Mediaboss Marketing

UPDATE: Former Attorney General William Barr has been in the spotlight in this hearing, as the committee has run extensive video of his testimony, in which he talked of how he thought that Donald Trump was detached from reality as he began to embrace conspiracies about the election.

I was somewhat demoralized, because I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has lost contact hes become detached from reality, Barr said.

Barr said that he met with Trump in the Oval Office to inform him that the Justice Department had not found evidence of widespread election fraud. Barr said that Trump was as mad as Ive ever seen him and he was trying to control himself. He said that Trump told him, You must have said this because you hate Trump.

Barr said that my opinion then and my opinion now is that the election was not stolen by fraud, and I havent seen anything since the election that changes my mind on that.

At one point in his testimony, Barr laughed about Dinesh DSouzas recent movie 2000 Mules, which purports to lay out the case of election fraud. Barr characterized it as bunk.

Former U.S. Attorney BJay Pak testified to some of the false election claims, including one that a black suitcase full of ballots was being seen pulled from under the table, but that it it was actually an official lock box where ballots were kept safe.

Ben Ginsberg, a veteran Republican campaign attorney, testified that the 2020 election was not close, as he noted the number of cases brought by Trump and his allies without actual evidence. Trumps side lost more than 60 times in court, yet that did not stop him from continuing to claim the election was stolen, as he does today.

Committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) presented a video showing how fundraising emails were used to collect money off of Trumps false election claims, with some murkiness over where the donations were going. A committee investigator said that most of the donations went to Trumps Save America PAC and not to fund the election challenge. Lofgren said that this gave donors a misleading sense of where their money was going.

Not only was there the big lie, there was the big ripoff, she said.

PREVIOUSLY: Former Fox News political editor Chris Stirewalt defended the networks election night call of Arizona for Joe Biden, a moment that drew a furor among Donald Trumps supporters as it signaled that the president would likely lose.

He testified that the networks decision desk was so certain of its controversial election night call of Arizona for Joe Biden well ahead of the competition that even as people were freaking out about it, we were looking at calling other states.

During his testimony, Stirewalt not only defended the call of Arizona but took pride over it, as it aced Fox News rivals. Not until later in the week did they follow in calling the state.

We were able to make a call early, Stirewalt said of the Arizona call. We were able to beat the competition. He said that the networks Decision Desk, partnered with the Associated Press and the National Opinion Research Center, had a different set of data than other networks, and as returns came in, the results lined up with their polling expectations.

His remarks are significant because they show how the election was playing to expectations, and not so unexpected as to give rise to suspicion over the results.

After Nov. 7, when networks called the race for Biden, Stirewalt said, Trumps chances of winning were none, barring something totally unexpected from happening. He said that Trump was better off to play the Powerball than betting he would win the election.

Fox News call of Arizona immediately came under fire from Trump and his allies, who encouraged viewers to instead tune into Newsmax and One America News Network, which were more aggressive in giving a platform to claims that the election was rigged or stolen. In the weeks following the election, Newsmax got a boost in viewership as Fox News dropped off.

Other Fox News personalities, like Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, gave a platform to those claims as well. The committee played a clip of Trumps appearance on Bartiromos Sunday morning show in late November, 2020, in which he again made claims about the results, and Rudy Giulianis guest spot on Hannity.

The network is facing defamation lawsuits from two elections systems companies, Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems, over claims that personalities and guests made on the air that the firms were involved in rigging the results. Fox News has defended itself by citing the First Amendment public interest in Trumps election claims.

In January, Stirewalt was let go by Fox News. He has said that he was fired, and departed around the same time as Bill Sammon, who retired. Sammon, who was Stirewalts boss, also was involved in the call of Arizona for Biden, and insisted that all of those on the Decision Desk be in unanimous agreement to do so. Stirewalt did not testify about the circumstances of his exit.

Stirewalt said that they knew it would be significant calling the state, but we already knew Trumps chances were very small and getting smaller based on the data they saw.

In video testimony that was played, members of Trumps campaign testified that Fox News call of Arizona was a key moment at the White House. Jason Miller told the committee that the reaction was anger and disappointment because it was Fox News, with many supporters of the president among its personalities, making the call.

We were pleased, but not surprised, Stirewalt said of the Arizona call.

