Search Results

Numbers USA, May 27, 2022 THIS ISSUE: USICA, spending bills, and bipartisan Senate talks pose biggest immigration threats this summer FRI, MAY 27th With both the House and Senate out next week for the Memorial Day recess, here's a look at the legislation that could impact immigration as we head into the summer months... USICA/America COMPETES Act The bicameral conference committee tasked with negotiating a final version of a massive legislative package to strengthen America's global innovation and competition continues to meet. But most reports indicate that not much progress has been made. The House-passed version -- the America COMPETES Act -- contains a number of troubling immigration provisions that would dramatically increase legal immigration by creating a new visa program for foreign investors and their workers. The bill also includes a provision that would allow any foreign citizen with a doctorate degree in a STEM field from a U.S. university or college, or the foreign equivalence, to receive a green card. The Senate-passed version -- the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) -- doesn't contain any immigration provisions. The committee was hoping to reach an agreement this week on an outline for the final legislation, but that has yet to be done. GOP Senators expressed frustration with the slow pace of the negotiations and are telling House Democrats to start accepting the fact that the final legislation will look more like the Senate bill than the House bill. A bill that more closely resembles the Senate version is good news for those who oppose immigration increases. "Gang of 4" continues immigration talks Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and John Cornyn (R-Texas) continue their behind-the-scene discussions on a potential immigration compromise. Previous reports indicated that the "gang of 4" was negotiating a package that would trade border security for an amnesty for an estimated 2.1 million DACA-eligible illegal aliens. Sen. Tillis provided an update of those discussions this week and said that most of the conversations have centered around the ongoing border crisis. Border Patrol agents have made more than 1.2 million apprehensions over the first 7 months of the fiscal year that started on Oct. 1. And in April, CBP reported a record-level number of total encounters (234,088). Encounters include both border apprehensions and inadmissible aliens who present themselves at a port of entry. Tillis was asked directly about an amnesty for illegal aliens. He said that the group has yet to discuss an amnesty, and "there will never be an amnesty." However, Tillis then said that there could be a "path" for the "DACA population." Apparently, Sen. Tillis doesn't believe that giving permanent status and work authorization to illegal aliens IS an amnesty, so we've posted new messages for activists in North Carolina and Texas that they can send to Sens. Tillis and Cornyn, respectively. Appropriations process We expect the appropriations process to heat up once Congress returns from next week's recess. For the past several years, lawmakers have used the Homeland Security appropriations bill to allow for an increase in the number of foreign guest workers. We'll also be watching funding levels for both the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, especially as the Biden Administration winds down the Title 42 policy that blocked some illegal border crossers from claiming asylum because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Elections Update Two races stood out on immigration after Tuesday's primary elections. Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia held their primaries, while Texas held runoffs from its March primaries. In Alabama, NumbersUSA "True Reformer" and current Congressman Mo Brooks secured a runoff for the GOP Senate nomination against Katie Britt who previously served as the retiring Sen. Richard Shelby's chief of staff. The runoff is on June 21. (See our comparison of those candidates here. For more on NumbersUSA "True Reformers," see the top of the right column.) In Texas, incumbent Congressman Henry Cuellar holds a slim lead with most votes counted over Jessica Cisneros in a runoff for the Democratic nomination in Texas' 28th Congressional District, a heavily Hispanic electorate along the Mexican border. Cuellar has a really poor immigration voting record, but it is the 4th best among Democrats in Congress. And he has been one of the few Congressional Democrats -- and the loudest -- in criticizing the Biden Administration's border policies over the past year. Cisneros is an immigration attorney who supports the less-enforcement philosophy of Pres. Biden and of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who campaigned for Cisneros. The hard-fought contest and close results are indicative of the growing split among Democratic voters nationwide over border policies. Finally, all of us at NumbersUSA wish you and your families a safe and happy Memorial Day weekend! CHRIS CHMIELENSKI NUMBERSUSA DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Heritage Action For America Saturday Summary Busted: "Voter Suppression" Myth (ashevilleteaparty.org) Before we jump in, be sure to check out the latest episode of our podcast. Director of Grassroots Janae Stracke breaks down Heritage Action’s concerns about the recently passed $40 billion Ukraine funding bill. If you recall, this bill was hastily passed after secret backroom negotiations among Congressional leadership. Rank-and-file members of Congress were cut