Category Archives: Federalist

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that undated mail-in and absentee ballots cannot be counted a major win for election integrity just a week before Election Day of the 2022 midterms.

The ruling directs Pennsylvania county boards of elections to segregate and preserve any ballots contained in undated or incorrectly dated outer envelopes for the Nov. 8 general election but to refrain from counting them.

This decision directly contradicts the Keystone States Democrat acting secretary of the commonwealth, Leigh Chapman, who told counties to ignore a previous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively said undated mail-in ballots should not be counted. The Republican National Committee and the Pennsylvania GOP immediately announced a lawsuit in response.

The RNC and the state GOP argued that Chapmans directive violated state law, as Pennsylvania requires voters to properly date their ballots. In fact, mail-in ballots for this election cycle even contain wording that reads todays date required and clear instructions for voters to sign and date their ballots. Under Chapmans instructions, some of Pennsylvanias 67 counties would have followed her lead while others would have followed state law and clear ballot instructions, tainting the election with inconsistencies and chaos. The RNC asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court at least to order counties to segregate undated or incorrectly dated ballots.

Following an RNC, NRCC, and PAGOP lawsuit, Pennsylvanias Supreme Court has made clear that incorrectly dated and undated mail ballots can not be counted, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said. Republicans went to court, and now Democrats and all counties have to follow the law: this is a milestone in Republicans ongoing efforts to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat in Pennsylvania and nationwide.

This legal victory by the RNC follows two other recent wins: one against Michigans Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson for restricting the rights of poll challengers and another against the North Carolina State Board of Elections for restricting poll watchers.

Election integrity begins by following the law, and this decision is a big win for Pennsylvanians, Jason Snead, the executive director of the Honest Elections Project, said in a statement. Pennsylvania law clearly requires that every mail ballot be dated and signed. That simple, straightforward rule helps to stop late and illegal voting without burdening anyones right to vote.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Read the original:

PA Supreme Court: Undated Mail-In Ballots Cannot Be Counted

In advocating for abortion on demand and science-denying transgender orthodoxy, self-proclaimed Catholics such as President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lead the charge in distorting church teaching. But a new poll of likely Catholic voters exposes just how wildly out of step these radical leaders are.

A survey conducted last month by EWTN of more than 1,500 likely Catholic voters found that over 75 percent oppose biological boys competing in girls sports, with 63 percent saying they strongly oppose.

A majority of respondents also said they support parents helping determine content taught in K-12 schools, with particularly strong support from Asian and black respondents. Roughly 93 percent of Asians and nearly 88 percent of black respondents support this parental involvement, with zero black respondents opposing at all. And while every single Asian and black participant reported having children who attend public school, about 93 percent of Asian parents and almost 88 percent of black parents support school choice. Once again, zero black respondents were opposed.

When asked about pregnancy centers a clear target of Democrat politicians and violent vandals who dont seem to be a priority for an FBI thats too busy going after peaceful pro-life senior citizens a clear majority, 67.4 percent, support public funding for them, with only about 18 percent of the Catholic respondents opposing. These findings corroborate a CRC Research poll from over the summer, which found that 2 in 3 Americans overall, not just Catholics, support public funding for pregnancy centers. These care centers provide vital resources to mothers and their babies, such as ultrasounds, baby clothes and diapers, and other prenatal care.

Despite Catholics strong support for pregnancy centers and opposition to abortion only about 13 percent of likely Catholic voters aligned themselves with Democrats abortion stance and the church catechisms explicit and unchangeable teaching on the evils of abortion, self-described Catholic Democrats have attempted to distort this. Just last month, Biden wrongly claimed the Catholic Church is less strict on abortion than Republican lawmakers who proposed a 15-week abortion ban.

As The Federalists Evita Duffy wrote, The Catholic Church not only makes no exception for rape and incest, it goes even further than [Sen. Lindsey] Grahams 15-week ban, teaching that abortion is morally wrong from the moment of conception. Never has the Catholic Church budged on this ancient teaching.