Stirewalt also explained the red mirage. Because Trump attacked mail-in voting, many of the ballots for his reelection were cast on Election Day. In a number of states, those returns were counted first, giving the early impression that Trump was doing well. But so much of the mail-in votes, favoring Biden, had yet to be counted.

Stirewalt said that they went to great pains to warn viewers of the red mirage.

Everyone understood for weeks that was what was going to happen on election night, he said.

Yet Trump, apparently emboldened by an apparently inebriated Rudy Giuliani, in the words of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), went ahead and declared victory on election night, despite advice from his official campaign advisers, including from senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, that all votes had not been counted and he should hold off on saying that he won the election. Trump, though, said that he had confidence in Rudy.

That quickly led to speculation among the press corps outside the Cannon Caucus Room on what happened, but Politico and other news outlets reported that his wife had gone into labor. Instead, Stepiens attorney will read a statement.

Another marquee name on the agenda is Chris Stirewalt, the former Fox News political editor who was let go after the January 6th attack. Although he has not said what he will testify about, the committee is focused on the origins of Trumps false claims about the 2020 election, including how conspiracy theories spread in traditional and social media.

The broadcast networks are carrying the proceedings live, as they did on Thursday, as are the major cable news networks. That includes Fox News, a change from last week then it chose to skip the hearing last week in favor of its primetime opinion hosts, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, who continued to blast the event as a partisan exercise.

Last weeks hearing drew about 20 million viewers, according to Nielsen, a healthy number for summer viewing although not at the blockbuster level. But the hearing got extensive coverage afterward, as clips were shared across social media.

Stirewalt was dropped from Fox News after the January 6th attack on the Capitol, in what the network said was a restructuring. But Stirewalt later wrote that he was fired from the networkafter defending the Fox News decision deskscall of Arizona for Joe Bidenon Election Night, the first major signal that Trump would lose his bid for re-election. Thattriggered a backlash against the networkby Trump and his supporters.

Stirewalt is now political editor for NewsNation.

A number of House members were in the gallery to watch Mondays proceedings, including Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC). The hearing is being held in the stately Cannon Caucus Room, with the room, lined with Corinthian pilasters, brightened by TV lights installed in the decorative molded ceiling.

See the article here:
January 6th Committee Hearing: Attorney General William Barr Says That Donald Trump Was Detached From Reality As He Advanced False Election Claims -...

Oklahoma women should move to Illinois

Presently, the state of Oklahoma suggests the most draconian laws against women in the country. Women, if youre interested in living in a community that respects your dignity and privacy, I welcome you to consider relocating to my great state of Illinois.

Jonny Petrocelli, Markham, Il

Many politicians seem to base their opinions on which way the wind is blowing, not on the wishes of their constituents.

When the Supreme Court decision on abortion was leaked to the press a few weeks ago, our Oklahoma governor and legislators rushed to enact one of the most stringent laws against women and abortion. Although nationwide polls disagreed, some Oklahomapoliticians said it was an essential piece of legislation.They said, "Every life is important and should be saved."

They must have changed their minds after schoolchildren were gunned down in Texas. They admitted it was horrible and sent their prayers, but unfortunately, the NRA stepped in and scared them back into their holes.They now stand up for the Second Amendment and claim everyone has the right to access a military gun that killed these innocent children.Guns have priority over lives that could be saved with good sense restrictions.

Maybe our politicians should listen more and reread the Second Amendment, written when muskets were the guns used.We do not have a militia, but we do have police and sheriff's departments to handle wrongdoing. They do not round up a civilian posse when bad events happen.Therefore, should civilians be able to access military type weapons or packages that could turn a rifle into a repeater gun?Being able to shoot a room of people is not as the Second Amendment states, "being necessary to the security of a free State."

Will politicians ever listen? Will they really care as long as the NRA and pours money into their campaigns?

Nadine Jewell, Oklahoma City

I am heartbroken over the evil that has overcome Uvalde, Texas. And I, as an Oklahoman, am outraged that our system has continued to fail us. Over the last 20 years, weve taught kids to hide, protectand wait for help. More must be done.

Gun-free zones are dangerous, and it is time to protect schools like we protect airports, hospitals, courthousesand banks, and we must stop threats with equal or greater force. I support the Second Amendment and believe that education is the key to gun safety, not legislation. I must be my own first responder to protect myself, my familyand my community, which is why I carry a firearm.