out of the process, which means that the American people were cut out of the process. Congress is likely to try and spend billions more in Ukraine aid by September. We think there should be transparent debate, and that Congress and President Biden should answer some important questions that the American people have been asking. You can watch the podcast here. BUSTED: “Voter Suppression” Myth Georgia held their primary election this Tuesday while Pennsylvania held theirs over a week and a half ago. These two elections completely busted the Left’s myth of describing election integrity as “voter suppression.” Here’s how: Georgia: Last year Governor Kemp signed into law a sweeping election integrity bill backed by Heritage Action. It standardized early voting while prohibiting private funding (or “ZuckBucks”) and also secured drop-boxes and banned ballot trafficking/harvesting. Nearly the entire liberal media and Democrat politicians decried the bill as “voter suppression,” and Biden even called it “Jim Crow in the 21st Century.” The MLB moved their All-Star game out of Atlanta, and other corporations like Coca-Cola and Delta embarrassed themselves by blindly parroting Democrat talking points. This week, the Georgia primary elections showed the real effect of the new law: We saw record turnout with nearly 1.9 million Georgians voting (up 60% from 2018). There were virtually no lines, unlike in the 2020 election, and Georgians can thank the new law for cleaning up the process. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania serves as a stark contrast: After the disastrous 2020 election in Pennsylvania, the Republican-led legislature passed a sensible bill to clean up the mail-in process, but liberal Governor Tom Wolf vetoed the bill. Now, Pennsylvanians are left wondering who their Republican nominee for Senate will be. It’s been nearly two weeks since the election, and voters still don’t have an answer. The same issues that plagued the 2020 election –– misprinted and undated mail-in ballots –– are also plaguing this primary election. Had Governor Wolf signed into law some common-sense election integrity reforms, this disaster of a process could have easily been avoided. What’s the moral of the story? Election integrity is NOT “voter suppression” as the Left and their media allies would like you to believe. Rather, election integrity is about making it easy to vote and hard to cheat. Learn more at www.saveourelections.com So-Called “Domestic Terrorism” Bill Last week, the House passed a “Domestic Terrorism” bill, with every Democrat voting for and nearly every Republican voting against (unsurprisingly, Rep. Adam Kinzinger was the sole Republican “Yay” vote). And this week the Senate took up the bill, but Senate Republicans stopped it from passing with a vote of 47-47. This bill is really a flimsy cover for a far-Left agenda that targets ordinary Americans, and shows the dangerous lengths to which Congressional Democrats want to empower President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland to target their political enemies. If you recall: Last year, Attorney General Merrick Garland was caught targeting parents who spoke up at school board meetings, labeling them as “domestic terrorists.” And new whistleblower evidence shows that Biden’s Justice Department is again using counterterrorism tools to target parents that speak up against mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and critical race theory at school board meetings. This new bill would have empowered Biden and Garland to continue targeting parents and go after their political enemies: The bill is specifically targeted towards “White supremacists and neo-Nazis.” The problem with that is who the Left defines as “white supremacists.” The Left has a proven record of calling anyone that dissents from their world view a “white supremacist, including concerned parents, elected officials like Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, activists like Christopher Rufo, news reporters like Tucker Carlson, and of course, all Trump voters. It’s clear that this “Domestic Terror” bill was the Left’s not-so-subtle way of targeting their political opponents, and Americans of all stripes should be loudly opposed. Oklahoma is Pro-Life This week, Governor Stitt signed into law House Bill 4327, which protects life at conception and guarantees more babies their right life. Governor Stitt also vetoed two flawed pieces of legislation that were designed to only help a few Oklahoma families, but not all Oklahomans. You can read our full statement here. We’re looking forward to Governor Stitt’s special session in June to consider his new initiatives to help Oklahomans deal with crushing inflation. Looking Ahead Congress is out of session next week, but following the heinous murders at Robb Elementary in Texas, we’re likely to see negotiations around a legislative response. And it’s possible that the Senate could vote on a bill the week of June 6. In the wake of a tragedy, we’ve seen some politicians rush to insert themselves and their own political agendas. But sincere legislators will seek for real solutions that would have actually prevented the tragedy, while protecting the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. Lastly, this Monday is Memorial Day, where we pause, reflect, and honor those who paid the ultimate price to defend our liberties and freedom. We hope you enjoy your day with loved ones. May you have a meaning-filled Memorial Day. Jessica and the Heritage Action team Join the fight to advance the conservative agenda.