Furthermore, since the leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion and the overturning of Roe, 73 pregnancy centers and 83 Catholic churches have been attacked, with the supposedly Catholic president failing to respond to the threats.

Meanwhile, Bidens FBI has conducted two separate raids of pro-life activists homes and this week announced the prosecution of 11 peaceful pro-lifers with an obscure statute known as the FACE Act. Yet self-proclaimed Catholic Democrat politicians have been silent.

When it comes to supporting radical transgender ideology, Catholic Democrat lawmakers are all for it, despite a lack of support from Catholic voters. In March, the Biden administration encouraged wrong-sex hormones and genital mutilation for minors. It has also attempted to force doctors including Catholic health care networks to perform these transgender surgeries even if it tortures their consciences.

Despite extreme attempts from Democrats to distort Catholic teachings and support radical policies, the poll results make one thing clear: Catholic voters are still affirming life and the sexes, not the lefts twisted orthodoxies.

Sophia is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Le Moyne College. She majors in English and intends to pursue a career in journalism.

See more here:

Poll: Majority Of Catholics Reject Dems' Abortion, Trans Dogmas

Yahoo! Finance not only thinks that killing off babies in the womb is a solution for diaper poverty in the U.S. but also says Americans nappy woes should be blamed on pregnancy centers.

With the headline America is facing a diaper crisis, and the anti-abortion movement is making it worse, the articles author, Senior EditorSandra Salathe, alleges that Roughly one-third of U.S. families are unable to afford diapers necessary to keep their babies dry and clean.

Salathe neglects to mention that diaper prices, among other baby items such as formula, have been severely impacted by climbing inflation and the ongoing supply chain crisis under President Joe Biden. Instead, she says that pregnancy centers are somehow responsible for the physical, mental, and economic stress that families endure trying to keep their babies diapered.

The coronavirus pandemic has played a heavy role in this crisis, and as households seek help from nonprofit organizations, anti-abortion centers (AACs) may be misrepresenting the extent of their services, Salathe writes.

Using information fed to her by the leftist, pro-abortion activist group Equity Forward, Salathe amplifies claims that Heartbeat International, a Christian network of pro-life resource organizations, and the more than 3,000 lifesaving pregnancy centers in the U.S. are using their donations and public funding to pay for the upkeep of their services instead of helping vulnerable members of their community.

Never mind that amajority of votersfavor public funding for pregnancy centers and that it is abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood that are more focused on giving out sex books and harmful abortion drugs than diapering babies they think should be dismembered in the womb.

Neither the articles author nor Equity Forward disputes the fact that Heartbeat International and other pro-life organizations distributed 1.2 million packs of diapers to babies in need in 2019. Instead, Salathe and Equity Forward Director Ashley Underwood take issue with the fact that the same pregnancy centers they want investigated and shut down for human rights violations (how ironic) arent always equipped to provide baby supplies to 100 percent of the families that walk through their doors.

Nationwide pregnancy centers serve close to 2 million people annually by offering hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, counseling, care from licensed medical professionals, STD testing, and, yes, material items for babies and mothers such as diapers. That number is likely to increase in pro-life states where more women will be carrying their babies to term thanks to abortion bans.

There are more than 2,500 pregnancy centers in the U.S. that offer items like diapers to people in need yet the corporate media, Hollywood, the nations largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and Democrats call these organizations efforts to aid mothers and babies deceptive, emotionally manipulative, fake, and disinformation.

There is no doubt that the coordinated effort to downplay the important work of pro-life advocates and doctors in favor of abortion extremism is furthered by the corporate media. Salathes article in Yahoo! Finance proves to be no exception.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Originally posted here:

Yahoo: Baby-Saving Pregnancy Centers Worsen Diaper Shortage

Alaska Republicans are calling on the Kentucky GOP to formally censure Sen. Mitch McConnell for the bluegrass senators interference in the Alaskan Senate contest against the party-endorsed candidate.