The evil in Uvalde was not caused by a gun, it was caused by a broken system that continues to push paper, policies, and legislation versus solving the root issue. We must heal the pain in our communities, strengthen families, and improve economic opportunities. Most importantly, it is TIME to fund meaningful programs that address mental health, safety, and firearm awareness and training.

Patricia Wisehart, state director, DC Project

News today seems to be either highlighting actions of fear, death and hate and just plain old incompetence.My question is why is it, and what is the real cause?

Is it possible that when we react to the actions and the rhetoric, we stop our thinking process of determining, what deep down, might be the real cause?

If at this time, we really start being inquisitive, we will win.If we stay involved in the symptoms of what is happening in our world, we moan and groan, we cry, and we continue to lose.

So now what?We start digging for answers.This will lead you to determining truth, listening then going and verifying, When we stop believing everything we hear, start being skeptical of so-called leaders.

We will see that the conversations approving of fear, hate and violence are not acceptable, and the ones based on kindness, respect and love are ones we will turn to for information.But no matter what, be skeptical, but listen always kindly.

The incompetence in our political leadership can be addressed, but only with changes allowed in the First Amendment.The strong two-party system has failed Oklahomans, as well as other states. Already states and cities, such as Alaska and NYC, have changed to Rank Choice Voting with positive results.

Dont give up on hope;this mess is fixable, it really is.

Cecil Sterne,Cleveland

See more here:
Letters to the editor for June 12, 2022, edition of The Oklahoman - Oklahoman.com

In America, we once thought of political courage as being willing to do something at ones own expense.

At the pointy end of that consideration are instances when people risk their lives or freedom to do the right thing. The men and women rotting in Vladimir Putins jails or dead by his order are proof that history will never exhaust its demand for political courage.

Here, thankfully, we have in recent decades mostly thought of political courage in terms of electoral risks: Gerald Ford taking the hit for pardoning Richard Nixon to bring the Watergate fiasco to a close, Barack Obama refusing the demands of Democrats to prosecute members of the Bush administration, or any politician who crosses the aisle to vote for a measure unpopular with his or her own party for the sake of an idea or policy they believe in.

Thats why we revere courageous leadership. A politician who will sacrifice his or her ambition or grasp on power in order to serve the people is a rarity, and also essential. We name states and cities for them and build monuments to their service. Had George Washington or Abraham Lincoln wanted to be despots, they could have been. Instead, they preserved government of, for, and by the people. In Lincolns case, even unto death.

I dont know if the share of politicians capable of actual courage really is lower today than when I first started covering them full-time two dozen years ago. Some of what I see as declining character in our leaders may be a byproduct of nostalgia, but holy croakano, people

We surely are living in a political age of desperate, shallow ambition and the cowardice it inevitably produces. No longer is it sufficient to help yourself; you must also hurt the other side.

Which brings us to the investigation into then-President Donald Trumps effort to steal a second term, the efforts of some Republicans in Congress to vandalize the Constitution to help him, and the sacking of the Capitol by a mob summoned to serve the ambitions of the coup plotters. Forget Lincoln and Washington. This was behavior unworthy of Nixon, who refused to contest some clearly dubious results after the 1960 presidential election and, when president himself, resigned the office rather than subject the country to a protracted impeachment fight.

What Trump and his gang did in the 2020 election and its aftermath is a big historical moment for our country, far bigger than the Watergate scandal we still discuss 50 years later. The coup effort and Capitol attack will long endure in the story of this century, along with the 9/11 attacks and subsequent wars, the panic of 2008 and the ensuing recession, and the coronavirus pandemic during which the 2020 election took place. Trump was the first president ever to pose a credible threat to the peaceful transfer of presidential power that has been our inheritance for 226 years.

Acts of such monstrous self interest and the craven lust for power evinced by the behavior of many in the Republican Party demanded a response of real statesmanship and courage; first from Republicans who had not succumbed to the scheme and then from Democrats. But as you know, both parties failed that test.

What should have happened was that, acting in mutual defense of the legislative branch and the constitutional order, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should have put an impeachment and trial on the fast track. A single, short article against Trump for trying to disrupt the transfer of power, including by sending an angry mob to the Capitol, would have been very hard to vote against for Republicans who hadnt been part of the power grab. If such an article had been passed by the House that week, I believe Trump would have been convicted and removed from office by the Senate.