What Really Happened in Uvalde? - CannCon’s Newsletter (substack.com) Before I begin, if you believe Uvalde, Parkland, or any of the other school shootings didn’t happen, stop readin.' As we all try our best to make sense of another mass killing in the United States, we’re learning more and more about the situation and getting a better picture of what did (and didn’t) happen. It is of the utmost importance to make sense of these events and learn from them. So much so that if we had done exactly that on February 14, 2018, we may have a different situation today. I am going to outline the series of events as stated by law enforcement officials in Uvalde, TX regarding the shooting, followed by some questions that I feel are incredibly relevant and need answers. But before we start the timeline, we must first ask an extremely important question: How did an 18 year old man, with no known employment, whom was living with his grandmother because of an addict mother, afford: -Two expensive firearms made by Daniel Defense ($2,000 each) -an EOTech optic ($400-$700) -1,657 rounds of .223 ammo ($800-1000 depending on how they were purchased) -body armor ($500-1000) -and over 60 magazines ($10-20 each) for a total of approximately $6300 to $8,000? Most established adult Americans, especially after the last two years and the current economy, can’t afford a fraction of that. But this young 18 year old was able to do so with no known job and all on a debit (not credit!) card? In a border town reportedly overrun by the worst of the worst from the US Border…I’ll let you make your own assumptions. Read more here.

Unanimous Supreme Court Flies Flag for Free Speech in Case Against City of Boston In a rare unanimous ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court secured a major victory for free speech. In the opinion in Shurtleff v. Boston, authored by retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, the court ruled that the city of Boston violated the Constitution when it prohibited a group from flying a Christian flag on a flagpole it had held open to other groups and their flags. The court determined that simply by permitting private groups to fly their flags on the City Hall flagpole, the city was not endorsing any message behind those flags and that, therefore, the flag and what it represents did not constitute government speech. As a result, its refusal to allow a religious group to raise its flag simply because of its religious viewpoint was a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Boston had historically allowed groups to raise a flag on one of the city’s three flagpoles in conjunction with ceremonies held on the City Hall plaza. Over a period of 12 years, between 2005 and 2017, the city approved the flying of 50 different flags in conjunction with 284 events. Its unofficial policy was to accommodate all applicants. But when Harold Shurtleff, director of a group called Camp Constitution, asked to fly what he described as a “Christian flag” in conjunction with an event on the plaza celebrating the civic and social contributions of the Christian community, the city denied his request, claiming that flying the flag would violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by “promot[ing] a specific religion.” Notably, before Shurtleff’s request, the city had never denied other groups’ requests to fly a flag, including the “Pride” flag, the flag of a local bank, a flag for emergency medical service workers, and many others. The First Amendment’s protections regarding the right to speak and assemble vary based on the speakers’ chosen forum. In its 1983 ruling, Perry Education Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, the high court divided forums into three types: traditional public forums, limited or designated public forums, and nonpublic or private forums. The city acknowledged that by allowing the public to participate in flag-flying on the plaza, it had established a traditional “public forum.” In a traditional public forum, the government’s content-based restrictions on speech are considered highly suspect. But, as Breyer wrote in Shurtleff, “the line between a forum for private expression and the government’s own speech is important, but not always clear.” In assessing Shurtleff’s claim, Breyer wrote that when the government invites the public to participate in a program, the court has to look at particular “holistic” factors to determine whether the government intends to speak for itself, or to regulate another’s private expression. These, Breyer wrote, were derived from the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and included the history of the particular expression, the public’s perception as to who is speaking (the government or a private person), and the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled the message. Breyer stated the record showed that Boston did not actively control the flag-raisings or shape the messages that the flags sent. In fact, the city had no written policy or guidance about what flags groups could fly and what those flags could communicate. In addition, all flag-raisings had been approved prior to Shurtleff’s request in 2017. Therefore, the court held, the city’s refusal to let Shurtleff fly his flag was viewpoint discrimination and violated the Free Speech Clause. Breyer wrote: When the government encourages diverse expression—say, by creating a forum for debate—the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint. … [I]t may not exclude speech based on ‘religious viewpoint; doing so ‘constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.’ In a separate, concurring opinion—perhaps the shortest we’ll see all term—Justice Brett Kavanaugh took one paragraph to distill the case to its essence, writing: Under the Constitution, a government may not treat religious persons, religious organizations, or religious speech as second-class. