“Pelosi Abuses Trump’s Civil Rights, Covid VAX Secrets Revealed, Election Fraud Report Line”

SIGN: Justice for 84-Year-Old Woman Arrested for Feeding Cats


PETITION TARGETS: Wetumpka Police Chief Greg Benton, Wetumpka Municipal Court Prosecutors

Two women have been arrested, jailed, and criminally charged for feeding and trying to trap feral cats on public land, with the intent ofreducing the community’s stray cat population in Wetumpka, Alabama.

WATCH: You can watch the body camera footage here.

Wetumpka police body camera footage shows three officers approaching Mary Alston, 60, and Beverly Roberts — an 84 year old, disabled veteran who served 20 years in the U.S. Army — as the two women sit in their cars on a vacant lot owned by Elmore County and prepare to feed and trap feral cats nearby.

One officer tells the women they have to leave the area, because “the city does not want anybody feeding the animals around here” and creating a nuisance. Alston responds that she has set a trap to catch and remove the cats so that they don’t become a nuisance. The officers then tell the women that if they don’t leave the area, they’ll be arrested for trespassing and taken to jail.

Roberts, the 84-year-old, asks officers “This is what you’re wasting city gas on?” and tries to give her car keys to Alston, at which point the officer says, “It’s going to get ugly if you don’t stop.”

The body camera footage, which was provided to The Montgomery Advertiser by the womens’ attorneys, then shows an officer dragging Alston out of her car by the arm and handcuffing her behind her back, while telling her she wasn’t listening “fast enough,” and that “You wanted to keep talking so now you’re going to jail.”

The video shows Roberts — who also has her arms pulled and handcuffed behind her — trying to enter a police vehicle before telling officers that her body isn’t able to move that way with her hands restrained behind her back.

An officer can be heard telling another officer that they almost tased one of the women. 

Authorities have charged Alston with criminal trespassing and obstructing government operations, and Roberts with criminal trespassing and disorderly conduct — unbelievable charges for women who were simply trying to help innocent cats, said the women’s attorney, Terry Luck.

“There was no reason for any of this to happen,” Luck told news. “Beverly and Mary were actually helping the city out. By getting the cats spayed or neutered, they were helping to control the population of the feral cats.”

Both women spent several hours in the Elmore County Jail, where Roberts reportedly passed out because she was so upset, the Tuscaloosa News reported.

“I don’t know how anyone could see starving animals and not want to help,” said Roberts, whom news has reported is 5’4” and weighs 130 pounds.

Wetumpka Police Chief Greg Benton said that the arrests and the officers’ treatment of the women was “within policy” – which means that policy needs to change.

The police’s official statement about the incident starts, “When Officer Crumpton made contact with the occupants of the vehicle, it was found that both suspects were feeding and attempting to trap stray cats.” 

Luck has alleged that nothing in local or state law bars people from feeding cats.

Trapping, spaying and neutering, and rehoming or releasing (TNR) stray cats is an act of compassion — not a crime. 

More than 91 cities in the United States officially condone TNR as an animal control strategy — and it’s unconscionable that the city of Wetumpka, Alabama, would rather jail compassionate people than form collaborative, working partnerships with them for the good of both cats and the surrounding community.

Sign our petition urging the Wetumpka Municipal Court to dismiss these frivolous charges, and for the Wetumpka Police Department to thoroughly investigate the inappropriate use of force in this situation.


‘Mammary Menzoid’ “Attempts to drop off a petition regarding ‘Busty Lemieux,’ but HDSB trustees flee”

PETITION: Leave Them Alone


Amos Miller, a holistic Amish farmer in Pennsylvania, is being persecuted by the government for exercising his religious freedom to grow food as per his religious beliefs. 

Miller, who grows and prepares his food naturally, claims he has been able to curb federal farming regulations by selling his food privately to members of the farm’s “food club.”

Earlier this year, armed feds paid a visit to Miller’s farm for allegedly not cooperating with the government, and he is now facing over $300,000 in fines and potential jail time.

No one should be persecuted for exercising their religious freedom.

If you agree that the U.S. government must stop persecuting Amos Miller and his farm, sign this petition.


FBI informant shared information about classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, report says


Former President Donald Trump waves as he departs Trump Tower, Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2022, in New York, on his way to the New York attorney general’s office for a deposition in a civil investigation. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson)

WASHINGTON (TND) — An informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation apparently shared information about classified documents that were found at former President Donald Trump’s personal residence at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, according to a report.

Newsweek reported that two senior government officials told the media outlet the search “was based largely on information from an FBI confidential human source, one who was able to identify what classified documents former President Trump was still hiding and even the location of those documents.”

The search occurred Monday. At the time, Trump was not present at the residence.

Police direct traffic outside an entrance to former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, Monday, Aug. 8, 2022, in Palm Beach, Fla. Trump said in a lengthy statement that the FBI was conducting a search of his Mar-a-Lago estate and asserted that agents had broken open a safe. (AP Photo/Terry Renna)

The officials, who have direct knowledge of the FBI’s deliberations and were granted anonymity in order to discuss sensitive matters, said the raid of Donald Trump’s Florida residence was deliberately timed to occur when the former president was away,” according to Newsweek.