Instead, Pelosi put three cable news stalwarts and sharp-elbowed partisans in charge of drafting the articles: Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, David Cicilline, of Rhode Island, and Ted Lieu, of California. What the House voted on a week after the attack was not designed to make it easy for Republicans to get to yea.

McConnell seemed content to let Democrats do it on their own. According to a book from two New York Times reporters, six days after the attack, McConnell told aides If this isn't impeachable, I don't know what is," but that Democrats are going to take care of the son of a bitch for us. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, though, made McConnell look like captain courageous. After saying in private in the aftermath of the attack that he would tell Trump to resign, McCarthy had shifted by Jan. 11 to saying he believed Trump was sorry for what he had done, to, by the end of the month, going to Mar-a-Lago to ask Trumps blessing and cheese for photos. Having voted with the coup plotters against election certification, McCarthy probably rightly determined his lot was already cast.

Once the impeachment doomed by partisan self-interest was out of the way, the question was how Congress should investigate what happened. The first and most logical answer was for leaders of the two parties in both houses to pick an outside commission with subpoena powers, as Congress did after the 9/11 attacks. It made sense because it took the responsibility out of the hands of people running for re-election. But in May of 2021, Senate Republicans blocked the creation of such a commission, citing expressly partisan reasons for doing so.

In reply, Pelosi formed a select committee to investigate the attempted coup and riot. Senate Republicans and others in the GOP assumed that House Republicans would use their minority seats on the panel to defend Trump, leak information beneficial to Republicans, and push the schedule (and narrative) in ways helpful to their own team. But McCarthy fumbled.

Two of the five members McCarthy picked for the committee had been part of the effort to steal the election. Pelosi said she wouldnt seat them, but that she would let the other three serve, and asked for McCarthy to pick two replacements. Instead, McCarthy pulled out completely in an attempt to block the committee. It was a botch. Pelosi named two cooperative Republicans, Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, and plowed on without any interference from McCarthy.

Almost a year later, after lots of leaks and speculation, the committee was finally ready to start its main hearings. Rather than adopting a somber, non-partisan tone, Democrats like Raskin and the head of the partys House campaign arm were out in advance boasting about how the hearings would hurt Republicans in Novembers midterm elections and blow the roof off the House. Like with Trumps second impeachment, a laudable goal was being mired in negative partisanship. At a time when Congress needed desperately to show that there were principles beyond partisan ambition, it sent the opposite message.

But the hearings that we saw last week were not that. They were sober and dignified and seemed mostly to resist gratuitous partisanship. And I hope they stay that way, because Im the next entre on the menu.

By the time you read this I may already have finished testifying, and my part is a small one, but Im not going to write here about what I have to say. Im still not entirely sure what I will say or what may happen, and dont want to close any doors or create any expectations. I had a pretty good perch for the 2020 election and was part of the best decision desk in the news business on election night. Im still so proud of the work we didwe beat the competition and stuck the landing. All I can do is tell the truth about my work and hope for the best.

But I do want to tell you why I agreed to testify before this committee, despite the straitened circumstances of its creation and the mistakes that were made along the way: because it is a duly empaneled committee of the United States Congress, and its chairman asked me to come forward and answer questions. I have no First Amendment grounds on which to refuse since I am not being asked to reveal a source or something like that. If I was in that spot, I would dig in my heels and fight until they either locked me up or let me go. But I have no such grounds.

I spend a lot of time talking about the need for stronger institutions and how Congress must reclaim its status as the first among equal branches. How could I then resist when Congress made a request of me that falls well within its powers? I would rather not have to face the same anger I did after we called Arizona for Joe Biden in 2020. I have no interest in starring in the sequel to that one. But neither could I find an acceptable reason as a citizen to refuse, so I will go. It is not a courageous thing for me to do, only unavoidable.

As a journalist, I feel very uncomfortable even playing this small role in these events. The first rule for my vocation is to tell the truth as best as you can, and the second is to stay the hell out of the story. I will fail in the latter today, but aim for the former.