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, but disagreeing with the court’s decision to analyze the case under the terms from the Walker case. He argued that to use those factors as a test obscured the appropriate—and simple—inquiry in First Amendment cases emanating from challenges under the government-speech doctrine; namely, whether the government itself is speaking or whether it is regulating someone’s private expression. These three justices believe that relying on Breyer’s “factorized approach” doesn’t present a principled way of deciding First Amendment cases. And, Alito added, to examine the degree of control over speech in a government setting could allow “governments to exploit public expectations to mask censorship.” Gorsuch filed his own opinion centering on what he characterized as a misunderstanding of the court’s Establishment Clause precedent, which he believed was the real problem in the case. His opinion harkened back to oral arguments on April 25 in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, when former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, counsel for coach Joe Kennedy, argued that the court’s Establishment Clause test, derived from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), needs to be “cut in half,” and was a “stubborn fruit.” Gorsuch piled on in Shurtleff, arguing that Lemon has produced only chaos—and “new business for lawyers and judges.” Despite the court’s recognition of Lemon’s many problems, and what Gorsuch called the court’s abandonment of the case (which seemed to imply that Lemon is overruled at least in practice, if not in fact), the city of Boston made a costly mistake in relying on it anyway. Breyer, 83, will retire at the end of this term next month, but remains on the bench pending the swearing-in of President Joe Biden’s Senate-confirmed nominee, federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. He will continue to participate in this term’s remaining high-profile cases on abortion, free exercise, free speech, and the Second Amendment. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Could the Supreme Court Leaker Be Criminally Prosecuted? Maybe Politico published a bombshell story late on May 2 that five Supreme Court justices had voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Shockingly, the story even contained a link to an authenticated full draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which he apparently circulated to the other justices almost three months ago. This isn’t a final opinion and the votes can still change. Why else leak it, though, except as a last-ditch effort to bully at least one of the justices into changing his or her vote or to influence the political process in some way? While leaks from the Supreme Court have happened in the past, they have historically been few and far between, and never this egregious. And it’s hard to remember any other time where someone leaked a complete draft opinion. While leaks in the court’s history have been rare, there is some precedent for prosecuting a justice’s law clerk who leaked information to the press—though the Department of Justice ultimately dismissed the case. In 1919, Ashton Embry, Justice Joseph McKenna’s law clerk, resigned to become a full-time baker. It was an odd career change, but one that made more sense when just “a few months after this resignation, the Department of Justice indicted him for sharing the court’s decisions with Wall Street traders before the decisions were officially released.” Still, with “no explicit prohibition on insider trading [at the time], the DOJ charged Embry with conspiring ‘to deprive the United States of its lawful right and duty of promulgating information in the way and at the time required by law and at departmental regulation.’” His case never went to trial, and the DOJ dismissed the charges approximately 10 years later in 1929. While Embry leaked, presumably for financial gain, a scheme to get rich off of trading on insider knowledge doesn’t seem like the likely culprit behind this leak. For all the handwringing about the court’s institutional legitimacy, this leak clearly seems to be a calculated political move designed to harm that legitimacy—which makes it all the worse that some on the left are cheering the move. Sadly, we have seen this before. In 2020, for example, current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., stood on the steps of the Supreme Court just as it was about to hear oral arguments in an abortion case and said, “I want to tell you, [Justice Neil] Gorsuch; I want to tell you, [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” This shows the lengths to which some on the left will go in order to tarnish the Court in the service of their extreme positions on abortion (see, for example, here, here, here, and here). As to the leak itself, one Supreme Court news site said, “It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.” It’s definitely a sin and an unpardonable one. But is it a federal crime? Maybe. Professor Orin Kerr, a noted criminal law scholar, succinctly summarized his initial thoughts by saying, “It’s not clear, I need to go read all the cases and it may depend on the circuit.” That’s an unsatisfying answer on a visceral level, but it may be the correct one. There’s just too much we don’t know right now. First, there are no laws that would explicitly cover the unauthorized release of a draft opinion; they’re not classified or national security materials. Maybe Congress could pass a law allowing them to be designated as such, but nothing like that currently exists. As Kerr points out, obviously, if someone obtained the copy through a hack—a remote but not impossible proposition since Politico’s national security correspondent placed his name on the story’s byline—or stole a physical copy of the draft opinion, those are clearly crimes. But what if someone who worked for the Supreme Court and had access to it (like a law clerk) released it without permission? There are a few possibilities for prosecution but nothing that guarantees success. One remote possibility is prosecution for so-called honest services