ART OF THE DEAL – TikTok begins restoring service after Trump vows Day 1 executive order / makes pro-America promise

TikTok CEO thanks Trump for ‘commitment’ to keeping app available as ban looms

TikTok said it was in the process of restoring operations in the U.S. Sunday, after President-elect Trump promised to issue an executive order to extend TikTok operations on Inauguration Day. 

Some U.S. users reported being able to regain access to the app following Saturday’s blackout. 

Trump wrote on TRUTH Social that he is “asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark!” 

“I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security,” the president-elect continued. “The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order.”

“Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday, as well as other events and conversations,” Trump said.

Trump is expected to be sworn in around noon ET Monday at the U.S. Capitol, officially taking office as the 47th president. 

His Sunday post did not clarify how soon the extension would take effect or specify how long it would last. 

As for the proposed national security deal, Trump said he would like “the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture.” 

“By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to [stay] up. Without U.S. approval, there is no TikTok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars – maybe trillions,” Trump wrote. “Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.” 

TikTok’s account on X dedicated to releasing policy updates posted a statement later Sunday saying: “In agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service.” 

“We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive,” the statement said. “It’s a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship. We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States.” 

Apple and Google’s app stores no longer had the TikTok app available as of 10:50 p.m. EST Saturday. President Biden signed a bipartisan law last spring mandating that TikTok’s China-based parent company, ByteDance, sell the platform by Sunday or else the platform would be banned in the United States.

The following pop-up message appeared for users who tried to access the TikTok app earlier Sunday: “Sorry, TikTok isn’t available right now. A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can’t use TikTok for now.” 

“We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!” the message added. 

Earlier Sunday, Trump issued a two-word message on TRUTH Social: “SAVE TIKTOK!”

Instead of utilizing the nine-month grace period to sell TikTok to an approved buyer, ByteDance, as well as TikTok, sued. 

The law was upheld Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court, which pointed to national security risks due to the app’s connection to China. 

Trump previously indicated that he must “review” the ban before choosing a course of action and that he’d “most likely” grant TikTok a 90-day extension from the Jan. 19 deadline. 

Under the law, the sitting president can extend the deadline by 90 days if a sale is in progress. ByteDance has previously rebuffed the idea of selling TikTok. 

In a video posted on Friday, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew praised Trump for his “commitment to work with us to find a solution that keeps TikTok available in the United States. This is a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship.”

Alexandra Koch, Bradford Betz, Landon Mion and Brie Stimson contributed to this report.

Fact-checkers said Meta’s decision will have significant impact on their business operations

Mark Zuckerberg reveals pressure brought by Biden Administration to curtail free speech, and that “fact-checking” led to false narratives prevailing

In a move that will help restore free speech to social media, a network of fact-checkers is set to lose a major source of revenue and may even close shop after Facebook parent company Meta announced it would terminate their contracts and move towards a system closer to X’s Community Notes.

“We don’t have much time left. At this rate, we are done in a few months,” claims Check Your Fact managing editor, Jesse Stiller.

“We were blindsided by this. This was totally unexpected and out of left field for us. We weren’t aware this decision was being considered until Mark dropped the video overnight. We have no idea what the future looks like for the website going forward,” he added.

On January 7, 2025, Meta revealed that it would end its fact-checking program and lift some content moderation policies to “restore free expression” across its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram.

Prior to the announcement, Meta repeatedly stressed they were committed to supporting a long-term independent fact-checking industry to address “misinformation” online.

In an April 2022 blog post, Meta claimed it had built the “largest global fact-checking network of any platform” and contributed more than $100 million to fact-checking programs since 2016.

Meta did not reply when asked how much money it had given to third-party fact-checkers before announcing the end of the program in early January 2025.

According to the company’s website, Meta began prioritizing “additional support and resources” for fact-checkers in early 2020 to combat health “misinformation.”

As part of this initiative, Meta launched a $1 million emergency grant program in partnership with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) to tackle information about the COVID-19 pandemic

IFCN created the CoronaVirusFacts Alliance, in which nearly 100 fact-checking organizations in more than 70 countries produced over 11,000 fact-checks about COVID-19 across 40 languages. Seven fact-checking organization projects specifically focused on vaccine “misinformation.”