Members of Congress in both parties failed us after Jan. 6, 2021, and in nearly every case, it was because of a lack of political courage. Once, that meant being willing to hurt your own ambitions or those of your party to do what you thought was right. Now, we cant even find a sufficient number of women and men who will pass up an opportunity to hurt the other side to do the right thing. The new standard in Washington is that any action must be both helpful to ones own career and harmful to the hated opposition. We saw that all too clearly as Republicans repeatedly shirked their duty surrounding this bizarre episode, but just as clearly as Democrats egged them on. Keeping the republic will require real courage from our leaders, even when it means passing on the cheap shots.

See the rest here:
The January 6 Committee and Me - by Chris Stirewalt - The Dispatch

Last month, Justice Samuel Alitos draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade leaked into public view. This month a man tried to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Police arrested the suspect outside Kavanaughs home (he was able to find Kavanaughs address online), and he was carrying a handgun, a knife, pepper spray, zip ties, and tools useful for breaking into the Kavanaugh home.

As the disturbing news reports filtered out, I had two immediate responses. First, because Id just debated the topic on the New York Times Argument podcast, I thought: This is why you dont dox public figures. By exposing a persons home address to the public, you expose it not just to those who want to peacefully protest, but also to those who wish to do you harm.

But my second thought was more important, and its what I want to address today. I thought no one should be surprised at the attempt or the target. After all, in some quarters, Justice Kavanaugh has become the right person to hate, and if enough people hate a person, then threats and ultimately violence are the inevitable result.

Id like to introduce you to a term you may not have heard before. Its called stochastic terrorism, and its deeply challengingboth as a concept and as a realityto both sides of our partisan divide. You can find a good short definition of the term in a recent piece by Todd Morley in the Small Wars Journal. He described it as a quantifiable relationship between seemingly random acts of terrorism and the perpetuation of hateful rhetoric in public discourse, accompanied by catastrophising and fear generation in media sources.

Another, shorter definition is the incitement of a violent act by the public demonization of a group or individual, and it refers to a pattern that cannot be predicted precisely but can be analyzed statistically. In other words, a specific act against the demonized person or group cannot be forecast, but the probability of an act occurring has increased due to the rhetoric of a public figure.

The concept is both common-sense and controversial. The common-sense element is easy to explain. If youre a normal person and five people hate you, what are the odds youll face targeted violence? Unless youre engaged in criminal activity yourself (and the five people who hate you are other criminals), then the odds are almost impossibly low.

But what if 50,000 people hate you? Or five million? Then the odds change considerably, until they reach a virtual certainty that youll face a threat of some kind.

Ive explained the concept as working like a funnel. At each new step from rhetoric to action, engagement narrows and intensifies. Lots of people might just talk. Fewer people actually act. But the more people who talk, the more people who act. We can easily recognize this reality in extremist movements. They rarely spring from healthy communities.

For example, weve long recognized that the Middle East is awash in anti-Semitism. According to the Anti-Defamation League, a horrifying 74 percent of citizens of the Middle East harbor anti-Semitic attitudes. No other region comes close. The next-most anti-Semitic region is Eastern Europe, where 34 percent of citizens hold anti-Semitic ideas.

The vast majority of anti-Semites will never be violent. But amongst such a vast pool of people, there will be some who will believe words are simply not enough. A small number will raise money for violent causes. A smaller number will join extremist organizations. A smaller number still will take up arms. Is it any wonder that Israel faces persistent threats of terrorist violence?

Thus one of the challenges of containing extremism lies not just in addressing the most intense individuals at the bottom of the funnel but also the prevalence of the terrible ideas at the top.

When I was researching my book, which argues that America might face a secession crisis, I talked to a number of people who were experts in civil conflict in developing nations who are increasingly alarmed by the dynamics that exist here at home. There is nothing unique or special about Americans that makes us immune from the same tidal forces that have torn other nations or regions to pieces.

Here, as elsewhere, hatred is leading to a terrifying atmosphere of menace and threat. On Friday, Andrew Sullivan reposted an October essay arguing that personalizing politics was dangerous. Threats were migrating from online spaces to public figures' homes. Read these incidents and ask, How many do I remember? How many did I ever hear about?

Not content with marching in the streets to air complaints, demands, and grievances as a public spectacle, demonstrators of all kinds increasingly seek out the private homes of public figures to hound them intimately and personally. In the past year or so, the examples have mounted quickly. The mayor of Portland had to move house because activists besieged his condo building, breaking windows of other peoples offices and throwing burning debris into them. The mayors of St. Louis and Buffalo were also driven from their homes, and Chicagos mayor was under constant threat: [Lori] Lightfoot already receives 24/7 protection from cops including officers stationed at the residence.

