Who Is Michael McCaul?

My VIP for this week is Representative Michael McCaul (R-Texas). He is the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, and he has openly claimed that the Biden administration is not telling the truth about the Chinese spy balloon that traveled from Alaska down to Montana and across the Continental United States to South Carolina. The Biden administration claims that the balloon was not dangerous and that the U.S. gained more intelligence from watching it that it was able to scoop up as it hovered over sensitive military sites in the various states. 

McCaul claimed that the balloon “did a lot of damage” on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.” He explained that China was able to “gather intelligence on areas sensitive to national security” because Biden did not order it to be preemptively downed.  

Host Margaret Brennan asked McCaul about the “new restrictions enacted on six Chinese companies whose technology was used in the spy balloon’s construction.” After stating that the balloon did great damage, McCaul explained what he plans to do about it.

It will be one of my number-one priorities, as the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in this Congress, to stop the export of technology to China that then goes into their most advanced weapons systems, in this case a sophisticated spy balloon that went across three nuclear sites….

I think it’s important to say, in plain view of the American people, you know, in Montana – the triad site, air, land, and sea nuclear weapons – in Omaha, the spy balloon went over our Strategic Command, which is our most sensitive nuclear site; it was so sensitive that President Bush was taken there after 9/11. And then, finally, Missouri, the B-2 Bomber – that’s where they are placed.

The Biden administration claimed that it jammed the capability of the spy balloon to gather intelligence, but McCaul is not convinced that we are being told the truth.

My assessment – and I can’t get into the detail of the intelligence document – is that if it was still transmitting going over these three very sensitive nuclear sites, I think if you look at the flight pattern of the balloon, it tells a story as to what the Chinese were up to as they controlled this aircraft throughout the United States….

Going over those sites, in my judgment, would cause great damage. Remember, a balloon could see a lot more on the ground than a satellite.

McCaul believes that China was seeking information about the military capabilities of the United States in case they decide to be more forceful with Taiwan. My question is, how did China know where our most sensitive military places are located? The Biden administration’s willingness to allow the Chinese spy balloon to traverse the United States is even more questionable because there are so many questions about whether Biden is a comprised president. Has he sold us out to China in return for the millions of dollars that China paid to Hunter Biden?

 

What Is the Truth about Voter ID?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns voter identification laws. Most Americans understand that Republicans/conservatives generally support strict ID laws, while Democrats/liberals generally peddle lies about ID laws. The biggest lies peddled by opponents to ID laws claim that they discriminate against African Americans because the laws suppress their vote. At the same time, they rally against the idea that strict ID laws protect the integrity as well as the security of elections.

In an article posted at The Daily Signal, Hans von Spakovsky and Joseph Sturdy wrote that we should “Trust the science” and understand that “Voter ID laws aren’t discriminatory and don’t suppress anyone’s vote.” 

For years, liberals have peddled fabricated claims about voter ID requirements, asserting that they give an advantage to the Republican Party by “discriminating against African Americans’ and suppressing their vote. They pooh-pooh the notion that such laws protect the integrity and security of elections.

Not only do black Americans not believe that voter laws discourage or prevent them from voting, but in 2019 a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research – based on turnout data from 2008 to 2018 – concluded that voter ID laws “have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.”

The authors quoted another study that was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The referenced study “once again has categorically refuted the myth propagated by the Left that voter ID laws, as the study says, place a ‘disproportionate burden’ on ‘historically disadvantaged groups such as the poor and people of color” and therefore hurt candidates of the Democratic Party.” The researchers of this study reported that they “studied the ‘electoral fortunes’ of both political parties in ‘races at the state level (state legislatures and governorships) and federal level (United States Congress and president) during 2003 to 2020.”

The study concluded that the first voter ID laws actually “produced a Democratic advantage, which weakened to near zero after 2012” so that today, voter ID laws have “negligible average effects.” That is academic-speak for saying voter ID laws have no effect on the ability of the candidates of either the Republican or Democratic parties to get elected.

In other words, voter security benefits both parties and all Americans.