fraud. As the Congressional Research Service has said, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. §1346, “which defines the crimes of mail and wire fraud,” to make clear that this statute extends “to conduct that deprives a person or group of the right to have another act in accordance with some externally imposed duty or obligation, regardless of whether the victim so deprived has suffered or would suffer a pecuniary harm.” Moreover, Supreme Court law clerks clearly take an oath pledging to maintain confidential information that they learn about as a result of their jobs in their justice’s chambers. But the Supreme Court has pared back that statute’s reach to cover “only those who, in violation of a fiduciary duty, participate in bribery or kickback schemes” and that seems an unlikely outcome here. Another remote possibility is prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. §1030. The act makes it a crime “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.” But the court, just last term in Van Buren v. United States, held that this “provision covers those who obtain information from particular areas in the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—to which their computer access does not extend. It does not cover those who … have improper motives for obtaining information that is otherwise available to them.” A final potentially promising possibility is prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §641, which broadly deals with theft, embezzlement, or conversion of government property or governmental “things of value.” The federal government has successfully prosecuted some leakers under this statute, but the federal circuit courts of appeal disagree about whether, and what, information can be a “thing of value.” But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is one of the circuits that has held an intangible item, like information, can be a “thing of value” under this statute, and since the Supreme Court is located within the District of Columbia Circuit­, that increases the odds that this would be a chargeable offense. Still, prosecution under this statute is no slam dunk. There are other measures that Chief Justice John Roberts could implement which might increase the odds of discovering who the leaker is and of a successful prosecution. 18 U.S.C. §1001 makes it a federal offense to knowingly and willfully make a materially false statement “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the Government of the United States … ” The chief justice could ask all the law clerks, and anyone else who had access to Alito’s draft opinion, to sign a statement saying that they were not the source of the leak. Assuming that they all sign the statement denying being the source of the leak, the chief justice could then ask law enforcement agents to interview each of those individuals. If the interview exposes the leaker, that individual could be prosecuted for having made a false statement in the declaration. But even if criminal liability does not attach to the person or entity responsible for leaking the draft opinion, professional consequences are sure to follow. As Justice Antonin Scalia told his clerks, “If I ever discover that you have betrayed the confidences of what goes on in these chambers, I will do everything in my power to ruin your career.” That sounds harsh. But the stakes are too high and the consequences too devastating to tolerate leaks of draft opinions or deliberations at the Supreme Court. The justices are not politicians and need to have confidence that they can fully and fairly discuss their legal views with their colleagues without these tentative views making front-page news. Roberts is right that this was an “egregious breach of trust this is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants” who work there. He has directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the leak, and the marshal should quickly conduct and complete the investigation and make the results public. Let us hope that the authorities are able to discover who committed this opprobrious act and that serious consequences follow. At the very least, although an unfortunate measure to have to take, the court should consider taking additional measures in the future, such as adding individual watermarks to each of the drafts that are circulated to other chambers, which would help narrow the search for the culprit should this happen again. And the Supreme Court should quickly release the final opinion in the leaked case as soon as possible to avoid further threats or attempts to intimidate any of the justices. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Click here: Buncombe County Primary Candidate List (ashevilleteapac.org)

Rep Cawthorn Cited After TSA Finds a Firearm In His Bag (ashevilleteapac.org) NC 11: This guy just cannot resist paying any attention to laws! There are two sets. One for him. And one for the rest of us. No big surprise. Figured it out in 2020! Twice caught with a handgun at airport security, 4 times carrying knives at schools, twice arrested for DUI, driving without a license and dangerous speeding citations. Does he really deserve to be your Representative in Congress? NC11 needs to wake up! https://wlos.com/news/local/rep-madison-cawthorn-cited-after-tsa-finds-a-firearm-in-his-bag-authorities-confirm-charlotte-douglas-international-airport-security-checkpoint-asheville-regional-airport? This among other things: Cawthorn Staffer Sounds the Alarm, 'People need to really know who this man is.' (ashevilleteapac.org) House Freedom Caucus Members Want Cawthorn to “Name Names” After Explosive DC Swamp Coke, Orgies (ashevilleteapac.org) GOP Ldr McCarthy to ‘Talk To’ Cawthorn Over Remarks on DC Elites Doing Coke, Inviting Him to Orgies (ashevilleteapac.org) Ecusta Trail groups bristle at Cawthorn's 'communist' comment (usatoday.com) a trail he formerly praised