In August, Zuckerberg admitted that the Biden White House had pressured Meta to censor some health information during the pandemic.

Zuckerberg told podcast host Joe Rogan in January that members of the Biden administration would “scream” and “curse” at his employees, demanding they take down information, especially during the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine program.

Meta later gave the IFCN a $1 million “Climate Misinformation Grant.” The grant, in part, provided funding to organizations working to combat “climate misinformation” and supported collaborative partnerships between fact-checkers and “climate experts.”

The company also provided funding for fact-checkers to “increase their capacity to promote reliable information” ahead of the 2022 elections in various countries, including the U.S., Australia, France and India.

In the United States, Meta worked with the following third-party fact-checkers: AFP – Hub, Check Your Fact, Factcheck.org, Lead Stories, PolitiFact, Science Feedback, Reuters Fact Check, TelevisaUnivision, The Dispatch and USA Today.

All 10 of these partners are expected to lose their funding. It is unclear when or if Meta’s changes will affect overseas fact-checkers.

In a recent interview with Fox News Digital, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, claimed that these fact-checkers failed to remain neutral.

“We went to independent, third-party fact-checkers,” Kaplan said. “It has become clear there is too much political bias in what they choose to fact-check because, basically, they get to fact-check whatever they see on the platform.”

Since the pivot away from third-party fact-checking, several of these fact-checking organizations with financial ties to the tech conglomerate have issued statements critical of Zuckerberg and Meta’s claims of political bias.

Previously, these groups were often paid for each published fact-check using Meta’s platforms and tools.

For example, PolitiFact, according to its financial disclosures, earned over five percent of its 2024 revenue from the partnership.

PolitiFact said that the organization, one of the original participants in Meta’s third-party fact-checking program, will be affected by the company’s decision to discontinue it.

They also pointed Fox News Digital to comments made by PolitiFact parent Poynter Institute President Neil Brown, who called Meta’s decision a “disappointing cop-out” that “perpetuates a misunderstanding of its own program.”

“Facts are not censorship. Fact-checkers never censored anything. And Meta always held the cards. It’s time to quit invoking inflammatory and false language in describing the role of journalists and fact-checking,” Brown said.

Lead Stories, a Facebook fact-checker employing several former CNN alumni, told The New York Times that it is now doing a large chunk of its work for TikTok’s parent company, Bytedance. Meta was previously the fact-checker’s primary client.

The company was shocked by Zuckerberg’s announcement, considering Lead Stories signed a new yearlong contract with Meta just three weeks ago. Lead Stories admitted that it would see a drop in revenue after severing ties with Meta—a reality that will result in a “staffing reduction,” according to co-founder Alan Duke.

“Cutting fact-checkers from social platforms is like disbanding your fire department,” he told CNN in early January.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Kristin Roberts, the chief content officer of Gannet Media (USA Today’s parent company), said, “Fact-based journalism is what USA Today does best.”

“We are the nation’s trusted news source because we provide unbiased and essential content for all people. Truth and facts serve everyone — not the right or the left — and that’s what we will continue to deliver,” she continued.

The company did not provide information on its financial relationship with Meta.

TelevisaUnivision, Lead Stories, Factcheck.org, AFP – Hub, The Dispatch and Science Feedback did not return Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Reuters declined to comment.

By Nikolas Lanum, Fox News

In a highly anticipated hearing, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, President Trump’s nominee for U.S. Attorney General, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, seeking confirmation for her new role. Bondi, a staunch conservative known for her vigorous advocacy on issues such as consumer protection and public safety, addressed the committee with clarity and conviction, emphasizing her commitment to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of American citizens.

Bondi’s stellar track record as Florida’s Attorney General showcased her dedication to fighting against human trafficking, opioid addiction, and fraud. She articulated her vision for a nation where law enforcement is supported and empowered, promising to lead the Department of Justice with integrity and a focus on restoring public trust in the legal system. Committee members noted her extensive experience and her ability to navigate complex legal matters, which they believe will serve her well in this new capacity.