The authors state that the new study supports the previous study. “The researchers’ conclusions emphatically demonstrate that Republican support for an issue doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s bad for Democrats.”

In fact, in contrast to the myth of voter suppression, the study found that both parties saw an increase in voter turnout after implementation of voter ID laws….

This study rejects the narrative spewed for years about the one-party benefit of election security measures. The facts reject the notion that Americans are too dumb to understand electoral security. The facts support voter ID, and the people do too.

So, trust the science: Secure your elections.

How Can A Man Be Born Again?

My Come, Follow Me studies for this week took me to John 2-4 and a lesson titled “Ye Must Be Born Again.” The lesson was introduced with the following information. 

At a marriage feast in Cana, Christ changed water into wine—an event John called the “beginning of miracles” (John 2:11). That’s true in more than one sense. While this was the first miracle Jesus performed publicly, it can also symbolize another miraculous beginning—the process of our hearts being transformed as we become ever more like our Savior. This miracle of a lifetime begins with the decision to follow Jesus Christ, to change and live a better life through Him. This miracle can be so life-changing that being “born again” is one of the best ways to describe it (John 3:7). But rebirth is just the beginning of the path of discipleship. Christ’s words to the Samaritan woman at the well remind us that if we continue on this path, eventually the gospel will become “a well of water” inside us, “springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:14).

As usual, the scripture block taught numerous principles. The principle that I wish to discuss tonight is found in John 3:1-21: “I must be born again to enter the kingdom of God.” The material that I will share comes from the Come, Follow Me manuals for individuals/families and for Sunday School.

John 3 contains the story of Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews. He came to Jesus quietly at night [i.e., he did not want to be seen] and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him” (verse 2). Jesus answered him, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (verse 3).

Nicodemus wanted to know how a man could be born again. How could a grown man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again? (See verse 4.) Jesus explained, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (verses 5-6). Jesus continued His explanation about how a man could be born again and then gave the following message.

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Birth involves water, blood, and spirit, and being born again also involves water, blood, and Spirit. The water of being born again is being emerged in water during baptism. The blood is the blood of Jesus Christ through His Atonement. The Spirit is the Holy Ghost putting his confirming stamp on the reborn person.

Latter-day prophets and apostles have taught several principles concerning what it means to be born again. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, “Being born again, comes by the Spirit of God through ordinances” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 95).

Elder David A. Bednar taught: “Conversion … is mighty, not minor – a spiritual rebirth and fundamental change of what we feel and desire, what we think and do, and what we are. Indeed, the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ entails a fundamental and permanent change in our very nature made possible through our reliance upon ‘the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah’ (2 Nephi 2:8). As we choose to follow the Master, we choose to be changed – to be spiritually reborn” (“Ye Must Be Born Again,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2007, 20).

President Dallin H. Oaks taught: “We were born again when we entered into a covenant relationship with our Savior by being born of water and of the Spirit and by taking upon us the name of Jesus Christ. We can renew that rebirth each Sabbath when we partake of the sacrament. Latter-day Saints affirm that those who have been born again in this way are spiritually begotten sons and daughters of Jesus Christ (see Mosiah 5:7; 15:9-13; 27:25). Nevertheless, in order to realize the intended blessings of this born-again status, we must still keep our covenants and endure to the end” (“Have You Been Saved?,” Ensign, May 1998, 56).

John 7:45-52 tells us that Nicodemus later publicly defended Jesus, and Jon 19:38-40 tells us that he joined the believers at the Savior’s burial. These are sure signs that Nicodemus was in the process of being born again. 

The teachings of Jesus Christ teach us that individuals can change, and Nicodemus is an example of one person who was changed by following the gospel of Jesus Christ. The change begins when a person hears the gospel of Jesus Christ, repents of their sins, is baptized by immersion in water, and receives the gift of the Holy Ghost. It continues as the person grows in his capacity to believe in Jesus Christ and to follow Him. Part of the growth that comes from making covenants with God and receiving ordinances performed by authorized priesthood bearers.

How Important Is Discipline in Parenting?