Shortly after news of the search was made public, Trump issued a statement about the incident, saying his home was raided.

These are dark times for our Nation, as my beautiful home, Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided and occupied by a large group of FBI agents,” Trump said. “Nothing like this has ever happened to a President of the United States before.

In a separate statement Trump shared on Wednesday on Truth Social, which is his social media platform, the former president said the FBI, along with the Department of Justice, asked his legal representatives to put an extra lock on the door that led to a room where “boxes were stored.” He said his team agreed and the FBI and DOJ were shown the area, as well as the boxes.

Then, on Monday, without notification or warning, an army of agents broke into Mar-a-Lago, went to the same storage area, and ripped open the lock that they had asked to be installed. A surprise attack, POLITICS, and all the while our Country is going to HELL!”

Trump also posted about his visit to Attorney General Letitia James’ Manhattan offices on Wednesday.

Trump said he invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination as he testified under oath in the attorney general’s long-running civil investigation into his business dealings.

He announced that he “declined to answer the questions under the rights and privileges afforded to every citizen under the United States Constitution.”

Former President Donald Trump gestures as he departs Trump Tower, Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2022, in New York, on his way to the New York attorney general’s office for a deposition in a civil investigation. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson)

On Tuesday, Kayla Gaskins of The National Desk reported that some Republicans have questioned if the search of Trump’s property had political motivations.

“This is truly frightening and this is not what our democracy stands for,” said Republican National Convention Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., warned his party will conduct an immediate investigation if they retake the house after November’s midterms, tweeting, “Attorney General Merrick Garland preserve your documents and clear your calendar.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


“Judge Jeanine: Trump search warrant was subterfuge to take him down”

Whitaker: We’ve crossed a line here

“Eric Trump: FBI’s raid of Mar-a-Lago goes past politics”

“Former CIA officer on Trump’s raided office: It’s destructive for the country “

Petition · Help Secure Navy Lt. Ridge Alkonis’ Swift and Safe Return to the U​.​S. · Change.org


Sign the Petition

U.S. Navy Lieutenant Ridge Alkonis has been falsely convicted and sentenced to three years in prison in Japan. LT Alkonis has not received a fair trial and has endured numerous injustices. 

On May 29, 2021, Lieutenant Ridge Alkonis, along with his wife and three children, were involved in a tragic car accident. After a day trip to climb Mt Fuji from their home in Yokosuka, Japan, LT Alkonis experienced a sudden and unforeseen medical emergency in which he lost consciousness while driving the family vehicle to get lunch and ice cream. An unconscious LT Alkonis crashed into several parked vehicles in a restaurant parking lot resulting in the tragic death of two Japanese citizens. LT Alkonis was immediately arrested by Japanese authorities and imprisoned in solitary confinement. 

LT Alkonis endured numerous interrogations per day for multiple hours with no legal counsel present and inadequate translation. The Japanese police systematically deprived LT Alkonis of sleep by forcing him to sleep directly under bright lights during the duration of his initial imprisonment, a period of 26 days. 

There was no alcohol, drugs, or medications involved in this accident, and LT Alkonis was well-rested. After in-depth medical evaluations, a Navy neurologist in Yokosuka, Japan, clinically diagnosed LT Alkonis with “Acute Mountain Sickness” as the reason for his loss of consciousness on the day of the accident. 

LT Alkonis has been falsely convicted on the charges of “negligent driving resulting in death and injury.” The conviction is based on a false narrative that LT Alkonis knowingly drove a vehicle while fatigued and fell asleep at the wheel. Although innocent, LT Alkonis has done everything possible to help the victims’ family. Despite all of this, LT Alkonis was sentenced in October 2021 to three years in a Japanese prison. 

o   US Naval Officer in Japan faces prison over deadly crash 

o   Parents of Naval Officer sentenced in Japan detail tragic accident

Click here to follow updates on Instagram @BringRidgeHome

o  Click here to follow updates on Facebook

Lieutenant Ridge Alkonis is an exemplary United States Naval Surface Warfare Officer who commissioned through the United States Naval Academy in 2012. Before his commissioning, LT Alkonis served two years as a volunteer missionary for his church in Japan, learning the language and culture. As a United States Naval Officer, he actively sought assignments in Japan, resulting in three tours of duty and six additional years living in Japan. LT Alkonis has dedicated much of his career to strengthening the United States-Japan Alliance and has done much to develop relationships between the United States Navy and the Japanese Maritime Self-defense Force. LT Alkonis is married to his wife of 10 years, Brittany, and together they have three children, ages 7, 5, and 4.

It is imperative that the US government immediately address this human rights issue and do whatever is necessary to return LT Alkonis home.

President Biden and Administration, we ask that you take assertive action today – doing whatever is necessary – to bring LT Ridge Alkonis home swiftly and safely.

Additionally, we request that the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Services Committee conduct an investigative review of the United States-Japan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to prevent this from happening to other U.S. service members. 

Next Steps: What can you do to help NOW? 