Throughout her testimony, Bondi faced some tough questions from committee members, particularly regarding her stance on controversial issues such as immigration enforcement and criminal justice reform. However, her responses reflected a balanced approach rooted in conservative principles, emphasizing the importance of maintaining law and order while also considering the underlying social issues that contribute to crime.

Supporters of Bondi have rallied behind her nomination, highlighting her unwavering commitment to conservative values and her proven leadership skills. As the Senate prepares to vote on her confirmation, many believe that Bondi’s appointment would mark a significant step toward a more robust and principled Department of Justice, one that prioritizes the safety and security of American families.

The confirmation process will closely be watched, as Bondi’s appointment could signal a shift towards a more aggressive stance on crime and a renewed focus on protecting the rights of victims.

Legal Career

Pam Bondi’s legal career has equipped her with a wealth of experience and a robust skill set that are critical for her role as Attorney General. Serving as Florida’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2019, Bondi handled a wide range of legal issues, including consumer protection, public safety, and criminal justice. Her tenure was marked by significant initiatives against human trafficking and the opioid crisis, demonstrating her ability to tackle pressing societal issues head-on.

Bondi’s experience in the courtroom, both as a prosecutor and in civil litigation, has honed her legal acumen and understanding of the judicial system. This background allows her to navigate complex legal frameworks and advocate effectively for the law. Additionally, her leadership in high-profile cases has provided her with the skills necessary to manage large teams and coordinate across various governmental agencies.

Moreover, Bondi’s strong communication skills and ability to engage with the public have been vital in building trust and transparency within her office. Her commitment to educating citizens about their rights and promoting community safety further illustrates her readiness to lead the Department of Justice.

Overall, Bondi’s extensive legal background, combined with her passion for public service, positions her as a capable candidate for the role of Attorney General, ready to address the challenges facing the nation.

New Challenges

As Pam Bondi steps into her role as U.S. Attorney General, she is likely to encounter several significant challenges. One primary challenge will be navigating the complex political landscape, particularly in a divided Congress. She will need to build bipartisan support for her initiatives while remaining true to her conservative principles, which can be a delicate balancing act.

Another significant challenge will be addressing the ongoing issues of crime and public safety, especially in light of rising concerns over violent crime and drug-related offenses. Bondi must develop effective strategies that not only enforce the law but also foster community trust and cooperation, which is essential for successful law enforcement.

Additionally, Bondi will face scrutiny over her policies concerning immigration and criminal justice reform. Critics may challenge her approaches, demanding transparency and accountability, which could lead to contentious debates. Ensuring that her policies are both effective and fair while managing public expectations will be crucial.

Lastly, the ongoing opioid crisis and its ramifications will require her immediate attention. She will need to implement comprehensive solutions that involve collaboration with states and local authorities, balancing enforcement with treatment and prevention efforts.

Overall, while Bondi’s experience positions her well for the role, these challenges will require her to navigate a complex and often contentious environment.

Watch the full confirmation hearing:

On January 14, 2025, Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing. Hegseth, a former Army National Guard officer and Fox News host, entered the chamber to chants of “USA” from many in attendance, then faced rigorous questioning from senators concerning his qualifications, past conduct, and views on military policies.

Allegations and Controversies

Hegseth confronted inquiries about several serious allegations, including a 2017 sexual assault claim, which he has denied, asserting the encounter was consensual. Additionally, concerns were raised about his past financial management and reported instances of heavy drinking. Hegseth addressed these issues by labeling them as part of a “smear campaign” and emphasized his commitment to maintaining high standards within the Department of Defense.

Views on Women in Combat

A significant portion of the hearing focused on Hegseth’s previous statements opposing women serving in combat roles. Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa and a retired lieutenant colonel, questioned him on this stance. Hegseth responded by affirming that women should have access to combat roles, provided that rigorous standards are upheld, and committed to reviewing these standards to ensure they remain uncompromised.

Commitment to Addressing Sexual Assault in the Military

Senator Ernst also pressed Hegseth on combating sexual assault within the military. Hegseth pledged to appoint a senior-level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response, signaling his commitment to addressing this critical issue.

Protests and Public Reaction

The hearing was marked by disruptions from protesters, some dressed in camouflage, who were removed by Capitol Police. These interruptions underscored the contentious nature of Hegseth’s nomination and the polarized public opinion surrounding his potential appointment.