On Thursday, the Alaskan Republican Partys District 9 central committee passed a resolution to condemn the Senate minority leaders spending on behalf of Sen. Lisa Murkowski. The incumbent senator running for a fourth full term in the upper chamber is locked in a tight contest against Donald Trump-backed challenger Kelly Tshibaka, who is also endorsed by the Alaskan Republican Party.

McConnells super PAC to reclaim the majority, the Senate Leadership Fund, is spending heavily in the race between two Republicans, which the latest polls show is a tied match. According to the Anchorage Daily News, McConnells political operation has poured more than $7 million into the Alaskan contest instead of using that money towards ripe pick-up opportunities in Nevada and Arizona.

We request the Senate Leadership Fund immediately stop the attack ads against Kelly Tshibaka and discontinue all support of Senator Murkowski, District 9 Republicans demanded. Their resolution went on to demand Kentucky GOP leadership censure their senator for meddling in Alaskas party affairs while the minority leader abandons efforts at capturing the majority.

We request the Republican Party of Kentucky leadership act against Senator Mitch McConnell for his inappropriate behavior against Alaska Republicans and Republican endorsed candidate Kelly Tshibaka, the Alaska Republicans wrote.

Alaskas District 9 committee based in Anchorage is the second state party group to admonish the Kentucky lawmakers interference, according to Must Read Alaska columnist Suzanne Downing.

The first was District 6, a Homer-area subdivision of the Alaska GOP, Downing wrote.

In September, McConnells PAC reinjected money into the Alaska Senate contest after initially canceling $1.7 million alongside $8 million stripped from Republican Arizona Senate nominee Blake Masters. McConnell later pulled another $10 million from the Arizona race, leaving the Republican candidate abandoned by the primary super PAC charged with reclaiming the upper chamber.

Both Masters and Tshibaka have pledged not to support McConnell for another term in GOP leadership.

The decision to spend scarce resources on an ally in Alaska instead of a tight race in Arizona to bring down a Democrat incumbent drew criticism from former President Donald Trump on Monday.

Kelly Tshibaka is doing very well in Alaska, probably leading horrendously bad Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican (barely!), Trump wrote.

According to the latest aggregate of surveys from RealClearPolitics, which are often manipulated to fit pre-determined narratives, the Arizona Senate race remains a five-point race.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Read more:

Alaska Republicans Call On Kentucky GOP To Censure McConnell

Shortly after Pennsylvanias acting Secretary of State Leigh Chapmantold countiesthat they should ignore election law and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively said mail-in ballots without proper dates cant be counted, the Republican National Committee announced a lawsuit against the Commonwealth.

As The Federalist previouslyreported, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a 3rdCircuit Court decision validating undated mail-in ballots. The high court vacated the lower courts ruling, meaning the 3rdCircuits decision can no longer act as precedent in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey the states under the lower courts jurisdiction.

But Chapman decided the Supreme Courts decision provides no justification for counties to exclude ballots based on a minor omission, and we expect that counties will continue to comply with their obligation to count all legal votes. In other words, Chapman advised all of Pennsylvanias 67 counties to continue counting undated mail-in ballots if they so choose, creating countless inconsistencies in how ballots will be tabulated in the upcoming midterm election.

The RNCs joint lawsuit with the Pennsylvania GOP and the National Republican Congressional Committeearguesthat undated mail-in ballots should not be counted because Pennsylvania state law requires voters to properly date their ballots, while also noting that the court has previously affirmed the dating requirement.The RNC has asked the state Supreme Court to order counties to segregate undated and dated ballots if nothing else.

As the Pennsylvania legislature and U.S. Supreme Court have made clear, undated mail-in ballots should not be counted, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a press release. This lawsuit is the latest step in Republican efforts to promote free, fair, and transparent elections in the Keystone State.

Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) hasalso fileda petition with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on behalf of several voters concerned about Chapmans insistence on counting faulty mail-in ballots.