1.    Sign & share the petition. 

2.   CALL your elected officials. Ask them to “Bring Ridge Home.”

3.   Many have expressed concern about Ridge’s wife, Brittany, and their three young children.The Alkonis family spent their life savings and took out multiple loans to pay restitution to the accident victims. This has left them with rising uncertainty of their future, with no understanding of where they will live, how his wife Brittany will generate income, or how his children will be adequately supported.

The Pipe Hitter Foundation is sponsoring a fundraising campaign for Ridge’s family. Please consider donating so this tragedy and injustice can stop compounding itself.

Fundraising Campaign for Ridge’s Family


“DC Bridge SHUT DOWN For 28 Hours After Pro-Abortionist Does Something Wild”

Seriously Wrong!

“2 inmates at women-only NJ prison became pregnant from transgender convict”


a "Backwoods" Conservative

I have no doubt that there are those tired of me posting about this guy, Tony Fauci. And to tell you the truth, I’m getting a bit tired of it myself. But that said, it’s every time I turn around that he’s saying something more outrageous than the last and, quite frankly, I just can’t help myself. I mean, again he’s talking about forcing people to get vaccinated. How dare he talk about forcing people to be injected with anything, but especially with a substance that, with each injection, money goes into his personal bank account. How ethical is that? And yet those in our ‘fake news’ media continue to provide him with a platform from which to spew his insanity.

And it was on Wednesday, that Fauci was again welcomed onto MSDNC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” where, during a discussion on the extreme COVID lockdowns in Communist China, he said…

View original post 1,147 more words

‘HE DON’T CARE WHAT BRANDON THINKS’: Watch the Video for Team DeSantis’ New Song ‘Sweet Florida’

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has a new pro-Florida, pro-DeSantis anthem out. Written by Johnny and Donnie Van Zant, “Sweet Florida” puts Biden, Fauci, and all anti-freedom fighters on blast. DeSantis shared the song on Twitter:

“Thanks to Johnny & Donnie Van Zant. I have a feeling this might be the song of the summer…”

Watch the video above and check out the lyrics below:

The press don’t like him but he sure does get my business
He stands up for what he believes
So don’t come down here trying to change things
We’re doing alright in the Sunshine State
Stay out of our business – leave our Gov alone

Down in Sweet Florida
Our Governor is Red White and Blue
Down in Sweet Florida
He’s shootin’ us straight – tellin’ us the truth

Yeah that’s right!

You can take it to the bank he don’t care what Brandon thinks at the White House
Yeah he’s fighting for the right to keep our state free
Well he’s taking on the swamp and he’s calling out Dr. Fauci
He’s the only one fightin’ for you and me

Yeah we’re free!

Down in Sweet Florida
Our Governor is Red White and Blue
Down in Sweet Florida
He’s shootin’ us straight – tellin’ us the truth

Well we ain’t been locked down – we still have our freedom
We can still see our friends and family
Our kids are in school and we can go to church on Sunday
And it’s all because DeSantis knows how to lead

Yeah we’re free!

Down in Sweet Florida
Our Governor – He’s Red White and Blue
Down in Sweet Florida
He’s shootin’ us straight – tellin’ us the truth

Down in Sweet Sweet Sweet Florida
Our Governor – He’s Red White and Blue
Down in Sweet Florida
He’s shootin’ us straight – tellin’ us the truth


Down in Sweet Florida
Well he’s kicking it up – standing up down in Florida
He’s a military man with the courage to withstand them all
Yeah we’re free in Florida
Yeah we’re free in Florida
Our Governor – He’s Red White and Blue

Never miss important information about new shows, specials, and breaking news. Subscribe to notifications and you’ll get inside access to what matters to you!



“Judge Jeanine blasts Disney executives: ‘Small majority of woke people'”

“WATCH: Radical feminists protesting Lia Thomas say they are politically homeless”

“After Supporting BLM, Amazon Gets Hit With BRUTAL Karma”

January 6 Defendant Dies By Suicide


Amanda Prestigiacomo

A 37 year old who was charged in the U.S. Capitol breach reportedly died by suicide on Friday, about a month before he was scheduled to be sentenced.

Matthew Perna was charged with trespassing on the Capitol, “obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abetting, disorderly and disruptive conduct on a restricted building or grounds and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building,” ABC27News reported.

The defendant trespassed and participated in chanting “USA,” according to Justice Department documents. Perna apparently did not commit any violence, though he did say he “tapped” on a window in the Capitol using a “metal pole” when he was “frustrated,” documents reveal.

An obituary for the deceased published online said Perna, who always had the support of his family, “died … of a broken heart,” adding that “the justice system killed his spirit.”

“Matthew Lawrence Perna died on February 25, 2022 of a broken heart,” the obituary said. “His community (which he loved), his country, and the justice system killed his spirit and his zest for life. Matt was an amazing man! In his 37 years, he experienced more than most people do their entire lives.”

Perna was facing up to 20 years in prison, though his sentence, which was set to be doled out on April 1, was expected to be far lighter.

“The most serious charge to which Perna had pleaded guilty was a federal obstruction charge that carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison, though he likely would have received a far lighter sentence,” Law & Crime explained. “So far, three Jan. 6 defendants have pleaded guilty to this charge, and all have been sentenced to prison: Paul Hodgkins to 8 months, and Scott Fairlamb and Jacob Chansley, also known as the ‘QAnon Shaman,’ to 41 months each.”

