The Weekend Dispatch
Edition For - October 1-7, 2023:
Welcome to The Weekend Dispatch. Our digital newspaper, covering a wide range of cultural & political news.
We welcome any feedback to make your experience more enjoyable.
Send any feedback to Editor@WCdispatch.com
DISPATCH DIRECTORY
→DISPATCH EXTRAS
LAW:
Landmark Ruling in Missouri v. Biden: 5th Circuit Expands Scope to Include CISA
The End of Chevron Deference? A Supreme Court Case That Could Reshape Administrative Law
New York Judge's Valuation of Mar-a-Lago: A Case of Judicial Overreach
→Appellate court stops dissolution of Trump Organization
POLITICS:
→Pelosi Gets Evicted
→Trump Endorses Jim Jordan for Speaker
→FBI Documents Show Targeting of Trump Supporters
CULTURE:
OHIO NEWS
The Left's Losing Battle Over Ohio's Education System
October 5th, 2023:
In Ohio, the struggle over the direction of education is intensifying, and it's evident that progressive forces are on the defensive. While they attempt to brand Republicans as radicals, the truth is that the GOP is actively working to reform an education system that has let down countless Ohio students.
When a state legislator first assumed office nearly a decade ago, he was shocked to find an education system plagued with issues, from poor remediation rates to inadequate career counseling for students. The Ohio Department of Education was falling short in equipping students for future employment, and there was a glaring lack of accountability.
This led to the passage of Senate Bill 1 as part of this year's state budget. The legislation aims to transform the Ohio Department of Education into the Department of Education and Workforce, overseen by a Director appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Ohio Senate. This revamped department will concentrate on both conventional and vocational education, striving to connect educational efforts with workforce needs.
Progressive groups, however, are pushing back. A coalition of parents has initiated a legal challenge, claiming the restructuring is unconstitutional. They contend that the move undermines the authority of the citizen-elected state board, violating a constitutional amendment from the 1950s. A temporary court order, effective until October 20, has halted the state's progress on implementing the changes.
Governor Mike DeWine remains steadfast. Despite the court order, he has continued with aspects of the restructuring, citing the budget he approved in July as the legal basis for these changes. DeWine argues that halting the overhaul would jeopardize the state's ability to finance schools and pay educational staff.
Progressive critics accuse DeWine of openly defying the court order. Yet, if they genuinely cared about Ohio's educational future, they would collaborate with the court to amend the order rather than blocking essential reforms.
As this legal battle continues, it's becoming increasingly clear that progressive forces are losing their grip on Ohio's educational landscape. They may attempt to label Republicans as radicals, but the GOP is making meaningful strides to mend a flawed system. The status quo is no longer tenable. Ohio's students deserve a better educational environment, and these new reforms are a step in the right direction.
Return To Directory
Ohio's New Redistricting Maps: A Triumph for Local Governance Over National Interference
October 5th, 2023:
In a significant win for Ohio Republicans, the state's bipartisan redistricting commission has approved new legislative district maps that could remain in effect for up to eight years. The new maps give Republicans an advantage in 61 of the 99 Ohio House seats and 23 of the 33 Senate seats. While Democrats on the commission have criticized the process, Republicans have commended them for negotiating in good faith to reach a compromise.
The new maps have already come under fire from national Democrats, with plaintiffs affiliated with a Democratic redistricting group filing a lawsuit claiming the maps are unconstitutionally gerrymandered. This lawsuit is backed by a group tied to former Attorney General Eric Holder, who has labeled the maps as an "extreme gerrymander."
Let's be clear: this lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt by out-of-state interests to exert control over Ohio's political landscape. Republicans have emphasized that the new maps meet all constitutional requirements, including those related to communities of interest, compactness, and splitting districts. The lawsuit is a blatant power grab, aimed at undermining the will of Ohio's citizens and elected officials.
The Ohio Supreme Court, which has new justices, may be more sympathetic to the new maps than those rejected last year. This is a good thing. Ohioans should not be held hostage by national Democrats who are more interested in power consolidation than in fair representation.
