Blog

Supreme Court Directs Lower Courts To Reexamine Decisions In Voting Rights Act Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 18 ordered lower courts to reconsider rulings in two redistricting cases that concern whether private individuals may sue to enforce a federal law that bans discriminatory voting practices.

The court directed the lower courts to take another look at the cases from Mississippi and North Dakota in light of its recent landmark ruling limiting the use of race in redistricting efforts.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from both new rulings.

In Louisiana v. Callais, a majority of the court had said April 29 that race may not be the predominant, overriding reason for how congressional district lines are drawn. The case focused on the Pelican State’s decision to add a majority-black district after a lower court said omitting the district would violate the Section 2 nondiscrimination provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act.

On Monday, the nation’s highest court summarily disposed of the two cases, State Board of Election Commissioners v. Mississippi State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, in unsigned orders. The court did not explain its decisions.

Lawyers call this process, which disposes of cases without holding an oral argument, GVR, which stands for grant, vacate, and remand.

The Supreme Court follows this procedure when it wants lower courts to reconsider their rulings using a new legal framework from a recent decision without delving deeply into the specifics of the cases.

Keep reading

Reckoning for Newsom: GOP Rep. Introduces Bill to Force CA to Repay Past Due COVID-Era Unemployment Loans

On Tuesday, Rep. Vince Fong (R-CA) introduced the California Accountability and Loan Repayment Act (the CAL Repayment Act), which requires California to repay its outstanding $21 billion loan to the federal government before spending federal money on other programs.

Gavin Newsom’s state is the only state that has yet to repay its COVID-era unemployment loans (UI).

The bill would require California to prioritize repayment of its federal UI debt before spending any eligible federal funds on other programs and would require the state to direct available federal funds toward the loan within 5 business days of receipt.

Additionally, if the state diverts funds, it must repay the full misused amount to the federal government.

Newsom’s failure to repay the loans has placed the burden directly on the backs of employers in the state. The debt has led to automatic federal tax penalties on California employers via reduced FUTA tax credits, costing businesses roughly $84 per worker in 2025, with costs expected to rise.

In January, Rep. Fong shared details about the “hidden jobs tax” that Newsom pushed onto the backs of the business owners.

California employers are about to get hit with a massive tax increase — one they never voted on, one lawmakers and the governor never debated, but one Sacramento knew was coming.

At the very moment families and employers should be seeing relief from the Working Families Tax Cuts, which are in effect this year, California is moving in the opposite direction by raising taxes on employees and worsening the cost-of-living crisis already plaguing the state.

Keep reading

The Pandemic Agreement Fails Again

Finalization of the much-heralded Pandemic Agreement, the flagship of the World Health Organization’s pandemic agenda, has just been postponed again after another failure to resolve disagreements. Despite heavy pressure from the WHO and European Union in yet another meeting, in Geneva, Switzerland, a large bloc of African states are refusing to sign on to what they consider a clear colonialist agenda. Which of course it is, aimed at putting Covid-era wealth transfers on a more permanent footing.

The WHO, for reasons explained below, is doing what it is paid to do. Major financial sponsors of the WHO have much to gain from getting this Agreement through. It has fallen on African leaders, attuned to the model of rich countries and their corporations imposing rules designed for wealth extraction, to protect the rest of us from the farce that the current public health approach to pandemics has become.

The fact that the agency tasked with building capacity and promoting sustainability of low-income health systems is instead doing the opposite now needs to become the center issue of this whole shabby episode. It is time for the international public health community to face itself and decide on which side, people or profit, it should stand.

The Modern Basis of Multilateral Health Cooperation

There are obvious reasons for countries to cooperate in matters of health, as there are for neighbors on a suburban street. Mutual interest in facing common threats where action by neighboring States, or access to their resources, helps protect your own. Moral reasons based on the generally accepted ‘good’ of helping neighbors when they are in difficulty or lack resources through no fault of their own. Or because a stable and more prosperous neighborhood (world) is good for business, and a sick one may not be.

Cooperation is not submission, and few self-respecting people would opt for that. Mutual interests and morality all dissolve fairly quickly when cooperation becomes coercion, and the interests of the most powerful player then become the goal. Health is well-defined in the WHO’s constitution as physical, mental, and social well-being. Accordingly, it rests on economics and social capital and is degraded by poverty and inequality. Neither aspect of well-being – mental, social, or physical – is supported by forced compliance or slavery.