Families, communities, and nations are stronger when parents use appropriate discipline. Discipline means teaching, not punishment. There is a new parenting philosophy among young parents known as “gentle parenting.” Bethany Mandel described gentle parenting which is a “parenting approach, which at its core is responsive first and foremost to the feelings of children, trying to understand their motivations instead of correcting their behavior.” 

Mandel shared experiences of several proponents of gentle parenting. One parent reported that her eighteen-month-old son “wakes up three or four times to eat” every night. They give him a banana because he will cry if he does not get something to eat. The child is old enough to sleep all night, but the parents are still living sleep-deprived lives. The mother was on a parenting forum seeking an answer to her problem with the “tiny and irrational dictator.” Mandel wrote that the “secret tool” for the mother was to “stop feeding him in the middle of the night.”

No one expects a newborn baby to sleep all night. However, over a period of months, the child can be taught to sleep for longer periods of time and eventually for the entire night. However, the child will continue to awake if their demands are met. Mandel concludes her article with the following paragraph.

The data on how we’re parenting and the kinds of children (and parents) coming out the other side of modern parenting is equally bleak. In short: Nobody is particularly happy and how we’re raising our kids is partially why. Part of growing up is learning that perhaps your parents weren’t total idiots, that maybe they knew a thing or two when you were growing up. Raising children with a more traditional idea of discipline is retro, according to the Pew report, but it’s one of those things that is due for a comeback. Kids need discipline, parents need discipline, and it just might be what makes parenting a more enjoyable experience for kids and parents alike.

Parenting is much like many other parts of life where moderation is better than either extreme. When parents are too easy on their children, the children and family suffer. However, when parents are too hard on their children, the children and family suffer worse. The key is to hit a happy medium with love and appropriate discipline. With appropriate discipline, parents can strengthen their family, community, and nation.

Why Was the Chinese Balloon Allowed to Float for a Week in US Airspace?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns sovereignty. Each sovereign nation has the right, power, and authority to protect its sovereignty. The sovereignty of the United States has been invaded when approximately five million migrants crossed our southern border. Our air sovereignty was invaded about twelve days ago when a balloon from China entered our air space in Alaska, crossed Canada, and re-entered our air space before proceeding to cross our entire nation from Montana to South Carolina.

Government officials revealed on February 2 that China surveillance balloon was flying over the country. The balloon was shot down two days later off the coast of South Carolina when an Air Force fighter jet fired a missile at it.

A Senate subcommittee held a hearing on the Chinese spy balloon today, the same day that the House of Representatives voted unanimously to condemn China’s infiltration of U.S airspace. A classified hearing was later held in the Senate behind closed doors to talk with military personnel about more sensitive details.

Samantha Aschieris at The Daily Signal wrote about five questions that senators asked and Pentagon officials answered. 

1. Why Not Shoot It Down Earlier?

“If you had the opportunity to shoot the Chinese spy balloon down either over the remote mountains of Alaska or over waters near Alaska, why didn’t you?” Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., asked Army Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Sims II, operations director for the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. “Why is it OK to have the Chinese fly some type of aircraft over Alaskan airspace?

As far as shooting down the balloon over water off Alaska, Sims replied that in the assessment of Air Force Gen. Glen VanHerck, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command, “there was no hostile act, hostile intent, or potential impact to critical intelligence capabilities.” …

As for shooting down the spy balloon over Alaska itself, the Army general continued, the military was unable to “work our way to a near zero probability of collateral damage when we take that shot.”

[I have flown over a small part of Alaska and have seen vast amounts of land where there is no civilization. However, it would be a cold recovery of the balloon if it were shot down over icy water or snow-covered mountains.]

2. Why Not Capture It Intact?

“Could that balloon not be forced down some way other than shooting it down?” Hoeven asked Sims.

“Obviously, we have aircraft that can exceed that altitude,” the North Dakota Republican said. “Answer that – just the final question: Couldn’t that have been forced down some way rather than shooting it down, which would have, in a lot of ways, been better? You avoid the risk to people on the ground, and you get it intact.”

