National Review Smears Phyllis Schlafly, of Course!
Conservatives nationwide are reeling over National Review’s attack on Phyllis Schlafly in its 70th Anniversary issue.
The founder of Eagle Forum and a leading activist from the early 1960s until her death in 2016, Schlafly earned such flattering titles as “sweetheart of the silent majority” and “first lady of the conservative movement” in recognition of the foundational role she played in mobilizing grassroots conservatism.
As a self-styled “conservative” publication, one might think National Review (NR) would embrace such a heroine. Nevertheless, author Rachel Lu calls Schlafly “mean-spirited” and “conspiratorial” — a “shill” of “shameless propaganda.”
“The attack on a beloved icon of the right is bad enough on its own,” writes Mark Hemingway of The Federalist, “but what makes the whole thing especially intolerable is that it is ultimately an attack on the legacy of National Review itself.”
Really, Mark? Is it truly such an about-face?
Why is National Review publishing a piece by an author who is a regular contributor to America magazine, a far-left Jesuit periodical that has long supported such causes as homosexuality and abortion, and which in 2009 backed the University of Notre Dame’s award of an honorary Doctor of Laws degree to then-U.S. President Barack Obama?
Granted, one week after NR broadcast Lu’s smear piece, the magazine also published a defense of the conservative bellatrix, “Phyllis Schlafly Still Drives Opponents Mad,” written by her youngest daughter, Anne, who points out that had her mother been the sophist of Lu’s imagining, she “would not have built a movement that has lasted generations.” Hands down, Anne wins the debate with Lu, but what do the editors of NR care? Either way, the controversy is free advertising for them.
Indeed, in answer to Hemingway, such pandering is perfectly in line with “the legacy of National Review itself.”
John F. McManus, former president of The John Birch Society (JBS), exposed NR’s neocon origins in his biographical critique of its founder. William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment describes the political pundit as a delusive gadfly who lured conservatives into serving establishment interests by systematically marginalizing genuine anti-globalist voices — particularly JBS — to align Americans with neoconservative ideologies.
“William F. Buckley, Jr. is one of America’s slyest deceivers, a clever but supremely duplicitous frontman for a behind-the-scenes cabal whose operatives have been laboring for generations to steer America into their contrived ‘new world order,’” McManus wrote.
Buckley’s rationale was perfectly in line with the political Left. “In order to fight communist totalitarianism, according to Buckley, one must accept Big Government and adopt totalitarian ways,” explained William F. Jasper in his expose “Faux Conservatism” published in The New American magazine.
An example of this early double-dealing is NR’s October 1965 issue, dedicated entirely to savaging JBS and its founder, Robert Welch. But these have not been the only victims of Buckley’s pseudo-intellectual rag.
“Although Robert Welch has been the recipient of the most vicious and sustained attack from Buckley’s Politburo at National Review, other conservatives, including many of that magazine’s former top-drawer writers and editors — L. Brent Bozell, Ayn Rand, Medford Evans, M.E. Bradford, Sam Francis, Joseph Sobran, Paul Gottfried, Peter Brimelow, John O’Sulllivan, Pat Buchanan, and Murray Rothbard — were similarly purged,” warned Jasper. “They were replaced by neoconservatives (some of whom have migrated to the far liberal-Left).”
And while smearing the vanguard, Buckley was loathe to shun the company of such despicables as porn mogul Hugh Hefner, drug addict Allen Ginsberg, and Black Panthers Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver.
Such debasement of true conservatives was the NR modus operandi from its inception in 1955. In fact, by 1962, Schlafly herself “decided that Bill Buckley and his magazine were no longer worthy of her support,” McManus related. So “she sent a letter to Buckley that started with a listing of her many relationships with him and National Review. She pointed to having been a charter subscriber, contributor, promoter and more. Then she added: ‘I now ask you to cancel my subscription and send the refund to either Robert Welch or Pope John XXIII.’”
True to form, today’s NR staff continue to carry out leftist smears against the likes of U.S. President Donald Trump, social-media influencer Candace Owens, political commentator Tucker Carlson, free-market giant Ron Paul, and, as ever, the so-called anti-Semitic JBS. At the same time, readers get regular doses of praise for the totalitarian ways of globalists such as former presidents Joe Biden and George W. Bush. Indeed, Mark Levin discredits himself by appealing to NR authority in his copy-cat attacks on JBS.