Over the Target (mailchi.mp) There is an old saying in politics: If you’re taking flak, it means you’re over the target. And right now, the Left is desperate to shoot down the Conservative Partnership Institute’s growing squadron of razor-sharp organizations. First, The New Yorker did a hit-piece on the American Accountability Foundation, the oversight research group we helped launch last year. Since AAF opened its doors, it has unearthed more scandals and disqualifying outrages about Joe Biden’s nominees than any organization in Washington. The headline read, “The Slime Machine Targeting Dozens of Biden Nominees.” We figure that translates as “The Incredibly Effective Researchers Exposing Biden’s Incompetent Extremists.” It was AAF who first uncovered Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s pattern of leniency toward convicted child molesters and sexual predators. And it was AAF that exposed and helped defeat: Comptroller nominee Saule Omarova, because she was an honest-to-goodness communist! Federal Reserve nominee Sarah Bloom Raskin, who wanted to fight climate change by denying banking services to the energy industry. David Chipman, the gun-grabber Biden tapped to run the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. The only reason the Left is attacking AAF and its president – the intrepid Tom Jones – is that he’s beating them! Please support CPI today so we can help programs like AAF shine more light on those seeking power. And so is Cleta Mitchell in her vital project, the Election Integrity Network. EIN is crushing all expectations. Their state summits attract hundreds of activists and give them the tools to win America’s fight for free and fair elections. So it was only a matter of time before Cleta got a hit piece, too. Hers was in The Guardian. But the funny thing is that every supposedly “scary” thing EIN is doing is objectively good. Look at these quotes: “There was a large focus on recruiting precinct officials to watch the polls and all of the other processes associated with elections.” “How to protect vulnerable voters from leftist activists.” “Monitoring voting equipment and systems.” Citizen oversight? Accountability? Transparency? No wonder the Left is so upset! Please help us expand the Election Integrity Network with a tax-deductible gift to CPI today. Like AAF, EIN tells the truth to Americans sick of being lied to by woke socialists who run our government, corporations, and media. CPI is proud to have helped Tom Jones and Cleta Mitchell score so many victories quickly in their new projects. And we’re just as proud of the Left’s outrage! The Woke Establishment is coming after these groups for one reason: because they are effective! The smartest, toughest, most battle-hardened conservatives know where to come to start winning. With your support, these victories are just the beginning. Thank you for being part of our team and helping make CPI the place where conservatives go to win. Sincerely,Jim DeMint CPI Chairman

HUGE: Arizona Republicans Pass HB2492 Requiring ALL Voters To Provide Proof Of Citizenship Upon Registering To Vote (thegatewaypundit.com) Republicans in the Arizona Legislature passed a critical election integrity bill that requires all voters to provide satisfactory evidence of citizenship to be properly registered to vote. State Rep. Jake Hoffman’s HB2492 also applies to Federal Only voters who are not required to show this documentation when registering to vote. Currently, 13,077 Federal Only voters are actively registered in Maricopa County. Proof of citizenship is not required for these voters to vote in federal elections. President Trump “lost” the state by only 10,457 votes. The new law will require Federal Only voters to prove their citizenship before voting or receiving a ballot in the mail. TRENDING: BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: US Postal Service Refuses to Release Investigative Report on Whistleblower Truck Driver Who Hauled 288,000 Suspicious Ballots Across State Lines Before 2020 Election HB2492 was signed into law by the Governor on Wednesday. This law will require officers in charge of elections to verify citizenship status within ten days of receiving a voter registration form, and they must reject registrations that lack proof of citizenship. Illegal voter registrations must be presented to the Attorney General, who will have a duty to investigate and prosecute these crimes. RINO Arizona Governor Doug Ducey certified the stolen 2020 Presidential election, and he has a lot of making up to do. On Wednesday, Ducey took credit for Arizona’s election integrity battle, saying, “Arizona is a leader in election integrity — and election integrity means counting every lawful vote and prohibiting any attempt to illegally cast a vote. #HB2492 does that while honoring Arizona’s history of making voting accessible.” Are you serious? This is coming from the Governor who certified the most corrupted election in Arizona’s history and showed no support for the 2020 election investigations. The Arizona House Republicans later released a statement thanking the bill’s sponsor, Arizona State Rep. Jake Hoffman. Historic Day: Arizona Enacts Law Requiring Citizenship to Vote STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – State Representative Jake Hoffman today celebrated the enactment of HB 2492, legislation he sponsored that requires proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in Arizona elections. “Today is a historic day for Arizona and a great victory for Arizonans and all Americans alike. The signing into law of Arizona House Bill 2492, which requires verification of U.S. citizenship to be eligible to vote in Arizona elections, is a giant step toward ensuring elections are easy, convenient, and secure in our state. “HB 2492 is an incredibly well-crafted piece of legislation that is on sound legal footing and broadly supported by voters of all political parties. I am confident that should Democrats challenge HB 2492 in court it will only serve to further reinforce its clear constitutionality.” This is a major step toward free and fair elections. Democrats are terrified!