The law of the Commonwealth is clear that undated and incorrectly dated mail-in ballots must not be counted. And after the U.S. Supreme Courts actions last week, no federal law says otherwise, RITE President and CEO Derek Lyons said in a statement. When voters cast a ballot, they should be confident that election officials are protecting the integrity of elections, not abusing their discretion to chase partisan outcomes.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

The rest is here:

RNC Sues PA For Telling Counties To Count Faulty Mail-In Ballots

1. The Federalist Society owns the Supreme Court, so why cant they stop whining?  Vox.com
2. 'A Moment of Truth for the Federalist Society': Politics or Principle?  POLITICO
3. Conservative U.S. judge mocks Federalist Society's critics at annual convention  Reuters
4. 4 Supreme Court justices who voted to reverse Roe get warm reception at Federalist Society dinner  CNN
5. What Is the Federalist Society and Its Connection to Supreme Court Judges?  Teen Vogue
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read more:

The Federalist Society owns the Supreme Court, so why cant they stop whining? - Vox.com

Flint, Michigans longtime city clerk is retiring after an election integrity group sent a letter to her office demanding she balance out the number of Democrat and Republican election inspectors.

On Sept. 6, Pure Integrity Michigan Elections (PIME) and attorney Erick Kaardal of the Thomas More Society sent a demand letter to Flint and City Clerk Inez Brown threatening legal action if they do not balance out the number of partisan poll watchers before the November general election. As previouslyreported, during Flints Aug. 2 primary, the city hired 422 Democrats compared to just 27 Republican election inspectors in direct violation of a Michigan statestatutethat requires equal representation of party election inspectors.

On Sept. 8, Brown, after serving as Flints city clerk for 25 years, abruptlyannounced her resignationeffective Sept. 30 roughly one month before the November election. Brown gave no reason for her resignation and caught city officials by surprise.

My administrative office was taken by surprise, Flint Mayor Sheldon Neeleytold the Flint Beat. I had no foreknowledge of this occurring this soon. Because of Browns resignation, Neeley reached out to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Bensons office for help running the citys elections. Bensonis up for re-election this year, raising questions about the ethics of her involvement in Flints elections.

Can her office be considered impartial in running the elections in Flint? Patrice Johnson, chair of PIME told The Federalist. The law states that if you are running for office, you cannot be an election inspector in the precinct in which youre running.

Despite such questions, Johnson sees Browns resignation as a step in the right direction. Browns tenure as Flint city clerk has led to multiple controversies, including giving mayoral candidates thewrong filing deadline in 2015and alleged failure toprocess absentee ballots.

The pressure weve put on the city led to this, Johnson said. This is a HUGE win.

Regardless of Browns resignation, Johnson expects Flint to fully comply with PIMEs demand letter and balance its number of partisan election inspectors in time for the November election.

In a state with more than 7 million registered voters, and where an election inspector need not live in the precinct in which they work, there is no excuse for an unhealthy imbalance of workers at our township and municipal elections, she said.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Go here to see the original:

Flint Clerk Resigns After Failing To Balance Partisan Poll Watchers

The Republican National Committee hasfiled a lawsuit against the city of Flint, Michigan, for failing to hire an equal number of poll workers from each of the two major political parties in preparation for the midterm elections.

Michigan law requires election officials appoint an equal number of election inspectors in each election precinct from each major political party. Despite a demand letter from the RNC, Flint has failed to comply with state statutes. Roughly only 120 of the 680 election inspectors hired in Flint for the 2022 midterms are Republican, the newly filed lawsuit alleges. While Flint recently told the RNC it hired 50 more Republican-affiliated poll watchers, it refused to further ensure equal party representation among election workers.

That means only 18 percent of Flints approximately 680 election inspectors are Republican. Not to mention that on the citys absentee ballot counting boards, the lawsuit claims, there are only six Republicans to 56 Democrats a 9 to 1 ratio.

Michigan election law clearly states that election commissioners have a responsibility to hire an equal partisan breakdown of election inspectors, but Flint has hired hundreds more Democrats than Republicans, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement. This is unacceptable and unfair to Michigan voters: Republicans are going to court to deliver the fairness that Michiganders deserve.

The RNCs lawsuit follows another election-related controversy in Flint.