The new maps are more favorable to Republicans than the current ones, reflecting the fact that Republicans have garnered about 57% of votes in recent years. While the plaintiffs argue that the maps give Republicans advantages in over 60% of districts, they conveniently ignore the fact that meeting their criteria would require sacrificing other constitutional requirements.
It's time for Ohioans to stand firm against this national interference. The new maps are a product of bipartisan compromise and meet all constitutional criteria. They should be upheld, ensuring that Ohio remains a stronghold for conservative values and governance, free from the manipulations of national Democrats.
Return To Directory
The Critical Importance of Voting No on Issue 1 in Ohio
October 6th, 2023:
As Ohioans prepare to head to the polls on November 7, one ballot measure stands out for its potential to bring radical liberal changes to the state: Issue 1. This constitutional amendment aims to enshrine abortion rights into Ohio's constitution, a move that could have far-reaching implications for the state's social and moral fabric.
The second annual 2023 March for Life Ohio recently took place on the West Lawn of the Ohio Statehouse, drawing a diverse crowd of over a thousand people. The event served as a rallying cry against Issue 1, with Citizens for Christian Virtue Executive Director Aaron Baer emphasizing its importance in the lead-up to the November 7 election.
Protect Women Ohio, the main coalition working to defeat Issue 1, has been active at events around the state and has even aired television ads during key times, such as the Notre Dame–Ohio State game. The group plans to continue its media blitz as the election approaches.
Pastor Brian Williams of Hope City House of Prayer in Columbus leads a group of about 150 Black faith leaders who are also working to defeat the amendment. Williams highlighted the disproportionate number of abortion procedures among Black women, linking the abortion industry and racism as two converging issues that create a "nuclear bomb of deception."
Ohio's freshman Republican U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance also spoke at the event, urging Ohioans to vote no on Issue 1. Vance argued that the proposed amendment is not what Ohioans want or need, advocating for states to have the autonomy to make their own policies on abortion.
With the last day to register to vote being October 10 and early voting beginning shortly after, the time to act is now. Ohioans must recognize the gravity of Issue 1 and what it represents—a radical shift in the state's values and principles. A 'no' vote on Issue 1 is not just a vote against the amendment; it's a vote for the preservation of Ohio's moral and ethical integrity.
Return To Directory
AMERICAN HEADLINES
LAW
Landmark Ruling in Missouri v. Biden: 5th Circuit Expands Scope to Include CISA
October 4th, 2023:
In a groundbreaking decision that could have far-reaching implications for federal power and free speech, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has expanded its ruling in the case of Missouri v. Biden to include the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The court found that CISA violated the First Amendment by lobbying social media companies to censor election-related content.
The 5th Circuit's decision significantly broadens the scope of the case, which initially focused on actions by the White House and the FBI. The court had previously stated that these actions were likely unconstitutional but had stopped short of including CISA, suggesting that the agency was merely trying to persuade companies. Now, the court has ruled that CISA facilitated the FBI's interactions with social media companies, thereby implicating them in the unconstitutional behavior.
A Blow to Censorship
The court's order now bars CISA and its officials from encouraging tech companies to take down or limit the spread of social media posts. This is a monumental win for free speech advocates and a significant setback for those who have been pushing for more restrictive policies on election speech. The lawsuit was brought forth by Republican state attorneys general on behalf of individuals who claimed their speech had been censored.
This latest ruling sets the case up for a potential Supreme Court appeal. Interestingly, the Biden administration had already filed an emergency appeal before this new ruling came into effect. The decision is particularly timely, as the Supreme Court is set to hear multiple cases related to social media moderation and censorship. Justice Alito had previously indicated that he would rule on the case a week before Missouri returned it to the 5th Circuit to include CISA, signaling the high court's interest in this pivotal issue.
Implications for Federal Power
The 5th Circuit's decision could severely limit the federal government's ability to collaborate with social media companies in censoring Americans. This is a welcome development for those concerned about the ever-expanding reach of federal agencies and the erosion of individual liberties.
Missouri v. Biden is a landmark case that could have profound implications for free speech and federal power in the United States. By including CISA in its injunction, the court has sent a clear message: the government cannot sidestep the Constitution under the guise of cybersecurity or election integrity. As we await a potential Supreme Court appeal, this case stands as a bulwark against government overreach and censorship.