Support and Opposition

While Republican senators, including Ernst, appeared supportive, focusing on Hegseth’s commitment to military standards and his alignment with President-elect Trump’s defense policies, Democratic senators expressed skepticism. They questioned his qualifications, lack of senior leadership experience, and past controversial remarks, particularly concerning women and minority service members.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., called out Democratic senators’ “hypocritical” line of questioning of Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth during his confirmation hearing. “I think it’s so hypocritical of senators, especially on the other side, to be talking about his qualifications,” Mullin said of his Democratic colleagues before starting his line of questioning for Hegseth. “And yet your qualifications aren’t any better.”

Next Steps

The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to vote on Hegseth’s nomination in the coming days. Given the Republican majority in both the committee and the Senate, his confirmation appears likely, barring any unforeseen developments. For those interested in viewing the proceedings, the full hearing is available online.

SOLUTION: Before probing the depths of the abortion issue, and how it may affect the upcoming elections, let me here propose a companion solution to the problems discussed. Conservatives should immediately promote a federal program that offers young women $30,000 to have their tubes tied. Who will respond to such an offer? What will be the result—in the elections, and among our various communities? What would be the long-term financial savings of such a program? Perhaps the answers to those questions will become clearer as we discuss the abortion issue.

Legal History of Abortion in the U.S.

For centuries, women who wanted to terminate their pregnancies sought out the services of underground practitioners who would accommodate them, with varying levels of care and professionalism. Most societies felt that the taking of an innocent human life was wrong, even a grave wrong from a moral or religious view, so most governments took steps to restrict or abolish the practice, and protect those innocent lives.

The state of Texas had a restrictive abortion law, which dictated that only in the case of danger to the mother’s life would abortion be allowed. The restrictive state law was challenged by “Jane Roe,” who asserted that she should be able to terminate her pregnancy for personal reasons, much broader than those provided under the Texas statute. She sued the District Attorney, Henry Wade, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with Roe, striking down the restrictive law. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the seminal case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court carved out a new “right” under the U.S. Constitution, holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a fundamental “right to privacy,” which protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.

Legal scholars, across the political spectrum, privately agreed that the Court’s reasoning in Roe v. Wade was constitutionally flawed, and likely could not withstand the rigors of constitutional scrutiny. In other words, a day of reckoning awaited the unconstitutional expansion of rights to one class, to the lethal detriment of another class, granted in Roe. Political conservatives always held the that issue is one reserved to the states by the founders and the constitution, and that each state must deal with the issue as it deals with every other moral or criminal issue—according to the will of the citizens of each state. In that discussion, conservatives felt that the innocent life is human, and must be protected. Liberals felt that the issue should be left entirely up to the individual woman affected by the pregnancy, and that aborting the unborn fetus should be her prerogative, right up until the moment of birth. A great moral, legal and political tug-of-war ensued, wherein opponents of abortion attempted to limit the practice by enacting state restrictions on how far into the pregnancy abortion would be allowed, and liberals fought to keep the practice entirely unshackled from any restrictions.

In the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi’s 2018 Gestational Age Act, which had banned abortions after 15 weeks, with exceptions only for medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities, the law was challenged by a local abortion clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization as too restrictive. The question was put to the Supreme Court, “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion of the Court, issued on June 24, 2022, stating therein that Roe and its progeny were “egregiously wrong from the start,” and the underlying reasoning supporting it was “exceptionally weak,” thereby overturning Roe. The practical result of the Roe decision, Alito noted that the Court’s overreaching in that line of cases had “enflamed debate and deepened division,” reasoning that overruling Roe would now “return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Political Implications of Abortion

Indeed, Roe had inflamed debate and deepened division among the American people, with feelings on both sides of the issue running to heated extremes. Leftist groups used the abortion issue to lure female and young voters to support their candidates, chanting incessantly that women must exercise control over their own bodies, and creating euphemisms like “reproductive liberty” to describe the act of ending the viable fetus living in the womb. Although some pro-life protagonists declared that all abortions were unacceptable, under any and all circumstances, most sought to balance the health needs of the mother with the baby’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Public polls, however, reflected that most of the country was nowhere near the extremes. Abortion in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life was in danger, was something that most Americans reluctantly supported—even many religious groups. Few, however, supported abortion in the late stages of pregnancy. Most states attempted to regulate abortion past certain points in the pregnancy—the first trimester, for example. More liberal states pushed those boundaries all the way up to the moment of delivery, creating deep resentment among most citizens.