Sims replied: “We didn’t have the ability to capture the balloon or bring the balloon down with a particular munition that we thought would make it less dangerous. And, quite frankly, we didn’t know where it would go if we were to somehow  impact its flight path at that point in terms of our ability to control it, what it would do if it hit the ground. But that’s a great question, sure, and … we’ll address that greater in the next [closed-door] session.”

3. When Was Balloon Threat Determined?

When did the military “determine the threat” posed by the balloon, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., asked, “and did you have constant surveillance for the entire time it was in the U.S. and Canadian airspace?”

Melissa Dalton, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and hemispheric affairs, answered Murray.

“On Saturday, Jan. 28, we tracked through NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] that the balloon was entering [the] U.S. Air Defense Identification Zone in U.S. airspace in Alaska, and from there, NORAD had custody and we were tracking it across the …..,” Dalton began, before Murray interrupted to ask again whether the military had “constant surveillance the entire time of the balloon.”

“Yes, Senator,” Dalton responded.

The Chinese balloon first was detected Jan. 31 flying over the continental U.S. in northern Idaho, Politico reported.

4. Did China Plan This, or Was It an Error?

Sen. Jon Tester, R-Mont., asked whether the balloon was “an error by the Chinese government, or was this planned?”

Jedidiah Royal, principal deputy assistant defense secretary for Indo-Pacific security affairs, replied.

“Senator, we’re continuing to make assessments on the Chinese intent for this specific operation, and we’ll have further to share in a classified setting along with specific intent,” Royal said. “I think it would be false to try to characterize this operation as purely a mistake.” …

5. ‘Who Got the Most Information Out of This?”

Tester had a follow-up question.

“So, generally speaking, as this balloon went over Alaska, Canada, and the United States, who got the most information out of this: the Chinese or us?” Tester asked Royal.

“Sir, I don’t have a judgment or evaluation to pass along those lines for you right now. I do believe that the United States’ collection on this particular balloon and on the brother program is ongoing and is significant,” Royal said….

What Is Congress Learning from Twitter Employees?

House Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-KY) is acting true to his word. His committee put former Twitter executives on the record today about how the New York Post’s report on the Hunter Biden laptop was suppressed a few weeks prior to the 2020 presidential election.

According to polls, the suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop could have affected the results of the last presidential election. Few mainstream media outlets acknowledged the story of the laptop prior to the election, but most of them have since verified that it is authentic. The “Twitter Files” of Elon Musk has shown what was happening “behind the curtain.” Fred Lucas analyzed the Twitter hearing and shared six highlights from it. 

1. ‘Restrict Speech and Interfere’ With Elections

Comer called the situation “coordination between the federal government and Big Tech to restrict protected speech and interfere in the democratic process.” The committee chairman noted that Twitter worked “hand in hand with the FBI” to monitor political speech.

A Media Research Center poll shortly after the 2020 election found that 36% of self-described Biden voters said they were not aware of the evidence behind claims that he was personally involved in his son Hunter’s business deals with China, a claim bolstered by emails found on the abandoned laptop.

Of those, 13% said that if they had known, they would not have voted for Biden….

Comer later said that both sides of the aisle should be concerned about government agencies outsourcing censorship:

The government doesn’t have any role in suppressing speech. That’s something the media should be very concerned about. What if there is a conservative president that somehow cleans out our FBI, [and] they put in conservatives to suppress liberal speech? That’s something that should never happen.

2. Twitter Concerns About Russia and Another Jan. 6

Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former global head of trust and safety, said he had outright opposed suppressing the New York Post’s account, but supported a milder measure based on concerns about Russian meddling in the 2016 election….

Former Twitter content moderation team member Annika Collier Navaroli warned the committee that a riot similar to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol could occur….

3. Admission That Laptop Story Didn’t Violate Twitter Policies

Roth, the former head of trust and safety for Twitter, admitted to the panel that the New York Post’s reporting on the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop didn’t violate Twitter’s policies….

Jordan followed by telling Roth:

I think you guys wanted to take it down. I think you guys got played by the FBI. And that’s the scary part. Because – this to me is the real takeaway – we had 51 former intelligence officials five days after you guys take down the Hunter Biden story and block the New York Post account, five days later, 51 intel officials send the letter [saying] that the Hunter Biden story has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information campaign.