The basis of modern medical ethics hinges on Hippocrates’ assertions on physician conduct from around 400BC, commonly summarized as to do good rather than harm and respect a patient’s privacy (confidentiality). As a counter to fascism since the Second World War, we added voluntary informed consent (i.e. absence of coercion). This means the final decision in any aspect of medical care or intervention must rest with the individual concerned.

These basic medical ethics rest on the concept that all people are equal and their individual sovereignty (i.e. bodily autonomy) is inviolable. Accordingly, it is obviously unethical to force a person to be injected or undergo some other procedure just because someone else wants them to, or for a third person’s benefit. Unethical, that is, outside a medico-fascist or similarly authoritarian approach that post-World War Two human rights law was supposed to suppress. There were very good reasons why we stopped all that, even if it makes the streets look cleaner and we are assured it is for a “greater good.”

Keep reading

Democrat House Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Trump Voters: ‘Our Goal is to Break Them’

During a recent event, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke of people who voted for Trump and said “our goal is to break them.”

If you read the Gateway Pundit, you know that among our many criticisms of the Democrats is the fact that they are not offering the country any new ideas. They bring absolutely nothing to the table for the people of America, other than outrage, protests, and Trump hatred.

Just look at what Jeffries is saying here. He is not saying “here is how we will improve people’s lives.” No, he is talking about ‘breaking’ his fellow citizens for not voting the way he wants them to.

Transcript via Real Clear Politics:

HAKEEM JEFFRIES: I guess part of how we as House Democrats view this moment: either MAGA extremists are going to break the country, or we’re going to break them. And our goal is to break them.

We will defeat them.

We have to beat them electorally, and then we have to break their spirit because of the extremism that’s being unleashed on the American people that’s completely and totally unacceptable.

And that’s the approach that we’ve taken with respect to legislating on these discharge petitions.

And so while we have a responsibility to drive down the high cost of living and focus on the affordability agenda, we also believe that there’s an accountability agenda that the American people will expect, rightfully, for a separate and coequal branch of government to pursue, and led by Robert Garcia, who’ll do a great job.

Keep reading

I-194 Could Cost Montana Millions Without Fixing Campaign Finance

During this election cycle, you will likely be asked to sign petitions to place various proposals on the November ballot. Before signing, it is important to understand exactly what you are supporting. That is especially true for I-194, a proposed ballot initiative aimed at restricting “dark money” in elections.

I-194, known as The Montana Plan, is designed to sharply limit the role of corporations, nonprofits, LLCs, trade associations, and other “artificial persons” in Montana elections. Supporters argue it would reduce dark money in politics by preventing Montana entities, and possibly some out-of-state organizations, from contributing to or spending money on state and local campaigns. But even if this five-page law passes, major loopholes and legal problems would remain.

One of the biggest loopholes is that the proposal targets organizations, not individuals. Wealthy business owners, executives, and nonprofit leaders could still spend large sums of money personally, simply shifting political influence from corporate accounts to billionaire donors rather than reducing money in politics.

Another concern involves PACs and political committees. Depending on how courts interpret the law, organizations could still influence elections indirectly through layered committees or pass-through funding arrangements that hide the original source of the money, much like dark-money systems currently operate.

Out-of-state groups could also restructure themselves to avoid Montana’s definitions. National organizations may create affiliated entities, use contractors, or avoid technically “doing business” in Montana while still influencing public opinion and elections here.

The distinction between direct campaigning and issue advocacy creates another major loophole. Even if an organization cannot explicitly say “Vote for Candidate X,” it may still spend heavily on advertising campaigns criticizing policies, shaping public opinion, or mobilizing voters around political issues tied to an election.

Federal elections present another limitation. Montana may regulate state and local races more easily than federal campaigns for Congress or the presidency, which are governed largely by federal law and constitutional protections. Organizations could still spend heavily on federal races that influence Montana voters indirectly.

I-194 is also vulnerable politically because it is a statutory initiative rather than a constitutional amendment. Future legislatures could weaken, narrow, or partially repeal the law.