In the aftermath of Dobbs, which ruling had been leaked ahead of the announced decision, abortion advocates vehemently denounced the Court, and swore vengeance in their wrath. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N. Y., pledged violent retaliation as he shouted from the steps, “I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

This sentiment was carried into the streets, and indeed affected the outcome of the 2022 mid-term elections. Polls had shown Republican candidates making sweeping gains in federal and state elections, but those were pared to a slim majority in the House of Representatives, and failure to take the Senate, by the time the elections were completed.

Democrats are currently whipping up upcoming election support based on the pro-abortion fervor that they hope will continue to grow as election day draws near. Their control of the White House and Senate has left the nation in shambles, with every economic and quality-of-life measurement reflecting in the worst presidential incumbent approval numbers in history. Support for Democrat congressional candidates is gloomy. But abortion—yes, abortion—that’s the winning ticket; in their collective minds, anyway.

Will the abortion issue carry the day for the Democrats in the 2024 elections? Will it still pack the same indignant punch in the minds and hearts of middle-of-the-road voters?

The reality appears to be much different than the promised whirlwind. Women being forced into back-alley abortions as a result of the Court overturning Roe has not materialized. In fact, each state has been deliberating its own abortion policy, deciding it based on local feelings and mores—as they decide most other issues. Most women still have access to an abortion if that’s what they choose, without burdensome hardships heaped on them. It all turned out to be nothing but a poof in the wind, instead of the circling hurricanes predicted by abortion advocates. A nothing-burger.

The Abortion Issue in the 2024 Election

Pro-life forces are still against terminating innocent lives, and pro-abortion forces still stress abortion on demand. The American people are still somewhere in the middle. Political operatives on the left have been ginning up their base with promises that states will deprive them of their “right” to abort their children. Therefore, they must donate generously to Democratic candidates, and support their elections. Some conservative voices have been warning conservative candidates to stay away from the issue to the extent possible, and to take a “reasonable” public stance. Is it possible for a pro-life candidate to say, Okay, go ahead and abort some babies, for the good of our long-term survival as a political philosophy?

Here is some practical advice from someone who believes that terminating a pregnancy is the taking of innocent life. Yes, the “science” confirms that human fetuses are human lives, with organs and brains that function at a viable level. The more mature the fetus becomes, the more viable and alive it is. There’s no escaping that scientific truth. However, in the 2024 election, we are told to be a little more ‘pragmatic’ about the subject. Can I be pragmatic about killing babies? Am I become Hamas? Let us reason a little together.

Who is it that supports abortion? The left. Who is it that receives abortions? Mostly those on the left. Since 1970, approximately 59 million abortions have been performed in America. Most of those were minority babies. Most of those would have become Democratic voters. Those voices were silenced in abortion clinics.

If approximately 50 million potential Democratic Party voters have been removed by the Democrats from the voter polls, why are the Democrats still so keen to abort their babies? It’s political suicide, literally, to support the practice. Do they answer to a higher calling than garnering political power? They do not. Political power is their main focus, and they acquire it through any pretense or device they can contrive. So why do they so fervently support their own suicide? Because their long-term goals are always accomplished through short term gains. Counting the costs has never been the strong suit of the left. They never display any reservations about anything based on its cost. They simply plough the political field to harvest the crop of power, even if they know that field will be destroyed in the process. Burn it to the ground, and rebuild it in our own image, is their philosophy. Run up the debt until the nation is crushed under the weight of interest, and there’s nothing left for social services or welfare programs. It doesn’t matter; as long as they get more power today. This short-sighted methodology dominates leftist thinking, and is destroying everything that made America a great place to live and raise families.