 

4. How Trump Pushed Twitter

Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., said the Trump administration had sought to squelch political speech on Twitter, pointing to two examples.

“On May 27, 2020,” Connolly said, “President Donald J. Trump tweeted, and I quote, ‘Republicans feel that social media platforms totally silence conservatives…. We will strongly regulate the monopolies or close them down before we ever allow this to happen.’”

The Virginia Democrat asked Navaroli, the former executive on Twitter’s content moderation team: “Does that not sound eerily like a government official telling Twitter [as] a threat, ‘We will shut you down if we don’t like the content?’”

Navaroli replied: “I am not familiar with the tweet that you have referenced.” …

5. AOC Concedes Hunter Biden Story ‘Half’ True

Despite nearly everyone’s accepting the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said the Post story on the laptop was “half-fake,” apparently meaning she thought it was at least half true.

“It’s just an abuse of public resources, an abuse of public time,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “We could be talking about health care. We could be talking about bringing down the cost of prescription drugs. We could be talking about abortion rights, civil rights, voting rights. But instead we are talking about Hunter Biden’s half-fake laptop story.”

Ocasio-Cortez then seemed to make the committee’s hearing about herself, saying, “Let’s talk about something real.” …

6. ‘Nazis in the White House’

During the hearing, Comer asked Roth about his own tweet calling Trump administration officials Nazis.

Roth’s tweet – a reference to female anti-Trump protesters wearing pink hats – read: “Yes, that person in the pink hat is clearly a bigger threat to your brand of feminism than the ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.”

“Mr. Roth, did you write this tweet?” Comer asked.

Roth answered: “I regret the language that I used in my former tweets, but yes, I did post that.”

[Comer asked Roth if he thought “all conservatives are Nazis” or “the hundreds of people that worked in the Trump administration?” Roth answered, “Certainly not.” When asked if Twitter officials asked him to take down the tweet, Roth answered, “Twitter did not have a practice of restricting their employees from sharing their personal viewpoints on the service.”]

The Twitter case in Congress is not about Hunter Biden’s laptop. It is about how the FBI use a private company to suppress the free speech of Americans. All Americans should be interested in what Congress is investigating and supporting the effort to find the truth.

Is the State of the Union Strong?

President Joe Biden followed the U.S. Constitution and gave his annual report on the state of the union. I did not listen to all of it, but I did listen for a while. It seemed to me that he did a lot of yelling, but he had a good delivery. He made numerous claims, but he seemed to be speaking about life that is different than the reality of the normal people. With his history of lies, it is difficult to discern truth from lies.

Fred Lucas, Tony Kinnett, Jarrett Stepman, Virginia Allen, and Mary Margaret Olohan at The Daily Signal fact checked seven of Biden’s claims. They checked to see if the facts added up or if there was some crucial context missing. 

1. Inflation Reduction Act and Health Care Costs

Biden touted the $740 billion spending bill Democrats dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act….

“With the Inflation Reduction Act that I signed into law, we’re taking on powerful interests to bring your health care costs down so you can sleep better at night,” the president said. “You know, we pay more for prescription drugs than any major country on Earth.” …

However, the president left out potential increases that could result from the legislation. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act would likely increase taxpayer costs by $248 billion over the next decade, and contribute to higher insurance prices, all at your expense through more Obamacare subsidies….

2. ‘Extreme Abortion Bans’

President Joe Biden painted lifesaving legislation restricting abortion as “extreme” during his State of the Union remarks on Tuesday.

“Congress must restore the right the Supreme Court took away last year and codify Roe v. Wade to protect every woman’s constitutional right to choose.” ….

The president’s reference to “extreme abortion bans” refers to laws that protect unborn babies from being killed. Almost 70% of Americans support limiting abortions to the first three months of a pregnancy….

About 14 states have passed near total bans on aborting unborn babies… and six more states have passed near total abortion bans dependent on legal action. One state (Florida) bans abortions after 15 weeks. Twenty-six states have few or no laws restricting abortion….