Finally, the measure would almost certainly face years of expensive litigation centered on Citizens United and First Amendment protections for political speech. Courts could strike down parts of the law while leaving others intact, creating confusion and weak enforcement. Defending I-194 could cost Montana taxpayers millions of dollars, with a strong possibility that the law would ultimately be ruled partially or wholly unconstitutional.

At first blush, I-194 may sound like a good solution, but as the saying goes, “The devil is in the details.”

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom Finally Cleaned Up a Homeless Encampment – In Front of the Home of One of His Rich, Connected Friends

Apparently, Gavin Newsom does know how to clean up homeless encampments – as long as they’re in the way of one of his wealthy, politically connected friends. That just happened in Oakland, California.

It’s just like the time a few years ago when Newsom cleaned up the streets of San Francisco for a few days because officials from China were coming to visit the city. Some people matter. Not you, of course, just the famous and powerful people.

This is so insulting because it is a reminder that people do not have to live this way. It’s just being allowed to happen because people like Gavin Newsom don’t care about the average American. Just their connected friends in their inner circle.

Breitbart News reports:

Gavin Newsom Intervened to Clear Homeless Encampment Outside Super Bowl Champ Marshawn Lynch’s Home

Many Californians are wondering just what they have to do to get Governor Gavin Newsom to get the homeless off the streets. As it turns out, all you need to do is be one of his celebrity buddies.

According to text messages obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle, Newsom’s office became very proactive in helping clear a homeless encampment outside the home of the governor’s friend and podcast co-host, Seahawks legend Marshawn Lynch. Lynch’s agent is also friends with the governor.

The homeless encampment became an issue in 2024, when an RV, a camper, and an SUV set up shop and backed up into the freeway. Lynch was far from the only resident to register a complaint. In fact, Oakland officials received 311 requests to disperse the Dover Street encampment.

However, one particular request seemed to go further up the chain than most.

“I got a call from the Governor’s office regarding a number of RVs that are parked out in front of Marshawn Lynch’s family home,” texted then-Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao’s chief of staff to Oakland city administrators. “The Governor’s office is requesting our support to help resolve the issues in a timely manner.”

Keep reading

New York Governor Signs Bills To Preserve Mandatory Vaccines

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has signed legislation to preserve vaccine requirements for children.

Hochul, on May 15, signed two bills that decouple New York’s vaccine requirements from the federal government, after the Trump administration rolled back recommendations for hepatitis B and other vaccines.

“When public health comes under attack by an anti-science administration, New York fights back,” Hochul, a Democrat, said in a statement.

She added that the legislation “protects access to lifesaving vaccines for New Yorkers of all ages.”

One bill, Assembly Bill 10711, removes language about vaccines needing to be approved by federal regulators. Instead, it says that children must receive vaccines against measles, hepatitis B, and other diseases “in accordance with regulations issued by the commissioner of health of New York.”

Assembly Bill 10710, the other piece of legislation, requires health insurers to cover vaccines recommended by New York’s health commissioner, even if the shots are not recommended by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

New York has, in the past, only mandated vaccines approved and recommended by federal health agencies.

“Vaccines remain one of the greatest public health tools in history, protecting individuals, families, and entire communities from serious and preventable diseases,” New York Health Commissioner Dr. James McDonald said in a statement.

“At a time when misinformation is undermining confidence in science, this legislation reinforces New York State’s commitment to following trusted medical guidance and keeping New Yorkers healthy.”

The Trump administration has narrowed its recommendations for vaccines against several diseases, including COVID-19, hepatitis B, and rotavirus.

The biggest changes came after President Donald Trump issued an order directing officials to review recommendations from other countries and update U.S. recommendations as appropriate in light of the results of the review.

A federal judge in mid-March blocked the updates, concluding that officials did not follow proper procedure when altering the vaccine recommendations.

The Trump administration has appealed.

New York Democratic lawmakers who authored or voted for the bills Hochul signed hailed the development.

“In an era where federal health officials are undermining scientific integrity and sowing skepticism about lifesaving vaccines, New York is making the conscious choice to champion our medical professionals and reaffirm this state’s commitment to the evidence-based practices that have safeguarded communities for generations,” New York Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said in a statement.

Children’s Health Defense, an organization founded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was among the groups that opposed the legislation.