Return To Directory
The End of Chevron Deference? A Supreme Court Case That Could Reshape Administrative Law
October 4th, 2023:
In the realm of administrative law, few doctrines have been as influential as the Chevron deference. Established by the landmark Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, this legal principle has guided how courts review federal agencies' interpretations of statutes for nearly four decades. However, a new case on the Supreme Court docket threatens to overturn this long-standing precedent, potentially reshaping the landscape of administrative law.
Understanding Chevron Deference
The Chevron deference is a two-step process. First, courts must determine whether Congress has directly spoken on the issue at hand. If Congress's intent is clear, then that intent governs. However, if the statute is ambiguous, courts must defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation rather than imposing their own.
In the original Chevron case, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had adopted regulations allowing states to treat all pollution-emitting devices within the same industrial facility as if they were enclosed within a single "bubble." The Supreme Court held that this "bubble concept" was a permissible interpretation of the Clean Air Act, as Congress had not explicitly addressed the issue. The Court further stated that agencies like the EPA have the discretion to balance environmental and economic interests when the legislative history is ambiguous.
The Challenge: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo
The new amicus brief argues that the Chevron deference is both unconstitutional and ahistorical. According to the brief, the concept of Chevron deference did not emerge until the 20th century, alongside the rise of the administrative state. Historically, courts gave weight to longstanding executive branch interpretations but did not defer to them simply because they were from the executive branch.
The brief also presents empirical data showing that lower courts apply Chevron deference much more frequently than the Supreme Court. In recent circuit court cases invoking Chevron, agencies win 78% of the time at step two of the Chevron analysis. This, the brief argues, shows that lower courts need clarity and that Chevron should be overruled.
If the Supreme Court decides to overturn Chevron, the implications could be far-reaching. Agencies would lose a significant amount of leeway in interpreting ambiguous statutes, potentially leading to more rigid and less adaptive regulatory frameworks. On the flip side, such a decision could restore a measure of judicial oversight that some argue has been lost, ensuring that only Congress, and not administrative agencies, can make laws.
A Blow to the Biden Administration's Climate Policies?
The potential overturning could have immediate and far-reaching consequences, particularly for the Biden Administration's ambitious climate policies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), among other federal agencies, has relied heavily on the latitude provided by Chevron deference to interpret and implement complex environmental regulations. If the Supreme Court decides to limit this deference, it would effectively curtail the EPA's ability to enact sweeping changes without explicit Congressional approval.
This could be a significant setback for the Biden Administration, which has plans to aggressively combat climate change through regulatory action. It would also be a welcome change for those who argue that the federal government's powers have expanded too far, bypassing the checks and balances intended by the Constitution. By requiring a more stringent judicial review of agency decisions, the Court would be restoring a measure of accountability that many believe has been eroded over the years.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this potentially groundbreaking case, legal scholars, agencies, and regulated entities will be watching closely. Will the Court uphold a nearly 40-year-old doctrine that has been a cornerstone of administrative law, or will it chart a new course? Either way, the decision is likely to have a profound impact on the relationship between the judiciary and the administrative state.
Return To Directory
New York Judge's Valuation of Mar-a-Lago: A Case of Judicial Overreach and Incompetence
October 3rd, 2023:
In a stunning display of judicial overreach and incompetence, a New York judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump inflated the value of his Mar-a-Lago resort by a staggering 2,300% compared to the county tax assessor's valuation. This ruling is part of a $250 million lawsuit against Trump by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who accuses the former President of fraudulently inflating the value of his properties and assets.
The judge's valuation of Mar-a-Lago is not just flawed; it's absurd. He based his assessment on county tax appraisals, which are generally used for tax purposes and not an accurate reflection of a property's market value. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of real estate knows that tax assessments are typically lower than a property's actual market value.
Furthermore, the judge's valuation completely ignores the fact that Mar-a-Lago is situated in Palm Beach, Florida, where surrounding properties are worth more than $40 million. Independent estimates place the value of Mar-a-Lago at over $500 million. The judge's laughable $18 million valuation is not just inaccurate; it's a slap in the face to common sense and basic economics.