“Perna was also charged with three misdemeanors, including disorderly conduct and entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds,” the report added.

The obituary contends Perna’s actions were entirely peaceful on January 6, 2021, and that the Justice Department unfairly targeted him, Law & Crime highlighted. Here’s a portion of the obituary:

He attended the rally on January 6, 2021 to peacefully stand up for his beliefs. After learning that the FBI was looking for him, he immediately turned himself in. He entered the Capitol through a previously opened door (he did not break in as was reported), where he was ushered in by police. He didn’t break, touch or steal anything. He did not harm anyone, as he stayed within the velvet ropes taking pictures. For this act he has been persecuted by many members of his community, friends, relatives and people who had never met him. Many people were quietly supportive and Matt was truly grateful for them. The constant delays in hearings and postponements dragged out for over a year. Because of this, Matt’s heart broke and his spirit died and many people are responsible for the pain he endured. Matt did not have a hateful bone in his body. He embraced people of all races, income brackets and beliefs, never once berating anyone for having different views.

The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is a free hotline for individuals in crisis or distress or for those looking to help someone else. It is available 24/7 at 1-800-273-8255.


“They’re LOSING CONTROL! HUGE Win for Trucker’s Freedom Convoy | Breakdown | Huckabee”

After Backlash, GoFundMe Says It Will Automatically Refund ‘Freedom Convoy’ Donors


Ashe Schow 4 minutes

Following a backlash from GoFundMe’s decision to shut down the “Freedom Convoy” fundraiser, citing unspecified “evidence” that the protest was no longer peaceful, the fundraising website has backtracked when it comes to refunding donors.

When first announcing it was shutting down the Freedom Convoy, GoFundMe told donors they would need to use a “dedicated refund form” to request their money back, otherwise the funds would be sent to a “credible and established” charity verified by GoFundMe. On Saturday morning, however, GoFundMe changed the decision and said the funds would be automatically returned:

To simplify the process for our users, we will be refunding all donations to the Freedom Convoy 2022 fundraiser. This refund will happen automatically—you do not need to submit a request. Donors can expect to see refunds within 7-10 business days.

The update we issued earlier enabled all donors to get a refund and outlined a plan to distribute remaining funds to verified charities selected by the Freedom Convoy organizers. However, due to donor feedback, we are simplifying the process and automatically refunding donations.

As The Daily Wire previously reported, GoFundMe released a statement on Friday announcing that it had shut down the Freedom Convoy page, claiming the page violated its terms of service:

GoFundMe supports peaceful protests and we believe that was the intention of the Freedom Convoy 2022 fundraiser when it was first created.

We now have evidence from law enforcement that the previously peaceful demonstration has become an occupation, with police reports of violence and other unlawful activity.

To ensure GoFundMe remains a trusted platform, we work with local authorities to ensure we have a detailed, factual understanding of events taking place on the ground. Following a review of relevant facts and multiple discussions with local law enforcement and city officials, this fundraiser is now in violation of our Terms of Service (Term 8, which prohibits the promotion of violence and harassment) and has been removed from the platform.

Organizers provided a clear distribution plan for the initial $1M that was released earlier this week and confirmed funds would be used only for participants who traveled to Ottawa to participate in a peaceful protest. Given how this situation has evolved, no further funds will be directly distributed to the Freedom Convoy organizers — we will work with organizers to send all remaining funds to credible and established charities verified by GoFundMe.

All donors may submit a request for a full refund until February 19th, 2022 using this dedicated refund form.

GoFundMe did not provide any of the “evidence” it claimed to have showing the Freedom Convoy was no longer peaceful, nor did it specify what charities could receive the money people donated for this specific cause. It should be noted that GoFundMe didn’t cancel Black Lives Matter pages when it was clear the associated riots had become violent.

Related: West Virginia Attorney General Slams GoFundMe, Urges Residents To Report Deceptive Practices After ‘Freedom Convoy’ Page Shut Down


“Caitlyn Jenner ‘disappointed’ in NCAA regarding UPenn swimmer Lia Thomas”

“Blood On My Hands” By John Ondrasik The left wants this video removed from YouTube

WATCH: Florida Man Banned From Airline For Wearing Women’s Underwear as Covid Mask


A Florida man has finally put into use what many men have been discussing in lorckerrooms for quite sometime. Yes ladies, President Trump is 100 percent right, we’ve discussed this a lot, because it makes more sense.

The Florida man was booted off a United Airlines flight for wearing women’s underwear as his Covid-19 comfort blanket, also known as a worthless and useless face mask. But wait, there’s more.

He was also reportedly banned from the airline for failing to comply with the federal mask mandate. You know, since the masks are made from the same damn thing as women’s underwear that most people are wearing on their faces. That’s how ridiculous this scamdemic has truly become.

Adam Jenne was a passenger aboard a plane flying between Ft. Lauderdale and Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. However, the flight crew notified Jenne that his “face mask” which was actually red panties, was not compliant with the federal mask mandate that is currently in place until March of 2022.