So . . . why do Republicans fight so hard to keep Democrats from aborting their next generation of voters? Why do they fight so hard to preserve tens of millions who would probably end up on public assistance for most of their lives, and criminally victimize one another, as many do in our Democratically controlled cities? Would it not be more expedient for Republicans to just ignore the abortion issue? After all, like so many suicidal dalliances of the left—it’s a problem that eventually resolves itself. Imagine the state of our nation if Roe had never been the law of the land. Tens of millions more Democrat voters would have voted in leftist, Marxist, anti-American candidates, who would have turned the entire nation into downtown Detroit decades ago.

Is there any reason for Republicans to champion the cause of saving these unborn babies? Politically, the answer is no. Let the dead bury the dead. Ethically, morally and religiously, however—yes, there’s the rub. How many babies can we send to the ‘gas chambers’ of the abortion clinic, and still look at ourselves in the mirror? How many are expendable, for our own short-term political gains in the upcoming election?

Indeed, this is a very hard question. We are victims of our own morality, as much as the left are victims of their own godlessness. Pundits tell us to temper our stance, and speak in “reasonable” tones about aborting babies. Is that okay? WWJD? The left tells us that Jesus supports abortion. I can tell you for a fact that He does not. He holds all accountable for this evil and pernicious practice. It would be better, He says, that a millstone were draped around your neck and you were sent to the bottom of the sea, than you should offend an innocent little one.

Conclusion

Walk softly, and carry a big stick. Be as wise as serpents, but harmless as doves. Our nation is at an existential crossroads. This 2024 election will play a great part in determining our future as a constitutional republic; or, a totalitarian state. The stakes have not been so high since the Civil War, and the players are essentially the same as then, with very similar philosophies of governance. It seems that for this election, it is better for all conservative candidates to adopt a “reasonable” position on the issue of abortion, and allow the people to decide which side of the issue they support. Of course, we can teach by example as we do what is right, and how to care for the innocent among us. But perhaps the pundits are correct at this snapshot in time. Perhaps the answer to abortion should be, If leftists want to abort their babies, that’s up to them. We do not see abortion as a birth control device, but if others wish to cut themselves off from the happiness that naturally flows from living the true American dream, then we will not compel them. We will garner for ourselves the liberties that our Founders preserved to us, and create an environment that is hospitable to our children, and nurturing for the future generations of our nation. We may have to collectively bite our tongues, for a season, and perhaps God will forgive us when we are eventually able to cultivate a restored republic and live in peace and prosperity, where children are welcome and cared for by loving parents.

By James Thompson
James Thompson is an analyst, author and professional ghostwriter.

In the Utah Senate Race, Utah Has a Clear Choice . . . and it isn’t the Pretend Conservative

Senator Mike Lee has represented the interests of the state of Utah, and the nation, extremely well during his tenure in office. He has voted and acted like a conservative, championing the pro-God, pro-Christian, pro-family, pro-life, limited government and spending philosophies of the Republican party—often providing lacking leadership in those arenas.

Evan McMullin, conversely, has been skulking and hobnobbing with liberals, busily undermining those principles and philosophies whenever the occasion has permitted. As we warned during the 2016 presidential election (Mormons Determined to Give White House to Clinton, and Supreme Court to Left, Oct 24, 2016), wherein McMullin attempted to deprive Donald Trump of the presidency with a divided conservative vote, his purpose was to deliver the White House to Hillary Clinton. If he had succeeded in that attempt, Roe vs. Wade would still be the law of the land. Let me say it again—McMullin would have deprived Trump of badly needed electoral votes in what appeared to be a razor thin margin, and Hillary Clinton would have nominated the next 4 Supreme Court Justices (so far), and the 54 judges for the United States courts of appeals, 174 judges for the United States district courts, etc. That was McMullin’s plan, and he was depending on the people of the state of Utah to accomplish it.

The damage we’ve seen in just two years of democratic dominance would now be in its sixth year if McMullin had succeeded, and as bad as things have gotten, we can easily project how much worse they would be if Trump had been defeated. Your rights as Christians and citizens would have been eroded to unrecognizable levels had McMullin succeeded.