Though everyone is well aware at this point that it isn't a case of judicial incompetence; it's a targeted attack designed to financially cripple Trump in the midst of a presidential run. The lawsuit seeks $250 million in fines, but the judge could potentially fine Trump up to $600 million. Additionally, the judge has ruled that Trump and his two sons have their business licenses canceled in New York and could lose control of Trump Organization assets like Trump Tower.
This is lawfare on an unprecedented scale, weaponizing the judicial system to target a political opponent. Trump has rightly called out the judge for being biased and labeled the entire case a "sham."
Even if Trump manages to get this case dismissed and the judge disbarred for his blatant bias and incompetence, the question remains: where do we go from here? This case sets a dangerous precedent, one that threatens the very foundations of our legal system. The high courts need to address this judicial and prosecutorial overreach and ensure that our courts are places of justice, not political battlegrounds. This is lawfare like we've never seen before in this country, and it's unacceptable. The real question is, even if Trump manages to get this case dismissed, where do we go from here?
Return To Directory
→Appellate court has stopped the dissolution of Trump Organization, statement from Eric Trump released Friday afternoon: “We thank the Appellate Division for staying the NY Attorney General’s and Judge Engoron’s overzealous attempt to cancel our New York business certificates. Judge Engoron’s order erroneously sought to adjudicate the rights of non-party business entities that employ nearly 1,000 hard-working New Yorkers, have never been accused of any wrongdoing and, were never given their day in court – in clear violation of their fundamental Constitutional rights and Due Process. We will continue to vigorously defend our company and our incredible employees from this politically-motivated persecution.” - Trump Organization
POLITICS
The Ousting of Speaker Kevin McCarthy: A Victory for True Conservatism
October 3rd, 2023:
In an unprecedented move that has sent the DC establishment into an uproar, Speaker Kevin McCarthy has been forced to vacate the chair. This marks the first time in U.S. history that a House Speaker has been successfully ousted. The effort was led by Rep. Matt Gaetz and a group of strong conservatives who have been at odds with McCarthy's leadership—or lack thereof.
Matt Gaetz, who has been a thorn in the side of the establishment, led the charge against McCarthy. The final vote to vacate the Speaker's chair was 216-210, with the Democrats joining the conservative defectors. Gaetz's move was in part a response to McCarthy's collaboration with Democrats on a spending bill to avert a government shutdown. The ousting has drawn ire from long-standing politicians on both sides of the aisle, from Mitch McConnell to Hillary Clinton. In our eyes here at The Dispatch, that means Gaetz must be doing something right.
Broken Promises
McCarthy had made several promises to conservatives, including stopping funding to Ukraine, releasing the January 6th tapes, and taking a stronger stance against President Joe Biden. None of these promises materialized, leading to a loss of trust among his caucus. McCarthy argued for his continuation as Speaker, but the sentiment was clear: he had failed to deliver and could not be trusted to lead.
The ousting of McCarthy leaves the Republican Party in a state of chaos and jeopardizes their ability to govern effectively. McCarthy has stated that he will not run for Speaker again, leaving the position wide open. The House is currently in limbo, with the election of a new Speaker scheduled for next week. The shortlist for potential successors includes prominent conservatives like Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan.
The Democrats have made it clear that they will not help elect McCarthy, and President Biden has expressed hope that the House will swiftly choose a new Speaker to work with. The conservatives who initiated the ousting are also not open to negotiating with McCarthy, making his political future uncertain.
A Welcome Change
While the ousting of McCarthy may bring short-term chaos, it also presents an opportunity for true conservative leadership in the House. The move has exposed the deep divisions within the Republican Party and has set the stage for a potential shift towards a more principled, conservative agenda.
The historic ousting is a clear signal that business-as-usual politics will no longer suffice. It's a wake-up call for the Republican Party and, perhaps, the beginning of a new era of true conservative leadership. As the establishment reels from this unprecedented move, conservatives have a unique opportunity to steer the party in a direction that aligns with their core values and promises to the American people.