Jenne argued that his underwear on his face was in compliance with the mask mandate and covered his mouth and nose.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

All passengers on public conveyances (e.g., airplanes, ships*, ferries, trains, subways, buses, taxis, ride-shares) traveling into, within, or out of the United States (including U.S. territories) as well as conveyance operators (e.g., crew, drivers, conductors, and other workers involved in the operation of conveyances), regardless of their vaccination status, are required to wear a mask over their nose and mouth. Unless otherwise required by the operator, or federal, State, tribal, territorial, or local government, people are not required to wear a mask when located in outdoor areas of a conveyance (if such outdoor areas exist on the conveyance).

“People must wear masks that completely cover the mouth and nose,” the CDC states. “Masks should fit snugly against the sides of the face.”

Jenne was removed from the flight and greeted by the oh so friendly Broward County Sheriff’s Office. He said he was at the gate in the Fort Lauderdale – Hollywood International Airport for “about 45 minutes.”

Jenne says that other passengers followed suit by peacefully protesting the mask mandate and taking off their face coverings. Video appears to show other passengers taking off their masks and heading to exit off the plane.

“I think it’s a testament to passengers having had enough, citizens having had enough,” Jenne told WBBH-TV. “This is just nonsense.”

United released a statement of the incident:

“The customer clearly wasn’t in compliance with the federal mask mandate and we appreciate that our team addressed the issue on the ground prior to takeoff, avoiding any potential disruptions [in] the air.”

Jenne told WFTX-TV that he received an email from United informing him that he is banned from using the airline until his case has been reviewed by the Passenger Incident Review Committee.

Jenne said he had worn the thong face mask on previous flights during the pandemic as well.

“Every single flight has been met with different reactions from the flight crew,” Jenne said. “Some with a wild appreciation, others confrontational.”

Jenne railed against the mask mandates, “It’s nonsense, it’s all nonsense. COVID doesn’t know that we’re cruising at altitude. It’s stupid, the whole thing is theater.” 

Jenne was refunded for his flight and was going to try a different airline on Thursday. 

“Hopefully, Spirit Airlines has a better sense of humor tomorrow,” he said.

Coincidentally, in the same week that Jenne was kicked off a flight for a protest against the mask mandates, CEOs of two major airlines also questioned the necessity of masks on flights.

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker and Southwest CEO Gary Kelly both said that they don’t believe masks significantly prevent the transmission of COVID-19 on flights because most planes have HEPA filters

You can watch the full video from Jenne below, it’s phenomenal!


Thanks to our friends at The Blaze for contributing to this article.


EXCLUSIVE: Maxine Waters Goes Maskless On Cross-Country United Flight After Bumping Passenger From Window Seat


Tim Meads 5 – 6 minutes

Talk about a “mask off” moment for Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA). Today, an anonymous tipster passed along an exclusive photo to The Daily Wire of one of the most corrupt members of Congress not wearing a mask aboard a United flight heading from Dulles Airport to Los Angeles International — despite the FAA mask mandate in place requiring all passengers to wear one due to COVID-19 precautions.

To make matters worse for Aunty Maxine — as her fans call her — the senior Democratic representative bumped the tipster’s boyfriend from his seat next to her for reasons unexplained. Meanwhile, flight attendants hounded other passengers consistently for not wearing their masks, even in-between bites of food. Flight attendants only asked Waters to pull up her mask once the tipster pointed out the hypocrisy.

“Maxine had her mask off for at least an hour while she read her paper and took a nap,” the source told The Daily Wire. “Attendants brought her fresh coffee while she was napping and didn’t say a thing as three of them walked past and saw Maxine reading and then sleeping while she remained maskless.”

But, the source did not receive the same treatment from United Airlines.

“My nose had bled pretty early into the flight, so I later on pulled my mask down below my nose to get some cooler air,” she explained. “Within a few minutes, a flight attendant informed me I had to put my mask back on over my nose, the right way, immediately.”

The source says she pointed in the direction of Waters, indicating that she wasn’t wearing a mask as a form of protest.

The flight attendant looked at Waters and said to the woman, “Okay, but you need to put your mask on the right way.”

“I put the mask on ‘the right way’ after the flight attendant told Maxine to put her mask on,” The Daily Wire’s source added. “Maxine had been napping. She did put the mask on after the attendant interrupted her sleep and told her to do so. I think she was startled by the rude awakening.”

The source was able to snap a photo of Waters before she put her mask on:

The Daily Wire Exclusive Photo – Maxine Waters Maskless on United Flight

Readers should remember that Waters has been one of the longest and most vocal advocates of masking in public settings.

In April 2020, waters tweeted, “Take a chance. Remind an unmasked person to put on a mask & if they become angry, smile and say ‘6ft away’ & keep going.”

In May 2020, Waters took it a step further and said that not wearing a mask in public was a threat to public safety. She slammed then-President Donald Trump as being a bad role model for being seen in public without the face-covering.

“Trump is a dangerous example for children and those who tend to follow him. Not wearing a mask and not social distancing is dangerous,” she tweeted. “Do not follow his example. Protect yourself. Coronavirus kills! Maybe this ignoramus doesn’t care, but you should care about yourself!”