So Schlafly fans should consider it a compliment that their superstar has finally taken her rightful place amongst the elite in the crosshairs of National Review charlatans. — Rebecca Terrell
Jane Goodall’s Pseudoscience: Monkeying With Globalism, Evolution, Population Control, Gorbachev, New Age
Jane Goodall’s passing last month elicited the expected avalanche of reverential eulogies from “the great and the good.” Hillary Clinton posted on Instagram (along with a photo of herself with Goodall): “For over 60 years, Jane Goodall was a force for research about our precious planet — and climate change action to protect it — while breaking glass ceilings along the way.” Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen DeGeneres, Al Gore, Justin Trudeau, Prince Harry, Gavin Newsom, and UN majordomo Antonio Guterres were but a few of the notables who jumped on the Goodall encomium bandwagon. Time magazine, which has printed features by and about her over the decades, ran a story titled, “‘An Extraordinary Legacy for Humanity’: Celebrities, Politicians, and Activists Around the World Pay Tribute to Jane Goodall.”
Among the glowing accolades showered upon “Dame Goodall” (invested at Buckingham Palace in 2004) perhaps the most common was “outstanding scientist,” “renowned scientist,” “groundbreaking scientist,” or some such similar extravagant tribute to her alleged “scientific” contributions. But, did Dame Goodall’s life’s work exemplify real science? Or was it pseudoscience?
Let’s begin with the 98.6-percent myth that has become dogma. This sacred datum, apparently, must be worked into any story about Jane and her apes. “We now know that chimpanzees share 98.6 % of our DNA, making them our closest living relatives, but through careful observation, Dr. Goodall uncovered our similarities long before the geneticists,” says an article for the Los Angeles Natural History Museum website titled “Chimpanzees: Redefining What It Means to Be Human.” Similarly, over at Forbes, in an article titled “Jane Goodall’s Science Legacy: Studying Chimps, Understanding Humans,” we find: “Goodall demonstrated long before that chimpanzees are not far removed from us. Sharing 98.6 percent of our DNA, chimpanzees exhibit remarkable similarities to humans in behavior, emotion, tool use, social hierarchy, and communication. She blurred the boundary between species through immersion in their world.”
However, much like the debunked “consensus” claim that “97 percent of scientists” believe global warming (aka climate change) is human-caused and an existential threat (see here, here, and here), the 98.6-percent man/chimp DNA claim has fallen apart under scientific scrutiny. See, for instance, here, here, here, and here. Likewise for Goodall’s claim that chimpanzee use of a twig to capture ants is unique among animals in mimicking human use of tools. Turns out there are many examples of “tool use” by other species.
Contrary to popular lore, Goodall owed her exalted status as a preeminent “scientist” not to any major contributions to actual science, but because she (according to her website) “changed how we define ‘human.’” It is this redefining that made her the darling of the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, Chatham House, Club of Rome, World Future Council, Gorbachev Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Population Matters, Time, PBS, NPR, National Geographic, etc. She was instrumental in launching the Great Ape Project (GAP), which attempts to confer personhood and human rights on apes. She also was a vocal overpopulation alarmist, climate doomster, anti-meat activist, and UN-promoting globalist. And like many of the elites with whom she associated and who have disdain for “narrow” orthodox Christianity, Dame Goodall had a fascination with New Age occultism. She became fascinated with Theosophy early in life and was a longtime devotee of Sri Chinmoy, the Hindu guru who ran the Meditation Room at the United Nations for many years, even writing the foreword to his book, Listen to Nature (See here, here, and here). — William F. Jasper
Climate Alarmist Bill Gates Now Says Climate Change Not Catastrophic — Seriously.
After many years of embarrassing predictions, has the establishment-propelled propaganda locomotive behind climate alarmism finally been derailed? Time will tell. But there is no doubt that one of the biggest alarmists, Bill Gates, has now gone off on a different track.
In a lengthy memo dated October 27, not long before this year’s upcoming UN climate conference (COP 30) in Belém, Brazil, Gates addressed “what I want everyone at COP30 to know.” He began predictably enough:
There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:
In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us — just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature. [Emphasis in original.]
But then, he said something very unpredictable:
Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.
No, Gates is not going so far as to say that anthropogenic climate change is a non-problem, but his new position is still a radical departure from what he and other chicken littles have been saying for decades. Why? One explanation, of course, is how discredited climate alarmism has become — you can only cry wolf or claim that the sky is falling so many times before people stop believing it. But another explanation that should not be overlooked is the massive amount of energy that will be needed for AI and the dystopian future that Gates envisions — and that energy must come from somewhere. — Gary Benoit
AI Admits: Duh! There Ain’t No Climate Catastrophe Out There
Joe Bastardi of PhonyClimateWar.com finagled the truth about global warming out of the AI chatbot Grok, posting his findings at Cfact.org.