Return To Directory
→Pelosi Gets Evicted: If you needed further evidence that McCarthy was an ineffective Speaker, consider this: During the nine months he held the position, he never once asked Nancy Pelosi to vacate her Speaker's office. In contrast, the interim Speaker had Pelosi removed from the office just hours after taking on the role. This stark difference speaks volumes of McCarthy's timidity.
October 6th, 2023:
→Update, Trump Throws Weight Behind Jim Jordan for Speaker: Former President Donald Trump has officially endorsed Rep. Jim Jordan for Speaker of the House, a move that could significantly influence the race for the pivotal role. Announced on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social, the endorsement praises Jordan's political record and could galvanize conservative support behind him. Jordan, a staunch Trump ally, is already one of the GOP's leading figures investigating the Biden administration. Trump's endorsement could be the tipping point in what promises to be a closely-watched contest for Speaker.
Return To Directory
Biden Administration's Border Wall Flip-Flop: A Tale of Incompetence and Admission
October 5th, 2023:
In a stunning reversal that can only be described as a comedy of errors, the Biden administration is now, believe it or not, building the border wall. You know, the one that he quite literarily campaigned against. After years of decrying the wall as ineffective and inhumane, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in an official document stated there is an "acute and immediate need" for physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. The reason? The surge in illegal immigration, particularly in areas of Texas.
Mayorkas then tried to backpedal almost immediately, claiming there is no new policy on border walls and that walls are not the answer. But actions speak louder than words. The administration has waived 26 laws to expedite the construction of new border barriers. This is the same administration that previously sold off portions of Trump's border wall, mind you.
The Trump campaign couldn't resist weighing in, stating, "President Trump is always right." And who can blame them? Trump had built close to 500 miles of the border wall, and had he been allowed to continue, it would have been completed by now. Instead, as the Trump campaign puts it, "Crooked Joe Biden turned our country into one giant sanctuary for dangerous criminal aliens."
The Biden administration's flimsy excuse is that the funding was already appropriated and had to be used. But let's call it what it is: a desperate attempt to save face amid mounting social pressure over their disastrous border policies. It's a tacit admission that Trump was right all along. Walls work. And the Biden administration's clumsy U-turn only serves to highlight their absolute ineptitude in managing the border crisis they themselves exacerbated.
Return To Directory
The Federal Bureau of Corruption: A Legacy of Controversy and Why Trust Is Waning
October 2nd, 2023:
For decades, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been embroiled in controversies that have raised questions about its integrity, impartiality, and respect for civil liberties. From the Finders case in the late '80s to the recent targeting of Trump supporters, the agency's actions have often been at odds with the principles of a free and democratic society. This feature article aims to chronologically examine key instances that have led many to question: Why does anyone still trust this agency? And why haven't these long-known issues been grounds for dismantling the agency entirely?
Decades of Failures and Corruption
In 1987, two men linked to the Finders organization were arrested in Tallahassee, Florida, with six malnourished children. Charges were eventually dropped, and the children returned to their mothers. However, the case resurfaced in 1993 when allegations emerged that the CIA had called off the investigation, using Finders as a front to train agents. Despite FBI documents showing instructions on obtaining children, they claimed no evidence of criminal activity was found. The case was dropped by then U.S. DC District Attorney Eric Holder. This incident raised eyebrows about the FBI's investigative integrity and its relationship with other agencies like the CIA.
In August 1992, a standoff between Randy Weaver and federal agents in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, resulted in the deaths of Weaver's wife and son. The FBI came under heavy criticism for its rules of engagement, which allowed for armed adult males near Weaver's cabin to be shot on sight. A Senate probe later criticized the federal handling of the siege, and an FBI official pleaded guilty to obstructing justice. The incident sparked a nationwide debate on the use of force by federal law enforcement.
In April 1993, the FBI and ATF raided the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, resulting in 76 deaths, including 28 children. The raid was approved by Attorney General Janet Reno and President Bill Clinton based on allegations of illegal firearms, which were never proven. The FBI's failure to understand the religious motivations of the Branch Davidians led to a disastrous end, with the compound catching fire after tear gas was pumped in, which then turned to a poisonous gas killing everyone inside. The incident further eroded public trust in the FBI and led to calls for its abolition. However, even after decades of controversy, the agency continues to act with apparent impunity, increasingly resembling a political KGB in its actions.