She doubled down on that message in June of 2020, tweeting, “Trump still refuses to wear a mask. Trump’s FAILED leadership & his unfortunate followers not wearing masks & not social distancing is responsible for the growing infections, death, & surge in #coronavirus cases.”

None of these statements were forgotten by The Daily Wire’s source, who slammed the congresswoman for her “rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me” attitude. The passenger also expressed her dissatisfaction with United’s customer service — or lack thereof.

“The injustice of being overlooked because we were not ‘important’ like Maxine, of being dismissed when my boyfriend tried to address the seat he paid for so that we could sit together, and then being roughly spoken to for having my own mask down a fraction of an inch when someone else, a well-known politician, just six feet away from me, was ‘breaking’ the required face masks on airlines was flabbergasting.”

“Flight attendants stay on you,” the source said. “If you don’t put your mask on in between bites of food or sips of drink, they will ask you to, they state so at the start of their safety guidelines before the flight.”

“But none of them once bothered Maxine when she was maskless,” she remarked. “A politician who believes in masks, but only when others wear them for her. It’s a double standard, but people seem to be blind to it.”

As for her boyfriend not getting to sit in his original seat, the source said they were able to sit near each other, but that Waters was able to sit without anybody next to her at all.

“She was in the window seat and in the middle seat was a sign that said the seat was ‘out of service’ and ‘sorry for the inconvenience.’ There was a young man in the aisle seat of that row who mid-flight agreed to switch seats with my boyfriend so the both of us could at least be across from each other.”

Recently, President Joe Biden extended the federal mask mandates for public transportation — such as airlines — into March of 2022.

The Daily Wire reached out to Waters’ office for comment but has not received one.

The Daily Wire is fighting Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate in federal court.  Join us in this fight by signing our petition to OSHA, telling them that you will not comply with this mandate.


What A Drama Queen

Is Our Justice System Broken

Texas Doctor Has Privileges Suspended For Spreading ‘Dangerous’ COVID-19 Misinformation Online

Ian Haworth
A doctor based in Houston, Texas, has had her privileges suspended based on what hospital officials are calling the spread of “dangerous misinformation”online regarding COVID-19.

Mary Bowden, who is an ear, nose and throat doctor at Houston Methodist Hospital, shared opinions on social media on the subject of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and COVID-19 treatments. According to a hospital spokesperson who spoke with The Washington Post, “Bowden, who recently joined the hospital’s medical staff, has been suspended for ‘spreading dangerous misinformation’ and sharing ‘harmful’ personal and political opinions about the coronavirus vaccine and treatments.” 

“The physician’s privileges at Houston Methodist have been suspended,” Patti Muck said in an email, adding that the hospital granted Bowden privileges within the last year.

According to The Post, Bowden’s attorney, Steve Mitby, said his client has treated more than 2,000 COVID-19 patients and is “not anti-vaccine.”

“Like many Americans, Dr. Bowden believes that people should have a choice and believes that all people, regardless of vaccine status, should have access to the same high quality health care,” Mitby said.

As The Post notes, “Earlier this year, more than 150 health-care workers with the Houston Methodist resigned or were terminated for not complying with its vaccine mandate. The Houston-based hospital system said Bowden, who is vaccinated against the coronavirus, has never admitted a patient at the medical center, which has treated more than 25,000 covid patients. The hospital was one of the country’s first to require proof of vaccination.”

“The Houston doctor is the latest medical professional suspended for promoting coronavirus misinformation and the consumption of ivermectin, an unproven treatment the Food and Drug Administration has said can be “dangerous” and potentially fatal,” the Post noted. 

The tweets referenced by media reports include “Ivermectin might not be as deadly as everyone said it was,” which Bowden tweeted on Nov. 10. “Speak up!”

Bowden also tweeted that “Vaccine mandates are wrong,” alongside an image which read, “What the government is doing to its citizens in the United States is incomprehensible. Thank you for what you do for your patients. God bless you and your staff.”

Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) nor the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, and the FDA has explicitly said not to use it to treat or prevent COVID-19. 

“The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea,” says the FDA. “Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.”

“Talk to your health care provider about available COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options. Your provider can help determine the best option for you, based on your health history,” says the FDA.


Barrett and Kavanaugh Supply Majority to Deny Religious-Liberty Claim on Vaccine Mandate


About Andrew C. McCarthy

(Amy Coney Barrett: Jim Lo Scalzo/Reuters; Brett Kavanaugh: Jabin Botsford/Reuters)

They joined Roberts and the Court’s progressives in declining relief to Maine health-care providers, who must now be vaccinated against their beliefs or lose their jobs.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE L ate Friday, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court’s three progressives in denying a preliminary injunction to a group of medical professionals who sought to be exempted from Maine’s vaccine mandate because of their religious convictions.

Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a compelling dissent in the case, John Does 1-3 v. Mills, joined by his fellow conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The dissenters stressed that, besides being likely to win on the merits, the religious objectors were merely asking to maintain the status quo — to keep their jobs despite being unvaccinated — while the Court decided whether to grant a full review of their case. In turning them down, Barrett and Kavanaugh dodged the weighty civil-rights issues, seeing the case, instead, as an opportunity to gripe about the Court’s emergency docket.