Andrew then talks about additional incidents in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Oak Park, Oakland, Sacramento, and Seattle before he turns his attention to the right:

Although not as persistent or as widespread as the far lefts invasion of the privacy of public figures, the far right is not innocent either. LA Mayor Garcettis residence was targeted by anti-lockdown activists; LA Countys public health director was also targeted at home; some folks brought menacing tiki-torches to the Boise mayors home; in Duluth, Trump supporters organized 20 trucks to circle the mayors home. Over the new year, Nancy Pelosis private home was vandalized, graffiti written on her garage door, and a bloody pigs head was thrown into the mix for good measure.

Of course the ultimate recent example of hatred and fury spawning violence is the attack on the Capitol on January 6. It was perhaps the most predictable spasm of violence in recent American history. One cannot tell tens of millions of Americans that an election is stolen and that the very fate of the country hangs in the balance without some of those people actually acting like the election was stolen and the nation is at stake.

But if the concept of stochastic terrorism is so obviously connected to human experience, why is it controversial? In part because it aims responsibility upward, and it places at least some degree of moral responsibility for violent acts on passionate nonviolent people. While criminal responsibility may rest exclusively with the person who carries the gun (or his close conspirators), moral responsibility is not so easy to escape.

That brings us back to Justice Kavanaugh. Its hard to think of a single public figure whos been subject to more sustained and furious attacks on his character than Kavanaugh, and I say this as someone who took Christine Blasey Fords allegations against him quite seriously. My position was simpleif there was a preponderance of evidence that her claims were true, then he shouldnt be a Supreme Court justice, even if she was talking about an incident that occurred decades ago.

(If you want to read my evaluation of the evidence against him, I recommend this long piece I wrote in October 2018 in National Review.)

But what should have been a sober look at a serious claim turned into a media frenzy the likes of which Ive rarely seen. It culminated in a transparently unserious gang rape allegation brought forward by lawyer Michael Avenattinow disgraced and imprisoned, but then championed as a Resistance hero by many on the left. The allegation started to fall apart almost immediately, but that didnt stop people with immense followings from both believing it and ridiculing and attacking those who expressed skepticism.

The result was that millions of Americans didnt just dislike Kavanaugh, they hated him. They believed the worst about him. When he was hated at that scale, threats were inevitable, and an attempt on his life was likely. The terrible math of stochastic terrorism worked again.

One of the things that makes me concerned for the fate of our country is the reality that Americas partisans are both quite eager to assign blame for intimidation and violence to their political opponents and indignant when told that their own rhetoric contributes to our cultural decline. And so we live in a world where both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford faced an avalanche of threats. And not just themvirtually any person who possesses a public voice on matters of public concern can tell stories of times when they felt afraid.

Our nation cannot withstand this level of vitriol. It will lead to more violence, and when it does, our most vicious partisans will disclaim any responsibility. How dare you blame me, theyll say. Everyone knows the man who pulls the trigger is responsible for his own crime. Yes, legally, he bears the blame. But words still matter. They inspire action, and when angry partisans see people they publicly hate face danger and death, they should feel shame for the culture they helped create.

One more thing

Earlier this month, I filed a Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of fifteen family policy organizations in a case called 303 Creative v. Elenis. Its going to be argued next Supreme Court term, and the issue at stake is whether the state of Colorado can compel a web designer to design a website celebrating a same-sex wedding. I say no. Here are my opening paragraphs:

This case comes to the court at a critical moment. There is an increasing collision between generations-long consistent protection of the First Amendment in this Court and a culture that increasingly yields to the impulse to dominate political opponents, censor their expression, and even compel them to host speech or engage in speech with which they disagree.

It is one thing if the pressure to conform remains cultural rather than legal. While online attacks are difficult to endure, one can persevere and still speak. While peer shame can sting, only a small amount of courage is required to preserve ones public voice.

State censorship and compulsions, however, are different matters altogether. It is the state that wields the power of the sword. It is the state that can bar entrance into the marketplace of ideas. It is the state that can dictate whether a citizen can open a business or earn a living. Thus, it is the state that is the eternal threat to liberty. Only the state can truly suppress the American idea.