Nothing Has Changed
Fast forward to recent times, the FBI has been increasingly scrutinized for its actions against Trump supporters. In August 2022, the FBI conducted a search of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence, related to an investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents. The search required approval from a federal judge and top Justice Department officials, but it has mobilized Trump's supporters in protest and drawn criticism from Congressional Republicans.
Just a few months later, the FBI then raided and killed Craig Robertson, a 75-year-old Utah man and vocal Trump supporter. Robertson had made online threats against President Biden, Vice President Harris, and other top Democrats. On November 30, 2022, while serving a warrant related to these threats, FBI agents shot and killed Robertson. Neighbors described him as frail and not overtly dangerous, raising questions about the necessity and proportionality of the FBI's use of lethal force.
The investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is the largest in Justice Department history. Over 1,000 people have been charged, and the investigation has doubled the FBI's domestic terrorism caseload. This is despite the mass of evidence that the FBI itself orchestrated the riot. Yet the scale and focus of the investigation have only continued to grow.
From the Finders case to Ruby Ridge, Waco, and now the targeting of Trump supporters, the FBI's history is fraught with controversial actions that have destroyed any public trust. These incidents show clear evidence of the agency’s inability to remove political bias from its operations.
As we approach the 2024 elections, it's crucial to question why this agency, with its long history of questionable actions, continues to wield such power and influence. Is it time to consider dismantling the FBI and rethinking how law enforcement operates at the federal level?
Return To Directory
October 4th, 2023:
→FBI Documents Show Targeting of Trump Supporters: Classified documents obtained by Newsweek reveal that the FBI has now categorized supporters of Donald Trump as extremists subject to tracking and countermeasures. This move is a perilous overreach that endangers civil liberties and risks turning law enforcement into a political tool. Such a strategy erodes public trust and could stifle free speech and democratic engagement in the lead-up to the 2024 elections. The FBI ought to concentrate on evidence-based investigations rather than targeting individuals based on their political beliefs.
Return To Directory
Adam Schiff's Letter to Elon Musk: A Misguided Attempt to Silence Free Speech
October 4th, 2023:
In a letter to Elon Musk, Congressman Adam Schiff expressed his concerns about the layoffs in X Corp's election integrity team. The letter, co-signed by several other members of Congress, urges Musk to maintain "robust measures to prevent further spread of election misinformation." While the letter may seem like a well-intentioned plea for transparency and integrity, it is essential to scrutinize the motives behind it and the implications it carries for free speech and democracy.
The Irony of Adam Schiff
Firstly, it's worth noting the irony of Adam Schiff, a man who propagated the Russian interference hoax during President Trump's impeachment proceedings, lecturing anyone on election integrity. Schiff's credibility on this issue is already compromised, given his track record of pushing narratives that later proved to be unfounded.
Elon Musk himself has stated that the election integrity team at X Corp was primarily designed to interfere with elections. This admission raises questions about the real purpose of such teams in social media companies. Are they genuinely committed to ensuring fair elections, or are they another tool to manipulate public opinion and silence dissent?
Schiff's letter is not just an isolated incident but part of a broader push by Democrats to control the narrative and silence free speech, all in preparation for the 2024 election cycle. The letter criticizes X Corp for disabling a feature that allows users to report political posts they consider misleading. However, such features only act as weapons to suppress alternative viewpoints and censor content that doesn't align with mainstream perspectives.
Schiff's letter also accuses X Corp of prioritizing profits over user safety, citing potential advertising revenue from "bad actors." This argument is a red herring. All social media platforms have a variety of users with differing opinions, and it's not the platform's role to act as an arbiter of truth, no matter how much Washington wants them too.
Election Integrity
Here at The Dispatch, we agree with Adam Schiff that election integrity is absolutely a top priority—but not from the Democrats' angle of muzzling free speech. Instead of whining about narratives that don't align with Schiff's personal views, our focus should be on concrete measures like Voter ID laws and safeguarding our ballot boxes from potential tampering. Let's not forget that it was the Democrats who silenced significant stories like the Hunter Biden laptop incident, stories that had every right to be in the public domain.