Michael Kane, director of advocacy for Children’s Health Defense, told The Epoch Times previously that one of the bills would enable the state to require experimental vaccines, as it removed language stating that vaccines needed federal approval.

“It would also allow for foreign entities to determine what vaccines our children must take,” Kane said.

Keep reading

Virginia Teacher Abby Zwerner Testifies She Warned Assistant Principal Multiple Times Before 6-Year-Old Shot Her in Classroom: ‘He Was in a Violent Mood’

Former Virginia first-grade teacher Abby Zwerner took the stand Monday in the ongoing criminal trial of former Richneck Elementary School assistant principal Ebony Parker, delivering a harrowing firsthand account of how she was shot by a 6-year-old student.

Zwerner described the student’s escalating violent behavior and the repeated warnings she gave school administrators, which she says were ignored before the boy pulled a 9mm handgun from his jacket and shot her in the hand and chest in her classroom in 2023.

Zwerner, who has undergone multiple surgeries and still has bullet fragments in her body, described a student she referred to only as “J.T.” who displayed clear signs of aggression in the days leading up to the shooting at the Newport News school.

Three days before the incident, Zwerner testified that the boy became defiant and slammed her cellphone onto the ground after she instructed him to do something.

On the morning of the shooting itself, she immediately noticed something was wrong.

“The student appeared to be off and appeared to be in a violent mood,” the former teacher told the jury, according to a report from the New York Post.

Zwerner said she went directly to assistant principal Ebony Parker to voice her concerns.

Keep reading

Still more first- and secondhand accounts of the ongoing “vaccine” massacre in the United States

What I’ve noticed is an epidemic of friends needing hip replacements. In their 60’s to late 70’s. Like way more than should be in my circle. When I was growing up I don’t remember any of my elderly relatives needing a hip replacement. The other thing is severe neurological issues. BOTH of my neighbours. Dear people with everything from “autoimmune disease” to vertigo to POTS. No idea why. And I have had two or three good friends say they are frightened that they can’t remember things the way they used to. Age 52 to 70. I assure them that we all have memory slips but secretly I am afraid for them. Two relatives developed heart issues in the past 4 years. And have you noticed how many phone “hold” messages that need to say “We will not tolerate rude or disrespectful language with client services” or something along that line. When did we need that? And what could it be doing to the minds of our children? Among my teen acquaintances, a heartbreaking increase of flus and colds necessitating weeks off throughout the year. One teen had difficulty reading music in the weeks following her second or third shot, and couldn’t play the trumpet because the air pressure gave her crushing headaches for months. Oh and I forgot – her younger sister (age 11) suddenly developed juvenile diabetes. The specialist who diagnosed her said they are noticing an increase in new onset diabetes and suspect one of the causes the vaccine.

Keep reading

DEAD PEOPLE, ‘GHOST STUDENTS,’ AND BOTS? Trump Education Sec. McMahon Says Biden-Era Student Aid System Was a Fraud Magnet — Taxpayers Already Saved $1 BILLION

The federal student aid system was apparently a feeding trough for fraudsters and according to President Trump’s Education Secretary Linda McMahon, some of the “students” cashing in weren’t even alive.

In a jaw-dropping interview on Fox News, McMahon revealed that the Department of Education uncovered widespread abuse in the federal student aid application system, including bot-driven applications, so-called “ghost students,” and even dead individuals allegedly receiving federal student aid.

Secretary McMahon laid it all out: the Trump administration has completely revamped the FAFSA program with ironclad real-time identity verification and they’re already saving taxpayers billions.

According to the Department of Education website:

The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) launched a new, real-time fraud detection capability for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) form, marking the largest and most comprehensive, nationwide fraud prevention effort in the agency’s history.

Effective immediately, fraud detection is built directly into the FAFSA itself, with every applicant evaluated in real-time using risk-based identity screening. Applicants who display a certain level of fraud risk will now be required to present government-issued identification before accessing federal student aid funds such as Pell Grants and federal student loans.

The Department also recently began conducting a one-time review of all previously submitted 2026-27 FAFSA forms using the new screening technology, ensuring that all federal student aid program dollars are supporting students and families, not fraudsters. The Department estimates that its efforts to identify and deny federal student aid to fraudulent students will save taxpayers over $1 billion during this year’s FAFSA cycle.

Keep reading