After reports surfaced that city officials had disproportionately hired more Democrat than Republican poll watchers during Michigans Aug. 2 primary, attorneys for Pure Integrity Michigan Elections sent a letter to the city demanding it balance out the number of partisan poll watchers before the November general election. Flints longtime, controversy-riddled city clerk, Inez Brown, announced she was stepping down two days after receiving the letter.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

See the rest here:

RNC Sues Flint For Stacking Polls With Democrat Workers

Contents

The Federalist Papers are a collection of essays written in the 1780s in support of the proposed U.S. Constitution and the strong federal government it advocated. In October 1787, the first in a series of 85 essays arguing for ratification of the Constitution appeared in the Independent Journal, under the pseudonym Publius. Addressed to the People of the State of New York, the essays were actually written by the statesmen Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. They would be published serially from 1787-88 in several New York newspapers. The first 77 essays, including Madisons famous Federalist 10 and Federalist 51, appeared in book form in 1788. TitledThe Federalist, it has been hailed as one of the most important political documents in U.S. history.

WATCH: Secrets of the Founding Fathers on HISTORY Vault

James Madison

GraphicaArtis/Getty Images

As the first written constitution of the newly independent United States, the Articles of Confederation nominally granted Congress the power to conduct foreign policy, maintain armed forces and coin money.

But in practice, this centralized government body had little authority over the individual states, including no power to levy taxes or regulate commerce, which hampered the new nations ability to pay its outstanding debts from the Revolutionary War.

In May 1787, 55 delegates gathered in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation and the problems that had arisen from this weakened central government.

The document that emerged from the Constitutional Convention went far beyond amending the Articles, however. Instead, it established an entirely new system, including a robust central government divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches.

As soon as 39 delegates signed the proposed Constitution in September 1787, the document went to the states for ratification, igniting a furious debate between Federalists, who favored ratification of the Constitution as written, and Antifederalists, who opposed the Constitution and resisted giving stronger powers to the national government.

In New York, opposition to the Constitution was particularly strong, and ratification was seen as particularly important. Immediately after the document was adopted, Antifederalists began publishing articles in the press criticizing it.

They argued that the document gave Congress excessive powers, and that it could lead to the American people losing the hard-won liberties they had fought for and won in the Revolution.

In response to such critiques, the New York lawyer and statesman Alexander Hamilton, who had served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, decided to write a comprehensive series of essays defending the Constitution, and promoting its ratification.

John Jay

Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images

As a collaborator, Hamilton recruited his fellow New Yorker John Jay, who had helped negotiate the treaty ending the war with Britain and served as secretary of foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation. The two later enlisted the help of James Madison, another delegate to the Constitutional Convention who was in New York at the time serving in the Confederation Congress.

To avoid opening himself and Madison to charges of betraying the Conventions confidentiality, Hamilton chose the pen name Publius, after a general who had helped found the Roman Republic. He wrote the first essay, which appeared in the Independent Journal, on October 27, 1787.

Scroll to Continue

In it, Hamilton argued that the debate facing the nation was not only over ratification of the proposed Constitution, but over the question of whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

After writing the next four essays on the failures of the Articles of Confederation in the realm of foreign affairs, Jay had to drop out of the project due to an attack of rheumatism; he would write only one more essay in the series. Madison wrote a total of 29 essays, while Hamilton wrote a staggering 51.

Alexander Hamilton

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Jay and Madison argued that the decentralization of power that existed under the Articles of Confederation prevented the new nation from becoming strong enough to compete on the world stage, or to quell internal insurrections such as Shayss Rebellion.

In addition to laying out the many ways in which they believed the Articles of Confederation didnt work, Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the Federalist essays to explain key provisions of the proposed Constitution, as well as the nature of the republican form of government.

In Federalist 10, which became the most influential of all the essays, Madison argued against the French political philosopher Montesquieus assertion that true democracyincluding Montesquieus concept of the separation of powerswas feasible only for small states.

A larger republic, Madison suggested, could more easily balance the competing interests of the different factions or groups (or political parties) within it. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests, he wrote. [Y]ou make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens[.]

