Connect with us


Exclusive: A new right-wing super PAC is attacking Liz Cheney as a “DC diva”



A new right-wing super PAC is attacking Liz Cheney as a “DC diva”

#rightwing #super #PAC #attacking #Liz #Cheney #diva

In Washington, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) is a major national figure. The former member of House Republican leadership has earned plaudits for her handling of the key role of vice-chair of the January 6 select committee and is considered the foremost critic of Donald Trump within the GOP.

But in Wyoming, that work is being used to paint her as out of touch with voters and the pocketbook issues they care about, and increase her already tough odds of holding on to her seat.

Cheney is under siege in her home state, facing a brutal primary against her Trump-backed opponent Harriet Hageman in the state where Trump had his best performance in 2020. The former president has already held a Memorial Day weekend rally in Casper to boost Hageman and deride Cheney and is likely to return to the Cowboy State before the August primary. Cheney has been censured by the local and national GOP. According to one Republican strategist supporting Hageman, the incumbent has a hard cap of around 30 percent of the primary electorate in polling.

Outrider PAC, a group founded earlier this month to boost Hageman, is out with a new ad this week, exclusively obtained by Vox, attacking Cheney — though not by name — and boosting Hageman. “We need fewer DC divas and more problem solvers,” the ad says, hinting that Cheney is too involved in Washington “fighting” while gas prices skyrocket. The ad heralds Hageman as a supporter of “bipartisan efforts to increase American energy independence and help bring more of the supply chain back to the US.”

The group has already spent over $30,000 on the radio advertisement and is anticipating spending over $100,000 solely on Wyoming radio in the seven weeks before the state’s August 16 primary, according to a source familiar. A Cheney spokesperson declined to comment to Vox about the ad.

The ad hits Cheney on a perceived strength in Wyoming’s Republican primary electorate, her ardent support of the energy industry in the biggest coal mining state in the country, and emphasizes Hageman, who is less well known in the state than Cheney, a second-generation member of Congress.

The race is already expected to be the most expensive campaign in the history of Wyoming and already several outside groups have targeted Cheney. An anti-Cheney super PAC, Wyoming Values, has already spent over $500,000 against the former GOP conference chair, while Club for Growth, the influential conservative group, has targeted her since 2021 when it ran an ad painting her as a “Clinton Republican.” However, according to the pro- Hageman strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the race frankly, Cheney’s major weakness in polling besides her opposition to Trump is the perception that “she is disconnected from Wyoming.”

Cheney has maintained a significant fundraising advantage over Hageman, a longtime party activist who was once a vocal opponent of Trump. According to the most recent FEC reports, Cheney has raised over $10 million this cycle and has over $6.8 million on hand. In contrast, Hageman has raised over $2 million so far and has over $1 million on hand. A third candidate, state Sen. Anthony Bouchard, who has denounced the Trump-endorsed Hageman as insufficiently MAGA, has under $50,000 on hand. Bouchard’s political prospects dwindled after it was revealed that he had impregnated a 14-year-old when he was 18, which was one reason Trump backed Hageman instead of him last year.

Yet despite Cheney’s massive fundraising advantage and incumbency, she is considered an underdog in a race that will be another big barometer of Trump’s sway within the Republican Party. A May poll paid for by Club for Growth has Cheney down 30 points to Hageman. Further, Hageman has not just been backed by Trump, but is also supported by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and a majority of the House Republican Conference.


While Cheney has the backing of key figures from the GOP’s past like George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, she is counting on Democrats and independents to help carry her to victory. Although Wyoming is the most Republican state in the country, it has open primaries and Cheney will need a significant number of crossover votes from non-Republicans who admire her stalwart opposition to Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. However, the pro-Hageman strategist expressed skepticism that there were enough Democrats in the state, let alone Democrats willing to vote for a Cheney, to make the difference.

While some Republicans who have pushed back against Trump’s spurious claims of election fraud have managed to win their primaries, including Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in Georgia, none of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump have successfully won a primary so far in 2022. Four have announced their retirement, Tom Rice of South Carolina lost his reelection bid earlier in June, and David Valadao’s race in California’s top-two primary has yet to be called more than two weeks after Election Day in the Golden State.


