue states reform and all the red states run wild, that’s not a good outcome,” he said. Though the map’s partisan lean didn’t change, the number of competitive House seats diminished. That’s partly because Republicans, who maximized their gains in the post-2010 redistricting cycle, focused on packing as many GOP voters as possible into the districts of some of their incumbents who had tough re-election campaigns. The number of House seats decided by a 10-point margin or less dropped from 89 to 76, largely by the GOP changing 14 of its competitive seats into safe ones, Kincaid said. Advocates of sweeping changes in redistricting warn the loss of competition is dangerous for democracy. “Partisan balance is one thing, but it’s much more important to think about how gridlock and extremism
Texas shooting is new test for Joe Biden’s long battle over guns
Joe Biden, then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, surveyed the collection of black, military-style rifles on display in the middle of the room as he denounced the sale of guns whose “only real function is to kill human beings at a ferocious pace.” That was nearly three decades ago, and Congress was on the verge of passing an assault weapons ban. But the law eventually expired, and guns that were once illegal are now readily available, most recently used in the slaughter at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. The tragedy, which came less than two weeks after another mass shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, has refocused Biden’s presidency on one of the greatest political challenges of his career — the long fight for gun control. Over the years, Biden has been intimately involved in the movement’s most notable successes, such as the 1994 assault weapons ban, and its most troubling disappointments, including the failure to pass new legislation after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Now his White House, which was already trying to chip away at gun violence through executive orders, is organizing calls with activists and experts to plot a path forward. “He understands the history of the issue. He understands how the politics have shifted,” said Christian Heyne, vice president of policy at Brady, the gun control advocacy organization. “He feels a sense of missed opportunities from the past, and he understands that this is his last chance to have an impact on gun violence in America.” Even for a politician known for his passion, Biden’s reaction to the latest shooting in Texas has been searing. “Where’s the backbone, where’s the courage to stand up to a very powerful lobby?“ Biden said Wednesday as he called for Congress to pass new laws. Stef Feldman, a deputy assistant to the president, said the cascade of deaths — from Buffalo to Uvalde to everyday shootings that don’t generate nationwide headlines — only increases the urgency of the administration’s efforts. “Every story that we hear about individuals lost to gun violence provides more energy, more of a drive to continue the work,” she said. “If we can save even one life by pushing a little harder on a creative policy idea, it’s worth it.” But executive action — such as Biden’s order targeting ghost guns, which are privately made firearms without serial numbers — might be the best the White House can do if Republicans in the Senate remain opposed to new restrictions and Democrats are unwilling to circumvent filibusters. More challenges could come in the courts, and even the ghost gun rules may become tied up in litigation. “We’ve got to be clear,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “This is the Senate’s job. It’s time for the Senate to actually step up and do something.” The first new try fell far short on Thursday. A measure to take up a domestic terrorism bill, which could have opened debate touching on guns, drew just 47 of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. It’s a far different situation than when Sen. Biden was working on gun legislation years ago. Fears about violent crime helped foster bipartisan compromises, and conservative rhetoric about gun ownership was less extreme. First, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993, requiring a background check when someone buys a gun from a federally licensed dealer. The measure was named for James Brady, the White House press secretary who was shot and wounded when John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Next, Congress approved the assault weapons ban as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994. The law outlawed specific guns, such as the AR-15 and restricted the type of military-style enhancements that firearms could have. However, the ban contained a sunset provision, and it was not renewed in 2004. Although the vast majority of shootings are committed with handguns, military-style semiautomatic rifles are staples of the country’s deadliest massacres. One of these weapons was used at Sandy Hook, where 26 people, including 20 children, were killed. The violence shocked the nation, and President Barack Obama asked Biden, then the vice president, to lead a new push for gun control. Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., crafted legislation that would have expanded background checks. In a speech less than three months after the shooting, Biden said “the excuse that it’s too politically risky to act is no longer acceptable.” He recalled successfully pushing for the assault weapons ban years earlier even though the National Rifle Association warned that he was going to be “taking your shotgun away.” “That kind of stuff doesn’t work anymore,” Biden added. But it did work, and the legislation failed in the U.S. Senate. Biden described the vote as a betrayal of families who lost children at Sandy Hook, saying, “I don’t know how anybody who looked them in the eye could have voted the way they did today.” Darrell A. H. Miller, a Duke University law professor who is an expert on the Second Amendment, said the political landscape had already changed. “It’s fair to say that the issue of guns has become even more polarized,” he said. “And the intensity of gun rights opposition to any kind of gun regulation of any description has become more inflexible.” Two years ago, guns became the leading cause of death among children and teenagers, outpacing car crashes. There are roughly 400 million guns in the country, more than one for every person. Military-style weapons are a staple of some Republican campaign advertisements. “The reality is, we’re not keeping up with the pace of the gun lobby to arm citizens,” said Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter was killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018. “It’s time to start asking,” Guttenberg said, “why are Republicans so diametrically opposed to doing whatever it takes to save lives?” There
Casey Wardynski: Education must focus on children’s needs