McMullin has been railing against Senator Mike Lee, falsely accusing him of stupidity and wrongdoing. He is lying, and he knows it. His accusations are the thinly disguised talking points of the left, ignoring reality and constitutional principles. McMullin says he will reach out to the democrats if elected. I’m not sure how that is a virtue, when the party has been taken over by hard-left socialists. On which issue should he reach out—which means join them?

A vote for McMullin is a vote for Chuck Schumer as the Senate Majority Leader.

Utah–it’s time to cut McMullin loose. Send a message, and stand strong with the pro-God, pro-Christian, pro-family, pro-life, limited government and spending practices of Mike Lee.

By James Thompson
James Thompson is an LDS writer and professional ghostwriter, who is well acquainted with Utah politics — he was ghostwriting the book of Utah’s late Speaker of the House, Becky Lockhart, when she died suddenly and unexpectedly.

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Author Den has James’ latest book projects.

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number — a book that discusses government admissions about UAP and other interesting matters.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has fired several top Twitter executives after officially taking control of the company Thursday evening, according to multiple reports.

CNBC’s David Faber reported Thursday evening that Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal and CFO Ned Segal have “left” Twitter’s headquarters and “will not be returning as the Musk era begins.” 

People familiar with the matter told The Washington Post that the move came after Musk’s $44 billion deal to takeover over the company closed. 

They told the outlet that Agrawal and Segal, as well as Vijaya Gadde, head of legal policy, trust, and safety, were shuttled from the building after being fired.   

This is a developing story. Check back for updates. 

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Gorgeous food photography and delicious original recipes for food bloggers from InFocus Content Shop.

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den has latest projects.

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number–a book that discusses UAP and other interesting matters.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion on Friday to temporarily block President Biden’s student loan handout plan.

The appeals court ruled in favor of six Republican-led states who requested that Biden’s handout plan is halted while the court works through its request for an injunction.

Biden’s plan, which aims to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients in college and up to $10,000 for others who borrowed using federal student loans.

Qualifications for the handout include having an adjusted gross income of less than $125,000 individually, and less than $250,000 if married.

By Adam Sabes

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Gorgeous food photography and delicious original recipes for food bloggers from InFocus Content Shop.

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den has latest projects.

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number–a book that discusses UAP and other interesting matters.

Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision centered on a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively ending recognition of a constitutional right to abortion and giving individual states the power to allow, limit, or ban the practice altogether.

The ruling came in the court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centered on a Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Republican-led state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to strike down a lower court ruling that stopped the 15-week abortion ban from taking place.

“We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s opinion.

Alito’s opinion began with an exploration and criticism of Roe v. Wade and its holding that while states have “a legitimate interest in protecting ‘potential life,” this interest was not strong enough to prohibit abortions before the time of fetal viability, understood to be at about 23 weeks into pregnancy.

“The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning,” Alito wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed that the viability line “never made any sense,” but said he would have taken “a more measured course” with this case. Rather than overturn Roe v. Wade altogether, Roberts said he would have continued to recognize a right to get an abortion, and that the right should “extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further.”

The court’s majority took a firmer stance against Roe v. Wade and the subsequent case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, holding “that Roe and Casey must be overruled.”

“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Alito wrote. 

The Court’s opinion recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has been found to guarantee certain rights that are not spelled out in the Constitution, but that those rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Abortion, the Court said, “does not fall within this category,” as “such a right was entirely unknown in American law” until the late 20th century.

The opinion continued to shred the Roe decision, saying it “was egregiously wrong from the start,” and that “[i]ts reasoning was exceptionally weak[.]”

Rather than continue the tradition established by Roe and Case, the Court wrote that it “is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The opinion comes after a leak of a draft opinion from February striking down Roe caused nationwide debate and promoted pro-choice activist protests at the homes of the six conservative justices. In addition, dozens of pro-life pregnancy centers were vandalized since the opinion leak, Catholic churches were targeted for protests and unrest, and a suspect was charged with attempted murder for allegedly trying to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

At least 13 Republican-led states have already passed “trigger laws,” in the event Roe was overturned, that would immediately restrict access to abortion.

Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and South Carolina all have laws banning abortions after the six-week mark, which have been ruled unconstitutional but would likely be revisited if Roe is overturned, the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group, has reported.