Exclusive: Atlanta Fed Tracker Suggests U.S. Is In Recession –




Compelling Television

#Atlanta #Fed #Tracker #Suggests #Recession

“A Federal Reserve tracker of economic growth is pointing to an increased chance that the U.S. economy has entered a recession,” CNBC reports.

“The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow measure, which tracks economic data in real time and adjusts continuously, sees second-quarter output contracting by 2.1%. Coupled with the first-quarter’s decline of 1.6%, that would fit the technical definition of recession.”

LoadingSave to Favorites

Continue Reading


Exclusive: Farewell to Footnote 3 of Trinity Lutheran –




No Pseudonymity in Challenge to Federal Vaccination Mandate

#Farewell #Footnote #Trinity #Lutheran

Trinity Lutheran v. Comer was decided in June 2017. At the time, Justice Kennedy was still the Court’s swing vote, and Justice Gorsuch was the junior justice. And Roberts made a decision. He included Footnote 3 in his opinion:

This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.

Footnote 3 crafted some sort of distinction between “religious identity” and “religious uses.” That is, Trinity Lutheran only involved a case where the state excluded an institution because of its religious identity, or status. But the funding would buy tire scraps for a playground, which was not a religious use.

Justice Kennedy, as well as Justice Kagan joined Roberts’s opinion, including Footnote 3. But Justices Gorsuch and Thomas refused to join Footnote 3, thus depriving the Court of a majority opinion on that point. Gorsuch wrote a concurrence that cast doubt on the dichotomy in Footnote 3:

Second and for similar reasons, I am unable to join the footnoted observation, n. 3, that “[t]his case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing.” Of course the footnote is entirely correct, but I worry that some might mistakenly read it to suggest that only “playground resurfacing” cases, or only those with some association with children’s safety or health, or perhaps some other social good we find sufficiently worthy, are governed by the legal rules recounted in and faithfully applied by the Court’s opinion.

Justice Sotomayor dissented in Trinity Lutheran, joined by Justice Ginsburg. She observed that the status/use line will not hold up:

In the end, the soundness of today’s decision may matter less than what it might enable tomorrow. The principle it establishes can be manipulated to call for a similar fate for lines drawn on the basis of religious use. See ante, at 1–3 (GORSUCH, J., concurring in part); see also ante, at 1–2 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part) (going further and suggesting that lines drawn on the basis of religious status amount to per se unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religious belief).

Five years later, with Carson v. Makin, Footnote 3 is gone. Since it was never actually the opinion of the Court, technically, there was no need to overrule any precedent. But Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion stealthily eliminates the status/use distinction:

In Trinity Lutheran, the Missouri Constitution banned the use of public funds in aid of “any church, sect or denomination of religion.” We noted that the case involved “express discrimination based on religious identity,” which was sufficient unto the day in deciding it, and that our opinion did “not address religious uses of funding.” . . . Maine’s argument, however—along with the decision below and Justice Breyer’s dissent—is premised on precisely such a distinction.

That premise, however, misreads our precedents. In Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza, we held that the Free Exercise Clause forbids discrimination on the basis of religious status. But those decisions never suggested that use-based discrimination is any less offensive to the Free Exercise Clause. This case illustrates why. “[E]ducating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of a private religious school.” Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020).

Farewell to Footnote 3. Roberts does it so effortlessly. Blink and you’ll miss it.

In the very next paragraph, Roberts endorses the reasoning from Gorsuch’s concurrence–that the distinction between status and use was always illusory:

Any attempt to give effect to such a distinction by scrutinizing whether and how a religious school pursues its educational mission would also raise serious concerns about state entanglement with religion and denominational favoritism. Indeed, Maine concedes that the Department barely engages in any such scrutiny when enforcing the “nonsectarian” requirement. That suggests that any status-use distinction lacks a meaningful application not only in theory, but in practice as well.In short, the prohibition on status-based discrimination under the Free Exercise Clause is not a permission to engage in use-based discrimination.