The First Amendment thus erects a high wall around private speech and individual conscience. It does not ask if speech is wise, good, popular, or fashionable before it grants its protection. Popular speech does not need a constitutional shield. It is the dissenter who truly values the First Amendment, and it is for the dissenter that the First Amendment exists.

Read the whole thing and review my work in the comments. Persuaded? If not, why not?

Another thing

Youre not going to want to miss this weeks Good Faith podcast. Curtis and I hosted Christianity Todays Russell Moore, and we talked about the upcoming Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in Anaheim, California, the SBC sex abuse report, the crisis in American pastors, and the Christian call to be strange (but not crazy). It was a great conversation, and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

One last thing

Lets do something a bit different and end with an inspiring moment rather than an inspiring song. You may not know this, but Im a longtime fan of professional wrestling. I went to my first sold-out show in Rupp Arena in Lexington, Kentucky, when I was 10 years old. In college I spent a ridiculous sum of money to go see Hulk Hogan wrestle Andre the Giant. The WWE gave us the greatest living American celebrity, Dwayne The Rock Johnson.

I dont keep up as much as I used to (its hard to simultaneously keep up with the NBA, college football, the NFL, superhero movies, the Star Wars franchise, Game of Thrones, every Tolkien property under the sun, British crime dramas, and the WWE), but did you know that nobody has granted more Make-a-Wish wishes than John Cena? And did you know that he did this?

Its one of the most touching things Ive seen in a long time. There is still much good in this world.

View post:
There Is No Right Person to Hate - by David French - The Dispatch

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, weighs in on the one-sided January 6th committee investigation on Sunday Morning Futures.

Rep. Jim Jordan believes that a "big change" will come in this years midterm elections because Americans think "the country is on the wrong track.

"I think the American people are fixing to make a change come November," Jordan, R-Ohio, told "Sunday Morning Futures" host Maria Bartiromo. "You can just feel that happen."

Jordan laid into the Biden administration and current cabinet, saying each secretary has overseen a "terrible" policy change since the last administration.

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) speaks during the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee hearing on "Online Platforms and Market Power" in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on July 29, 2020. | Reuters Photos

He lambasted Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas for "chaos" at the border and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen for saying that she was "surprised at inflation."

INFLATION TIMELINE: MAPPING THE BIDEN ADMIN'S RESPONSE TO RAPID PRICE GROWTH

"How can you be surprised at inflation when you spend like crazy, pay people not to work, and drive up the cost of energy?" he asked. "It makes no sense."

"We went from a secure border to chaos," Jordan said. "We went from energy independence to the president begging Iran, OPEC and Venezuela to increase production. We went from safe streets to record levels of crime in every major urban area."

BIDEN RESPONDS TO $5 GAS: OUTRAGEOUS WHAT THE WAR IN UKRAINE IS CAUSING

"And we went from stable price to a 41-year-high inflation rate, and I havent even gotten into foreign policy, or the attacks on our First Amendment, and of course last week the attacks on our Second Amendment rights," he added.

The Labor Department said Friday that the consumer price index, a broad measure of the price for everyday goods, including gasoline, groceries and rents, rose 8.6% in May from a year ago. Prices jumped 1% in the one-month period from April. Those figures were both higher than the 8.3% headline figure and 0.7% monthly gain forecast by Refinitiv economists.

LARRY KUDLOW: A DIFFERENT PLAN TO CRUSH INFLATION

It marks the fastest pace of Inflation since December 1981.

Price increases were widespread: Energy prices rose 3.9% in May from the previous month, and are up 34.6% from last year. Gasoline, on average, costs 48.7% more than it did one year ago and 7.8% more than it did in April. In all, fuel prices jumped 16.9% in May on a monthly basis, pushing the one-year increase to a stunning 106.7%.

GET FOX BUSINESS ONTHE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Food prices have also climbed 10.1% higher over the year and 1.2% over the month, with the largest increases in dairy and related products (up 2.9%, the biggest monthly increase since July 2007), non-alcoholic beverages (1.7%), cereals and bakery products (1.5%), and meats, poultry, fish and eggs rose (1.1%).

Fox Business' Megan Henney contributed to this report.

Read the original:
Rep. Jordan: 'Big change' coming in midterms after 41-year-high inflation rate - Fox Business