After emphasizing the central governments weakness in law enforcement under the Articles of Confederation in Federalist 21-22, Hamilton dove into a comprehensive defense of the proposed Constitution in the next 14 essays, devoting seven of them to the importance of the governments power of taxation.

Madison followed with 20 essays devoted to the structure of the new government, including the need for checks and balances between the different powers.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary, Madison wrote memorably in Federalist 51. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

After Jay contributed one more essay on the powers of the Senate, Hamilton concluded the Federalist essays with 21 installments exploring the powers held by the three branches of governmentlegislative, executive and judiciary.

Impact of the Federalist Papers

Despite their outsized influence in the years to come, and their importance today as touchstones for understanding the Constitution and the founding principles of the U.S. government, the essays published as The Federalist in 1788 saw limited circulation outside of New York at the time they were written. They also fell short of convincing many New York voters, who sent far more Antifederalists than Federalists to the state ratification convention.

Still, in July 1788, a slim majority of New York delegates voted in favor of the Constitution, on the condition that amendments would be added securing certain additional rights. Though Hamilton had opposed this (writing in Federalist 84 that such a bill was unnecessary and could even be harmful) Madison himself would draft the Bill of Rights in 1789, while serving as a representative in the nations first Congress.

Ron Chernow, Hamilton (Penguin, 2004).Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (Simon & Schuster, 2010).If Men Were Angels: Teaching the Constitution with the Federalist Papers. Constitutional Rights Foundation.Dan T. Coenen, Fifteen Curious Facts About the Federalist Papers. University of Georgia School of Law, April 1, 2007.

Link:

Federalist Papers: Summary, Authors & Impact - HISTORY

Amid a national crisis of confidence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation following years of revelations the agency has repeatedly abused its powers to rig elections for Democrats, newly public documents display yet another FBI abuse of power.

Documents obtained by Daily Caller reporter Gabe Kaminsky indicate the FBI has secretly pressured an unknown number of Americans to sign away their constitutional right to bear arms without being convicted of any crime in a regular court of law, another constitutional right.

The existence of a form that FBI employees have reportedly pressured Americans to sign after appearing at their doors was uncovered after a legal battle to get the FBI to answer an open records request from Gun Owners of America (GOA).

The people targeted with these forms are not otherwise prohibited persons and have not committed any actual crime with which they can be charged, Robert Olson, GOAs counsel, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The FBI claims it discontinued the use of the form in 2019, but the obtained records show the FBI used the form to deprive American citizens of their natural rights outside the constitutional mechanism of a proper trial in U.S. courts at least 15 times.

The FBI declined to identify any statutory justification for the forms, Kaminsky writes.

Several of those the FBI pressured into signing the form were investigated after being reported as making threats of violence on social media.

Many leftists consider disagreeing with their views to constitute violence. That is the rationale Big Tech companies that control what Americans can see online use to ban those who say men cant become women, including Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson. In the United Kingdom, people have been visited by police for disagreeing with leftist gender ideology, and in Finland, a member of Parliament has been prosecuted in court for quoting the Bible on homosexuality.

The Biden administration has also defined many common political views of conservatives as domestic terrorist threats. Last week, President Joe Biden associated the 74 million Americans who voted for his opponent in 2020 with domestic extremists, or in other words a terrorist threat. A 2021 Department of Homeland Security memo gave as examples of domestic violent extremism views shared by tens of millions of Americans, including supporting only legal immigration, raising concerns about mass mail-in balloting, and objecting to Covid lockdowns.

Half of independent voters and 68 percent of Republican voters think the FBI and Department of Justice are corrupt, according to a poll out two weeks ago.

FBI whistleblowers recently told Congress the Biden administration is demanding they reclassify cases as domestic extremism to pad their numbers and inflate this threat. This is only one of a cascade of recent public disclosures demonstrating the federal law enforcement agencys mass corruption.

See more here:

Docs: FBI Unlawfully Pushed Americans To Forfeit Gun Rights