Justice Sotomayor dissented in Carson. And she has a see-I-told-you-so moment:


As Justice Breyer explains, this status-use distinction readily distinguishes this case from Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza. I warned in Trinity Lutheran, however, that the Court’s analysis could “be manipulated to call for a similar fate for lines drawn on the basis of religious use.” That fear has come to fruition: The Court now holds for the first time that “any status-use distinction” is immaterial in both “theory” and “practice.” It reaches that conclusion by embracing arguments from prior separate writings and ignoring decades of precedent affording governments flexibility in navigating the tension between the Religion Clauses. As a result, in just a few years, the Court has upended constitutional doctrine, shifting from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars.

And I have to think that Justice Kagan had some buyer’s remorse. She joined the Trinity Lutheran majority, including Footnote 3, perhaps in the hopes of forestalling a bigger defeat. Five years later, we get Carson v. Makin.

So many precedents have been overruled this term that the demise of Footnote 3 has flown under the radar. Red Flag June was one for the ages.

Continue Reading


Exclusive: Marjorie Taylor Greene Says Putin Just Wants To Be Our Friend And Ally –




Marjorie Taylor Greene christian nationalism

#Marjorie #Taylor #Greene #Putin #Friend #Ally

This seems to be a good time to remind ourselves that MAGA has always been a Russian-backed operation to weaken every facet of classic Western liberalism in the United States, especially our adherence to democracy. Putin and his allies found a Republican party that doesn’t want to face the changing demographics and values in the modern United States. Trump can cite “No collusion” all he wants but it is a fact that the Russians dumped money straight into the NRA, fully backed Trump in 2016, surely did it again in 2020, still uses Tucker Carlson as propaganda on Russian television, and – as Marjorie Taylor-Greene becomes more influential than even John McCain might have been at his peak, Russia uses MTG to make Putin’s case here in the United States that it is Joe Biden who is responsible for all those Ukrainian deaths.

Had we just left Ukraine to its own defense, we could have had Russia as an ally, according to Marjorie but we blew it. We helped Ukraine and now Ukrainians are dying. It is Joe Biden’s fault.

Before you guffaw and say “No one will believe her,” just this morning there is a new YouGov poll out showing that 68% of Fox viewers believe that January 6th was primarily instigated by the Left to make Trump look bad.

So, despite the fact that Marjorie’s minute-long diatribe is self-contradicting and unprincipled, it represents the thinking of many MAGA voters. Putin has no agency in this at all. The United States is responsible for the horrors in Ukraine, according to Marjorie:

MAGA was born as an updated version of long-held KGB doctrine that America could be destroyed from within if the Russians could just obtain control of one American political party. From the 1950s to the 1970s, Russians focused on the American left. By the early 21st Century, Russia was dumping money into the NRA, and the control was near-cemented in the 2016 Republican party convention when the Trump team demanded only one change to the Republican platform, that portion that opposed the 2014 Russian invasion of a portion of Ukraine. MAGA was Russian-produced then, MAGA is Russian-produced now.

In 2020 the GOP didn’t have a platform. Autocrats don’t have “policy beliefs,” they believe in power.

We would all do well to accept the fact that the leaders of the Republican party look to the Russian government and see what they want. A one-party state, run by the right people, without time for your niceties, and classic liberalism. Fascism is a much better system when the primary goal is keeping wealthy conservative white men at the top. Despite yeoman’s work by the Select Committee, things continue to fall into place to ensure that we get there, even if Trump goes to prison, see our newly freed SCOTUS. Getting rid of stare decisis will be essential to instilling a new type of American government, one that is constitutional in name only.


Marjorie Taylor-Greene doesn’t have the intellectual ability to set out her argument in any sort of believable way, but she’s giving us the main gist here. We should never have stood up for democracy. We could have been allies with Russia (wouldn’t that have been great) but now she worries we won’t be allies for a long time. We blew it. The United States could have been lucky and been Putin’s friend, instead we chose to destroy Ukraine.

Putin couldn’t tell the story better.


Continue Reading


Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.