3. Border Success?

“We now have a record number of personnel working to secure the border, arresting 8,000 human smugglers and seizing over 23,000 pounds of fentanyl in just the last several months,” Biden said.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports that it seized just over 14,000 pounds of fentanyl in fiscal year 2022, which ended Sept. 30, and more than 7,000 pounds between October and the end of December….

The increase in the amount of fentanyl flooding into America is accompanied by a record number of illegal migrants crossing the southern border. Fiscal 2022 saw 2.76 million illegal immigrant border crossings….

4. Greatest Threat to Democracy Since Civil War?

Biden celebrated how far the country has come since the COVID-19 pandemic-induced recession, but he also referenced the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, repeating his claim that it was the “greatest threat” to American democracy since the Civil War….

It’s not clear what he meant in comparing the Capitol riot … to a war in which several slave-holding Southern states attempted to form a new Confederate States of America, raised their own military in an armed rebellion that wore on for four years, and took the lives of more than 600,000 troops….

Biden didn’t explain why this riot supposedly represented a larger threat to democracy than when Japan attacked the United States on Dec. 7, 1941, which pulled the U.S into World War II in opposition to the Axis powers.

Further, the Capitol was attacked at least four times before Jan. 6, 2021, three of those times after the Civil War.

In 1814, British soldiers burned the Capitol during the War of 1812. It took about five years to rebuild the House chamber.

In 1954, four Puerto Rican terrorists … attacked the Capitol. Unlike those who got inside the Capitol building in 2021, these terrorists were armed with guns. The four opened fire from the House gallery, wounding five lawmakers: ….

In 1971, a domestic terrorist group called the Weather Underground bombed the Capitol, causing $300,000 worth of damage. No one was harmed. The so-called Weathermen returned in 1983 and set off another bomb that “tore through the second floor of the Capitol’s north wing,” according to the Senate’s history site. No fatalities occurred in this case either.

During the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, several rioters were carrying pepper spray or bear spray, and wielding flagpoles as clubs in attacking law enforcement officers….

5. Police reform

Biden introduced the parents of Tyre Nichols, the 29-year-old man who was fatally beaten by Memphis police officers, as he called for police reform Tuesday night during his State of the Union address.

Biden left out the fact that Senate Democrats blocked a police reform bill in 2020….

In 2020, after the killing of George Floyd in Minnesota by a police officer, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., proposed a police reform bill that would create a national policing commission to review the criminal justice system; collect data on use of force by police officers; ban the use of chokeholds by federal officers; and withhold federal funds from state and local law enforcement agencies that don’t ban chokeholds.

Scott’s bill also would withhold federal money from police departments that fail to report no-knock warrants to the Justice Department.

However, Senate Democrats – then in the minority – blocked Scott’s legislation from coming to a vote….

6. Schools and COVID-19

Biden opened his address with, “Two years ago, COVID had shut down our businesses, closed our schools, and robbed us of so much. Today, COVID no longer controls our lives.”

While Biden now celebrates victory over COVID-19 and the ending of pandemic school closures, his appointees and poor leadership kept classrooms closed far longer than necessary….

Biden may claim that he fought to reopen schools, but does so omitting the timeline and manner in which he advocated. Biden was well over a year behind Republicans in reopening schools – while appointing staff who directly opposed and obstructed the process of putting students back in classrooms.

7. Inflation

“Inflation has been a global problem because of the pandemic that disrupted supply chains and Putin’s war that disrupted energy and food supplies,” Biden said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine.

Although it’s true that inflation has hit other nation’s economies, it did not start in the U.S. at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, nor did it begin during Russia’s war on Ukraine. The president’s description of the inflation problem is misleading at best.

When Biden was sworn into office Jan. 20, 2021, inflation stood at 1.4%. As it began to rise in 2021, Biden called high inflation a “transitory” issue. By June of the next year, inflation hit 9.1, a 40-year high.

The rate of inflation increase has slowed, but it remains a significant problem that is eroding the savings of Americans….

The Inflation Reduction Act, signed by Biden in 2022, has done little to reduce inflation. In fact, it mostly added to the government spending.