Maine now requires certain health-care workers to be vaccinated or face the loss of their jobs and medical practices. Unlike many such mandates, Maine’s does not provide an exemption for religious objectors. The plaintiffs are medical professionals who object to the vaccine, and thus the mandate, based on their Christian faith. Specifically, because fetal tissue from terminated pregnancies was used in developing the approved vaccines, the plaintiffs see immunization as an implicit endorsement of abortion, in violation of their religious beliefs. The sincerity of those beliefs is not in dispute.

The plaintiffs made an emergency application for a preliminary injunction. In his dissent from the 6–3 majority’s refusal to grant that application, Gorsuch explained that the main issues on such an injunction request are whether the applicants are likely to succeed on the merits and, if so, whether they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Gorsuch proceeded to make a strong case that the claimants would prevail on both issues.

Religious liberty is fundamental, expressly protected by the First Amendment. Under currently controlling precedent (which, as I’ve previously detailed, is disputed), a law that impinges on religion may survive if it is both neutral (i.e., not hostile to religion) and generally applicable (i.e., imposed on everyone equally). Maine’s vaccine mandate does not meet this standard because it provides for individualized exemptions. Though medical professionals are not excused from compliance based on their religious beliefs, they needn’t comply if they get a note from a health-care provider claiming that, in their cases, immunization “may be” medically inadvisable.

As Gorsuch elaborates, this medical exemption is remarkably lax. There is no requirement that the note explain why the health-care provider believes vaccination would entail medical risk; nor is there any limitation on what qualifies as a valid “medical” concern. As Gorsuch tartly observes, “It seems Maine will respect even mere trepidation over vaccination as sufficient, but only so long as it is phrased in medical and not religious terms.” (Emphasis in original.)

Even if a law fails to qualify as neutral and generally applicable, it can still survive a First Amendment challenge if it satisfies the Court’s “strict scrutiny” tier of review — the most demanding for state action to meet. Generally, strict scrutiny requires a state to show that (a) its law furthers a compelling government interest, and (b) the conditions imposed by the law are the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

The dissenters were willing to stipulate that Maine has a compelling interest in halting the spread of COVID-19, but only for argument’s sake. Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito point out that much has changed for the better since the Court presumed a compelling state interest nearly a year ago (in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo), there now being not one but three approved vaccines, as well as greatly improved therapeutics, with more on the way. The dissenters are skeptical about the specter of “indefinite states of emergencies,” by which state power imperils civil liberties regardless of changed circumstances.

On the second test, Gorsuch demonstrated that Maine appears to fall woefully short of meeting its burden. Many states that impose a comparable mandate provide an exemption based on religious objections. The state has already exceeded the 90 percent level of vaccination compliance at designated health-care facilities that it originally claimed was necessary; even putting aside that the state never backed up this goal with evidence, forcing religious objectors to be vaccinated would not help if the goal already has been achieved. Maine, moreover, allows unvaccinated workers who have been exempted on claimed medical grounds to take other precautions, such as protective gear and regular testing, in lieu of being immunized. Clearly, there is no reason that these same alternative measures would be any less effective for workers whose exemptions were based on religious scruples instead.

Ergo, Gorsuch aptly concludes, “Maine’s decision to deny a religious exemption in these circumstances doesn’t just fail the least restrictive means test, it borders on the irrational.”

Moving on to other injunction factors (besides the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits), the dissenters pointed out that the denial of religious liberty amounts to irreparable harm under the Court’s precedents — quite apart from the fact that the medical workers are also losing their livelihoods. By contrast, the public interest would not be harmed by granting religion-based exemptions, any more than it is harmed by the health-related exemptions that the state provides.

Therefore, Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito saw no justification for refusing to grant a temporary injunction. After all, that would merely maintain the status quo until the Court could decide whether to grant review (known as certiorari) and fully consider the case on the merits.

As for the six-justice majority, it is to be expected that the Court’s three progressives (Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) would elevate state authority over religious liberty. Nor is it surprising that Chief Justice Roberts would subordinate religious liberty to a draconian state mandate. He has a track record in COVID cases of deferring to the judgment of elected officials — no matter how arbitrary that judgment or how fundamental the rights at stake — on the rationale that they, unlike politically unaccountable judges, answer to the voters and have more institutional competence. (See, e.g., his dissent in Cuomo and his upholding of California’s restrictions on attendance at religious services in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom.)

What is stunning, and will be troubling for conservatives, is the decision by Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh to side with the progressives and turn a blind eye to a state government’s suppression of a fundamental freedom that the Constitution is supposed to protect. And equally troubling: the thin gruel they offer as a rationale.

Barrett filed a one-paragraph opinion, joined by Kavanaugh, concurring in the Court’s refusal to grant injunctive relief. She explained that she “understands” the weighing of an injunction applicant’s likelihood of success on the merits to include “a discretionary judgment about whether the Court should grant review in the case.” Discretion in this context means the justices’ power to choose to ignore a claim that should be heard, rationalizing that to entertain it could potentially undermine the Court’s institutional protocols.

Barrett and Kavanaugh have apparently been seized by anxiety over potential abuse of the Court’s so-called emergency docket — a hobby horse among legal academics, particularly now that (a) the Court has a conservative majority, and (b) critics of progressive federal and state administrations are turning to the courts for relief from sundry mandates and decrees.