April 1, 2022 Asheville Tea: Your support enabled us to: Host SCOTUS war rooms against Ketanji Brown Jackson. Expose former Federal Reserve Board nominee Sarah Bloom Raskin’s unethical past. Defend Sen. Rick Scott after he had the courage to give Americans a policy plan. Build agreement among conservatives on how to really stop Big Tech’s abuses. Host two statewide Election Integrity Summits – in Arizona and Florida – to build permanent infrastructure against fraud and error. CPI exists to build, serve, and unite the movement–and we couldn’t do it without you. Thank you! Sincerely,Ed Corrigan President & CEOCPI Preps Senate Staff for Ketanji Brown Jackson She’s not a biologist. And she can’t define a woman. But she’s the left’s choice to be our next Supreme Court Justice.Even before President Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson, CPI was preparing Senate staff from the key Senate offices who would be vetting her. In SCOTUS war rooms with CPI staff and conservative organizations from across the country, we identified ways that outside organizations can help Senate staffers prepare for Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings. We urged groups to find people who were harmed by Jackson’s soft-on-crime and soft-on pedophiles policy. And we continue to work hand-in-glove with staffers, Senators, and movement allies to make sure those who are vetting Brown-Jackson get the details they need.American Accountability Foundation (AAF) Exposes Fed Nominee Sarah Bloom Raskin is now an ex-nominee thanks to the government oversight group CPI launched last year. AAF identified two types of problems with Raskin. First, she wanted to use the supervisory power of the Fed to force banks to divest from the fossil fuel industry and increase their investment in renewables. This is may be leftist orthodoxy, but it’s not part of the Fed’s mandate. Second, AAF found out that Raskin was at the heart of a revolving door scheme that benefitted her family significantly. After her time at the Obama administration’s Treasury Department, Raskin lobbied for special access to the banking system for Reserve Trust, a small financial technology company owned by her husband, U.S. Congressman Jamie Raskin. AAF kept the attention on Raskin and made her nomination unsustainable – and the Senate Banking committee ultimately fought against her nomination. The New Yorker reported on the story, calling both AAF and CPI “conservative dark money” groups. Rachel Bovard Talks Big Tech at CPAC The word is out: You can't shame tech companies into better behavior. In February, Rachel joined Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) and Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist (where Rachel is the senior tech columnist) on stage at the 2022 Conservative Political Action Conference. They discussed Big Tech companies’ hypocrisy, censorship, and arbitrary rules. After the midterm elections, the right will need to put forth a Big Tech agenda that has teeth. CPI has been meeting with House and Senate staff as they consider whether to move away from simply asking tech companies to be more transparent to something more substantial – the establishment of a select committee to investigate the true extent of Big Tech’s abuses. Read Rachel’s recent article in The Federalist explaining why we need a congressional committee to look into Big Tech. And check out the praise she received from former Attorney General Bill Bar on Twitter. DeSantis Headlines CPI's Election Integrity Summit in Orlando Hundreds of Floridians are working with CPI’s Election Integrity Network to ensure that the mischief that occurred in their state during the 2020 general elections doesn’t happen again. The Florida Election Integrity Summit, held March 25-26 in Orlando, took attendees step-by-step through the “Citizens’ Guide to Building an Election Integrity Infrastructure,” published by CPI and available at www.whoscounting.us. The summit included CPI’s Cleta Mitchell, members of the Florida legislature, Heritage Action for America, the James Madison Institute, Tea Party Patriots, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, prominent election law attorneys, and grassroots activists. Governor Ron DeSantis urged attendees to show courage as they stand up for election integrity. Under DeSantis, Florida will be the first in the nation to establish a state Election Crimes Investigation Unit. “You’ll face flaming arrows,” said the governor, “but if you speak the truth, you will prevail. I’m on a mission to keep Florida free.” To date, CPI’s Election Integrity Network has hosted summits in