On the other hand, pro-choice advocates will have to work to codify Roe or enact looser abortion restrictions by passing state-level legislation. 

New York passed a bill in 2018 designed to codify Roe, and other blue states are expected to follow suit after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Public opinion polling has also indicated that despite that more than six in 10 registered voters think the court should uphold Roe, the majority of Americans are in favor of some restrictions on abortion.

When Americans were asked in a recent Fox News poll about how they would feel if a law banning abortions after 15 weeks were passed in their state, just over half of voters favor it (54%) while 41% are opposed. 

At the federal level, the Senate failed to advance a bill to codify federal abortion protections in Roe v. Wade in the week following the leaked draft.

Vice President Kamala Harris presided over the vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act. It needed 60 votes to advance but died in a 51 to 49 tally, with West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin joining with all 50 Republicans in voting no.  

Democratic campaign arms have already signaled that abortion will be a key issue heading into the midterms and will galvanize their base. Republicans are largely convinced that “sanctity of life” issues will spark renewed enthusiasm for conservative candidates in state-level elections.

By Ronn Blitzer , Kelly Laco

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number–a book that discusses UAP and other interesting matters.

San Francisco archbishop bars Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion due to abortion support

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is barred from receiving Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion stance — marking an escalation in a decades-long tension between the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Democratic politicians on abortion.

Cordileone has written to the California Democrat, informing her that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests will not distribute communion to her if she does present herself.

“A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others.  Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'” he says in the letter. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is unambiguous on the question of abortion, both in procuring one and assisting in the practice: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the catechism says. “This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

“Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law,” it says, before calling abortion and infanticide “abominable crimes.”

It also declares that “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.”

However, despite that clarity, liberal Catholic politicians have consistently attempted to try and align their Catholic beliefs with their support of abortion rights. Then New York Gov. Mario Cuomo famously declared himself personally opposed to abortion in 1984, but said he could not impose that view on the country. 

But since then, Democrats such as Pelosi have been more full throated in their support of pro-abortion policies. President Biden, also a Catholic, had once supported the Hyde Amendment — which prevented U.S. funding going to pay for abortions abroad. He flipped on that amendment when he ran for president in 2020, and recently described “a woman’s right to choose” as “fundamental.”

Cordileone says in his letter that he wrote to her on April 7, informing her that “should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” He says that since that time, she has not done so.

“Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco to be ‘concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to [my] care” (Code of Canon Law, can. 383, §1), by means of this communication I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.” he said.

Pelosi has sparred with the Church for years on the matter as she has tried to present herself both as a “devout” Catholic, while also a full-throated supporter of a practice that the Catholic Church condemns as a moral evil.

In a 2008 interview, Pelosi claimed that “as a devout, practicing Catholic,” the Church has “not been able to make that definition” of when life begins — a remark that brought a slew of criticism from a number of top U.S. bishops – and then said that “the point is, it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.” In that interview she also said she wanted abortion to be “rare.”

But in the wake of the leaked opinion this month suggesting that the Supreme Court will soon overturn Roe v Wade, Pelosi has not talked about reducing abortion, but she has continued to claim that her pro-choice stance is in line with Catholic teaching.

“This [topic] really gets me burned up in case you didn’t notice, because again I’m very Catholic, devout, practicing, all of that. They would like to throw me out. But I’m not going because I don’t want to make their day,” she said this month.

Pelosi met with Pope Francis last year, where the Vatican did not say if the topic of abortion was discussed. Pope Francis has compared having an abortion to hiring a hitman but has also been cautious about suggesting politicians be barred from communion.

“I have never refused the Eucharist to anyone,” the pope said last year, although he said that he did not recall a time when a politician stood staunchly against Church teaching on abortion and came to him for communion. 

He referred to communion as “a gift” and not “a prize for the perfect.”  In that same interview, however, he emphasized that the Catholic Church views abortion as homicide. 

“Whoever has an abortion kills,” the pope said. “It is a human life.”

Adam Shaw is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital, with a focus on immigration. He can be reached at adam.shaw2@fox.com or on Twitter: @AdamShawNY. Fox News’ Peter Aitken contributed to this report.