The emergency docket entails cases that arise in exigent circumstances and must be addressed expeditiously, often by injunction applications, on schedules far tighter than what might generously be described as the Court’s customary pace of a hobbled snail. Barrett frets that when the Court takes the “extraordinary” step of entertaining such a case, the justices are put to the unwelcome burden of providing a “merits preview” — a forecast of how the case is likely to be decided if fully reviewed. This is said to be less than optimal because the Court must proceed “on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument,” when, if they’d had more time to think it through, the justices might not grant review of the case at all.

Cue the violins.

Justice Barrett’s temporizing is overwrought. The Court should only grant preliminary relief — which, again, simply freezes a matter in place, but doesn’t decide it with finality — if (a) the moving party plainly appears likely to win on the merits, (b) the failure to act would truly cause irreparable harm (e.g., there is no irreparable harm if money damages would eventually make the harmed party whole), and (c) there is not some consequential public interest that an injunction would undermine. That is a very small universe of cases, especially for a tribunal that, on a yearly basis, is not exactly overtaxed. (Last term, the justices issued opinions in just 67 cases out of the approximately 8,000 in which review was sought, continuing the Roberts Court trend of historically low output; in the early 1980s, by comparison, the Court typically decided over 150 cases per term.)

Furthermore, who cares if the Court has to give a merits preview? It is a fact of life that emergency circumstances occasionally arise, forcing us mere mortals to do the best we can, ruefully realizing we could do better if only there were time for calm deliberation. Why should the Supreme Court, the last bastion for safeguarding our fundamental rights, be spared that burden? If it turns out that, upon further consideration of a fully developed record, the justices would not have taken the emergency case in the first place, the “merits preview” does no harm. To the extent it has precedential value, it is understood to be a preliminary decision based on an incomplete factual record.

Most significantly, even if their reservations had persuasive force, Barrett and Kavanaugh are prioritizing the Court’s airy model for conducting appellate litigation over its principal duty to defend the fundamental rights of Americans against government overreach.

At issue here is a flesh-and-blood dispute, not an abstraction. Medical professionals are being stripped of their religious freedom and their jobs because of a state mandate that capriciously discriminates against them. Yet rather than take action, Barrett and Kavanaugh basically say: Let’s just wait a year or three, so we can have an exacting record and full briefing. And mind you, granting a preliminary injunction would not deprive the justices of their coveted full briefing; it would just mean that the unvaccinated medical professionals got to keep their jobs until the Court finally decided to either deny full review (in which case the injunction would lapse) or grant review and then rule on the merits.

Presumably Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh appreciate that when they exercise their “discretionary judgment” to duck a case, it doesn’t mean the case goes unresolved. There is still a winner and a loser. Here, overbearing government prevailed, and the loser was the Constitution.




The Biden administration and congressional Democrats are scaling back a controversial proposal to have banks report more information to the Internal Revenue Service after their initial plan was met with a backlash from the financial services industry and Republicans.

The original proposal, part of a larger effort to generate more revenue by cracking down on tax cheats, called for financial institutions to provide data to the IRS on accounts with annual deposits or withdrawals totaling more than $600. But the plan generated a storm of criticism from Republicans, and a fierce lobbying campaign by banks, with both groups raising alarms about a government invasion of privacy. 

The revised plan, outlined Tuesday by Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and endorsed by the Treasury Department, would set the reporting threshold at $10,000 a year and includes exemptions for payroll deposits and Social Security benefits, among other things. “We’re adding language to ensure enforcement efforts are focused on the very wealthy,” Wyden said.

The Biden administration insists that​ the new reporting requirement is meant only to help collect unpaid taxes from the rich and that audit rates won’t go up for taxpayers making less than $400,000 a year. The requirement is aimed at addressing what the Biden administration describes as a two-tiered system in which wage earners, who have their incomes reported to the IRS, comply with tax rules at a far higher rate than people, mostly wealthy, who generate substantial income from sources that don’t get reported to the government, making it harder to rule out tax evasion.

“Under the current system, American workers pay virtually all their tax bills while many top earners avoid paying billions in taxes, they owe by exploiting the system,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a statement Tuesday.​ “This two-tiered tax system is unfair and deprives the country of resources to fund core priorities. Today’s new proposal reflects the administration’s strong belief that we should zero in on those at the top of the income scale who don’t pay the taxes they owe, while protecting American workers by setting the bank​account threshold at $10,000 and providing an exemption for wage earners like teachers and firefighters.”

The proposed changed did little to quell criticisms from Republicans and the banking industry. “Even with the modifications announced today, this proposal still goes too far by forcing financial institutions to share with the IRS private financial data from millions of customers not suspected of cheating on their taxes. The exclusion of payroll and federal program beneficiaries does not address millions of other taxpayers who would be impacted by the proposal,” said Rob Nichols, president and CEO of the American Bankers Association, in a statement. “If enacted this new proposal would still raise the same privacy concerns, increase tax preparation costs for individuals and small businesses, and create significant operational challenges, particularly for community banks.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) reported warned: “Marx is at the doorstep.”