As we gear up for the 2024 elections, let's be clear: safeguarding the integrity of our electoral process is not a job to be outsourced to social media giants or manipulated by politicians like Schiff, who have a vested interest in controlling what you can or cannot say. Schiff's letter to Elon Musk isn't just misguided; it's a brazen statement that he does not support free speech and should be treated as such.
So, the next time Adam Schiff tries to argue that free speech is a threat to our democratic process, perhaps someone should hand him a copy of the Constitution as a refresher. Election integrity matters, but not as a cloak to stifle free speech and enforce a one-sided narrative.
Return To Directory
Hillary Clinton's Call for "Deprogramming" Trump Supporters: A Dangerous Echo of Soviet Tactics
October 5th, 2023:
In a recent CNN interview, Hillary Clinton took the rhetoric against Trump supporters to a new, and deeply concerning, level. She parroted the all-too-familiar narrative that Trump supporters are extremists and members of a "cult," suggesting that they need to be "deprogrammed." This alarming choice of words not only further polarizes the American political landscape but also evokes chilling historical parallels.
The term "deprogramming" is eerily reminiscent of the reeducation camps that were a staple in the Soviet Union, where individuals who were considered to be ideologically impure were sent to be "rehabilitated." These camps were nothing short of brainwashing facilities, aimed at erasing individual thought and imposing the state's preferred ideology. The very notion that a former Secretary of State would even hint at something similar should send shivers down the spine of anyone who values the principles upon which the United States was founded.
Clinton's comments come at a time when the media is ramping up its efforts to paint Trump supporters as extremists, especially as we approach another election cycle. This is not just political maneuvering; it's a dangerous game that flirts with the suppression of free thought and speech.
By using the term "deprogramming," Clinton is essentially labeling millions of Americans as individuals who are not just wrong, but who need to be fundamentally changed. This is not the language of democracy; it's the language of authoritarian regimes and, yes, communism.
Americans need to recognize the gravity of such statements and the historical weight they carry. The idea of "reprogramming" citizens is incompatible with the values of freedom and individual liberty that are the bedrock of our nation. To even suggest such a thing is not just irresponsible; it's un-American.
Return To Directory
CULTURE
Two High Profile Murders Highlight a Disturbing Trend in America's Cities
October 5th, 2023:
In a span of just one week, two left-wing activists met tragic ends in two different cities, underscoring a grim reality: America's cities are deteriorating at an alarming rate. While the circumstances surrounding their deaths differ, the common thread is the escalating crime that plagues Democrat-controlled cities across the nation.
In Brooklyn, 31-year-old activist Ryan Carson was fatally stabbed while waiting for a bus with his girlfriend. The assailant, 18-year-old Brian Dowling, was charged with murder and criminal possession of a weapon. The attack appeared to be random, with no prior interaction between Carson and Dowling. Carson, known for his radical anti-police rhetoric, was a strong advocate for defunding the police and weakening crime policies. The mayor called the killing "senseless" and vowed to prosecute Dowling to the fullest extent of the law, oh the irony.
Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, 39-year-old freelance journalist Josh Kruger was shot multiple times in his home. Police have issued an arrest warrant for 19-year-old Robert Edmond Davis, who is considered armed and dangerous. Kruger was an advocate for homosexuals and homeless communities, informed by his own experiences with addiction and homelessness. He similarly to Carson mocked the rising crime trend in his city.
The Soros-Backed DAs and the Crime Wave
While these tragic incidents are isolated, they are symptomatic of a broader issue: rising crime rates in Democrat-controlled cities. Many attribute this uptick to the policies of district attorneys backed by George Soros, who are often criticized for their lenient approach to prosecuting crime. The result is a justice system that seems increasingly incapable of protecting its citizens, even those who dedicate their lives to activism and advocacy.
The murders of Ryan Carson and Josh Kruger should serve as a wake-up call for leftists. The crime that claimed their lives is not confined to Brooklyn or Philadelphia; it's a nationwide issue, particularly in cities where progressive policies have failed to keep citizens safe. As we pray for their families, we must also confront the uncomfortable truth: the ideas they brought to their cities may have caused their deaths, and if citizens want less crime, it’s time to stop voting for it.