Virginia, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, and Pennsylvania, to empower citizens to set up permanent election integrity infrastructures in their states. CPI's Annual Report is Online! You did incredible things in 2021. You launched five new conservative groups. You mobilized an army of conservative poll watchers in Virginia You disqualified two woke Biden nominees. You trained and placed hundreds of conservative staffers. You established CPI Studios- for real conservative fighters who want to get the message out. and much more…. Get the whole story in CPI’s 2021 Annual Report – now available online! Read it, send it to a fellow conservative, and share it on social media! CPI Backs up Sen. Rick Scott After Establishment Attacks It takes guts to show Americans what you stand for... When Senator Rick Scott had the nerve to tell Americans what a conservative policy agenda should look like in his 11-point Plan to Rescue America – he was attacked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. You may have read about the reaction the plan caused, and Sen. Scott's vigorous defense of it. CPI Chairman Jim DeMint praised Scott's plan with this recent op-ed in The Federalist as did CPI’s Rachel Bovard. On March 21, CPI hosted a call in which CPI partners got to hear from – and speak with – Sen. Scott, Jim DeMint, and CPI Senior Partner Mark Meadows to talk about Scott’s plan. CONSERVATIVE PARTNERSHIP INSTITUTE 300 Independence Ave SE Washington, DC 20003 (202) 742-8988 - Phone (202) 595-0282 - Fax CPI.org DONATE Invest In America’s Future The Conservative Legacy Society is a special group of supporters who help us represent their values into the future by remembering CPI in their will, by designating CPI as a beneficiary, or by making a planned gift. To learn more, visit CPI.org/Legacy.

In part one of my interview with classicist and military historian Victor Davis Hanson, we discussed Vladimir Putin’s goals, Beijing’s position on the war, and why the left and corporate media seem to all be advancing identical narratives. In part two, we dig deeper into what’s really going on with the Russia-Ukraine War—from talk of biolabs to ultra-right-wing battalions to President Joe Biden describing a “new world order.” And while everyone is talking about a no-fly zone, many haven’t noticed that Turkey, a NATO member, has imposed what’s essentially a “no float zone,” blocking Russian warship access to the Black Sea. Is this a World War III moment? WATCH

Progressives Build Shadow Online Powerhouse - Can Be Activated At Election Time (thegatewaypundit.com) The Real Voices Media network has been serving social media users apolitical and non-ideological content to build up big social media followings. This seemingly apolitical network is actually part of a plan by progressives to help them come election time. When activated, this network will be used to boost the Democrats. Progressive strategists have quietly built a massive network of social media communities in political battleground states that can activate ahead of elections and policy fights, Axios has learned. Why it matters: The network, operating under the name Real Voices Media, uses apolitical, to build up audiences. It then leverages the crowd on behalf of clients in what experts say is a potent persuasion strategy. Biden and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer are beneficiaries. What’s happening: Facebook and Instagram users in Michigan started seeing ads last month promoting stories by a new news site, the Main Street Sentinel. The aggregated content — from both news sources and the White House itself — touched on skyrocketing gas prices and broader price inflation, blaming corporate price gouging and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and mirroring lines from the Biden administration. It is unclear who is behind the network. The publisher behind it, Star Spangled Media LLC, was formed only last month in New York. They have spent over $500,000 on paid posts for Instagram and Facebook since 2019. During the 2020 election, the accounts were used for voter registration and turnout ads. Imagine the media reaction if conservatives did something like this! For the antidote to media bias, check out ProTrumpNews.com! BECOME PART OF THE SOLUTION. SIGN UP WITH NCEIT.ORG, participate in the training to become an observer, poll worker, judge. We have a lot of catching up to do but we can do this as Virginia did and continues to do. The Blueprint: Citizens Guide to Building an Election Integrity Infrastructure: www.whoscounting.us Election Integrity Network - Who's Counting with Cleta Mitchell (whoscounting.us)