Education must focus on children’s needs, and parents must have the discretion to place their children in the educational environment that best prepares their children for life and work. Such discretion entails creating a school choice system in which educational dollars follow students. We have now reached a point at which we can no longer expect that public education will act in the best interest of public-school students and according to the values of their families and communities. Our experience with public education during the COVID19 pandemic and, more recently, as a vehicle for imposing toxic belief systems on students and communities demands a new approach to educating rising generations. During the COVID19 pandemic, public schools suspended regular in-person instruction for a year or longer. At the same time, private, parochial, and home schools continued with in-person instruction. As public-school students attempted to learn via Zoom and other remote learning options, parents gained new insights into untoward content and teaching methods that had crept into their children’s classrooms. Armed with new insights into instruction and teaching methods they reject and alarmed by months of interrupted learning, parents now seek greater control over their children’s education and learning. Parents also reject the Biden Administration’s attempts to create un-American belief systems, and antithetical to values parents seek to instill in their children. For example, Joe Biden’s Department of Education sought to bring the instruction in the 1619 Project to K-12 schools. By offering grants to school systems, leftists at the Department of Education sought to introduce this racist version of America’s founding into K-12 classrooms. Parents can soon expect that Biden’s Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Education (ED) will seek to resurrect Barack Obama’s 2016 gender-identify agenda in public schools. As they did in May of 2016, leftists at these agencies will seek to force compliance from public schools by threatening them with the loss of federal funding for the school nutrition programs, special needs students, low-income students, and teacher development if they do not afford students facilities and programs according to their gender identity. In May 2016, I rejected the mandate from Obama’s DOJ and ED to afford students with facilities and programs according to their gender identity. When a transgender male student sought to use girls’ facilities and then took a picture in a girls’ restroom, I expelled him and set the stage to fight Obama’s agenda in federal court. Less than a year later, President Donald Trump’s DOJ and ED rescinded Obama’s attempt to use his interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to inject his transgender agenda into schools. I was unwilling to bow to DOJ and ED mandates that would make Huntsville City Schools a vehicle for subjugating the values of families, destroying girls’ sports, and invading the privacy of male and female students in locker rooms and restrooms. Today, I am running for Congress to defeat the leftist agenda that is destroying our country. I am running to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, stop the leftist agenda, and fight the National Education Association (NEA) as I fought the Alabama Education Association (AEA) while I was Superintendent from 2011 to 2016. In the summer of 2021, the NEA vowed to “fight back” against those opposed to teaching critical race theory (CRT) in schools and reiterated its support of the controversial “1619 Project.” These theories and their advocates in teacher’s unions that claim there is no objective truth and that math is racist are harmful to our nation and our children. As Superintendent, I fought the AEA to improve teaching. I recommended the removal or suspension of over 100 teachers and principals who failed their students. I implemented a semi-annual review of teaching in every classroom in grades 3-12. These changes had a strongly positive impact on student learning. Huntsville City Schools went from 9 failing schools and no Blue Ribbon Schools to one failing school and nine Blue Ribbon Schools. By 2015 it was the only school system in America to be named a National Cyber Center of Excellence. Graduation rates rose from 66 percent to 88 percent, while college enrollments increased and student remediation in college fell by 40 percent. Today, leaders, whether they’re the Superintendent of a school system or a congressman, must ensure that future generations appreciate the history, values, and institutions that make America exceptional. Affecting the types of change that invigorated education in Huntsville City Schools and that can undo the damage being done in Washington requires a committed change agent. This change agent must have the experience, knowledge, and grit to join other tough conservatives to end federal overreach and reckless spending and return functions such as education to states and locales. On May 24, voters in Northern Alabama can vote for such a change agent. Based on my experience in education, the military, national government, economics, health care, and small business, I believe I’m that person, and I am asking for your vote. Casey Wardynski is running for Alabama’s 5th Congressional District.
Progressive environmental activists pick ‘Republican’ favorites in Alabama Public Service Commission primary races
According to Alabama Secretary of State campaign finance records, radical “environmental justice” activists are once again pushing their agenda in Alabama. They have selected their preferred “Republican” primary candidates Robin Litaker and Brent Woodall for the Public Service Commission. As first reported by Dylan Smith of Yellowhammer News, both candidates have taken large sums of money from Nelson Brooke, of Black Warrior Riverkeeper. Brooke has made a total of $73,000 in contributions to Alabama candidates all of the money going to democrats except three contributions: $20,000 to Litaker this cycle, $10,000 to her in her last race, and $10,000 to Woodall. Alabama Today reported on Brooke’s contribution history in an opinion piece last cycle when Litaker, who is attempting her third run to the Public Service Commission. She ran against Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh in 2020. Cavanaugh handily won that election with 73.8% of the vote. In 2018, Litaker ran against Beeker with him getting 68.7% of the vote. In that race, she was her own biggest contributor and the next closest gave her $250.00. According to the Yellow Hammer report, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign finance records show that Margaret Wade Johnston, from the advocacy group Sierra Club, loaned Litaker’s campaign $45,000. Johnston has a history of backing progressive candidates in an attempt to defeat incumbent conservatives in Alabama. Johnston donated to the Democratic challengers of U.S. Reps. Robert Aderholt and Mo Brooks in the 2018 general election and also donated to former U.S. Sen. Doug Jones in 2020. Like Johnston, Brooke also has a history of financially supporting far-left candidates in federal races, including former President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and socialist U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid. It is unknown if the ALGOP will take action to decertify their elections based on these contributions. Earlier this year, Trip Powell was removed from the ballot for giving a $500 contribution to Walt Maddox. Litaker and Woodall supporter Brooke gave Maddox a total of $6,000. In 2018, the party voted to not certify a candidate who made social media posts that were described as “anti-Semitic, racist or otherwise offensive.” The primary election is on May 24, 2022. You can find your polling place or get more voting information at AlabamaVotes.gov.