Return To Directory
The Erosion of Trust: How the Biden Administration's Brazen Lies Have Plunged Public Faith to a 60-Year Low
October 5th, 2023:
In a time when the American public's trust in its institutions is at a nadir, the Biden administration's recent actions have only deepened the chasm of skepticism. Trust in the federal government has plummeted to a 60-year low, with fewer than two-in-ten Americans saying they trust Washington to do what is right "just about always" (1%) or "most of the time" (15%). This decline in trust is not a sudden phenomenon but the culmination of years of governmental failures, now exacerbated by the Biden administration's litany of false and misleading statements.
Even traditionally left-leaning media outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post have been flagging President Biden's misleading statements. The Washington Post awarded Biden a "bottomless Pinocchio" for falsely claiming he's traveled 17,000 miles with Chinese President Xi Jinping. This shift in media tone is a telling sign of the administration's crumbling credibility.
Biden's false claims about the economy have not only eroded public trust but also led to internal discord within his own party. Throughout the summer, the President has been touting "Bidenomics" as a transformative economic agenda. However, these claims, such as stating that U.S. growth is the fastest in the world and that inflation has ended, have been so misleading and poorly received that even members of his own party are urging him to cease this rhetoric. These statements are not just false; they are dangerously misleading, painting a rosy picture of an economy that is, in reality, in turmoil.
The President also falsely claimed that he boosted Social Security payments "for the first time in 10 years." In reality, payments have risen every year since 2012, except for 2016. The only reason this year's increase broke a record is due to soaring inflation, which Biden's policies have failed to curb.
The administration's misleading statements cover nearly every issue; they also extend to border security and foreign policy. Despite the ongoing crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border and the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden and his team persist in portraying these glaring failures as successes. Astonishingly, even after the calamitous exit from Afghanistan, which drew widespread criticism and concern, the administration continued to insist that the operation was handled properly. This blatant misrepresentation further erodes public trust and raises questions about the administration's credibility on both domestic and international issues.
Last year, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia exposed a significant discrepancy in the Biden administration's job creation numbers, revealing that they had been vastly overstated. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics had reported a net job growth of 1,047,000 jobs for the second quarter, the Philadelphia Fed's more comprehensive data showed that a mere 10,500 net jobs were actually created during that period. Given this history of inflated claims, it's no wonder that public skepticism is on the rise. As Biden continues to tout "great" job numbers, one has to question: Does anyone actually believe them anymore?
The Biden administration's handling of these issues serves as a case study in why many Americans are increasingly wary of taking government data at face value. In an era where the need for transparent, accurate, and trustworthy information is more crucial than ever, the administration's actions have only deepened the public's mistrust.
Return To Directory
MUST SEE PODCAST & STORY
Victor Davis Hanson & Tucker Carlson
This week, we highly recommend tuning into Tucker Carlson's latest episode featuring Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson, a renowned historian and political commentator, delves into the pervasive lies disseminated by both the media and the government. He articulates the dangers these falsehoods pose to the very fabric of our nation.
In a time when public trust in institutions is at an all-time low, Hanson's insights are more relevant than ever. He warns that if we don't see through the smokescreen being put up by those in power, the upcoming election cycle could bring about transformative changes to the country—and not for the better.
Don't miss this crucial conversation; it's a wake-up call we all need to hear.
Return To Directory
Thank You for Your Support
Dear Readers,
We want to extend our heartfelt thanks for your continued support of The W.C. Dispatch. Your readership is what allows us to keep delivering comprehensive coverage of the news cycle, with the in-depth analysis you've come to expect.
If you haven't already, we urge you to subscribe to receive this newsletter every week directly in your inbox. For those who want to delve even deeper, consider becoming a paid subscriber. With a paid subscription, you'll gain exclusive access to our Sunday Edition—a weekly column that offers insights you won't find anywhere else.
Thank you for being a part of our community. Together, we are making sense of the world around us.
Best regards, The W.C. Dispatch Team
Outstanding newsletter. Walt, thanks for taking a stand on important issues!