Using data from the National Weather Service, he asked Grok to compute the temperature between 60 degrees north latitude and 60 degrees south, an area of the globe that 99.8 percent of the world’s population calls home.
Grok’s response gave the “area-weighted temperature anomaly” of +0.096° Celsius as a deviation from the 1991-2020 climatological average (as of October 31, 2025).
Bastardi then asked whether anyone would be able to detect that increase in warming over a 30-year period. Grok said no.
“How great would an impact be on the human condition of a 0.1°C increase in 30 years?” he queried.
“A 0.1°C increase over 30 years would have a near-zero direct impact on the human condition — far too small to affect health, food, migration or economy in any measurable way,” came the answer. Grok reassured Bastardi that “climate is not worse than it has ever been,” after continued questioning.
“What then could be the possible motive of people claiming it is?” he logically asked. Bastardi includes the entire AI-generated answer, which is worth the read here, but in summary, Grok listed the following:
“For some, it’s billions in subsidies. For others, it’s global governance. For many, it’s identity and virtue.”
For once, AI makes sense! — Rebecca Terrell
Argentina Update: Milei’s Astronomical China Rebuff
The Milei administration in Argentina has just announced a suspension of the installation of a second Chinese radar telescope in the country, which was to be built in the northwest Argentine province of San Juan, in the dry southern Andes. The telescope, called the China Argentina Radio Telescope (CART), was touted by the Chinese Communist Party as a part of a network of astronomical research facilities constructed in the southern hemisphere, analogous to the U.S.-run Vera C. Rubin Observatory and the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile. Because of the dry, almost moisture-free air typical of high altitudes in the southern Andes, both Chile and Argentina are indisputably ideal locations for conducting astronomical research in the southern skies. China has already built one such facility in Argentina, further south in the Patagonian Andes in Neuquen province, which has been operating since 2017. However, when a group of Argentine scientists and functionaries tried to visit the facility in 2024, they were rebuffed by the Chinese, who informed them that, under the terms of the agreement, the facility was under exclusive Chinese control. The Chinese secrecy would appear to indicate that the facility in Neuquen is doing a lot more than cataloguing stars and galaxies, Chinese official protestations to the contrary.
While that facility continues to operate, Argentina’s refusal to authorize a second one — almost certainly in consultation with the Trump Administration — appears to be a positive step. — Steve Bonta
Gearing Up for the G-20
This year’s G-20 gathering will take place in South Africa on November 22-23. The G-20, which includes 19 of the world’s largest economies, as well as the world’s two most advanced regional governments, the EU and the African Union, has a rotating presidency, and South Africa is presiding this year. The theme for this year’s gathering is “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability,” alongside the South African term “ubuntu,” regarding which the G-20’s official website explains:
Ubuntu is often translated as “I am because we are” or “I am because you are”. This guiding principle will shape South Africa’s approach as it seeks collective solutions to pressing global collective economic and financial challenges.
All of this is being billed as a necessary response to the “polycrisis,” a term now in vogue in globalist circles that was first popularized by the WEF’s Klaus Schwab. Not only is the term being used by the promoters of the G-20 themselves, it is also racketing about in the echo chambers of the leftist NGOs seeking a seat at the table.
In other words, as befits a G-20 being held in Marxist South Africa, the event is to be consecrated to the usual collectivist, globalist, leftist conceits, from climate change to global wealth redistribution. In this respect, it will differ little thematically from the COP30 climate conference, also being held this month, except that the G-20 is primarily a forum for heads of state and other top government officials to negotiate accords and otherwise bring their respective governments’ policies into alignment with the globalist agenda. — Steve Bonta
Globalist-backed Socialist Mamdani Wins NYC Mayor Election
On November 4, voters in the financial capital of the United States — and of much of the world — elected Zohran Kwame Mamdani, an avowed socialist and member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), as the 111th mayor of New York City.
Former Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo had attempted a political comeback in the race, receiving an unexpected endorsement from President Donald Trump on the eve of the election. Trump wrote on Truth Social:
I would much rather see a Democrat, who has had a Record of Success, WIN, than a Communist with no experience and a Record of COMPLETE AND TOTAL FAILURE. […] A vote for Curtis Sliwa (who looks much better without the beret!) is a vote for Mamdani. Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice. You must vote for him, and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it, Mamdani is not!
Cuomo spent the closing weeks of his campaign openly courting Republican voters. And while this last-minute strategy gained him some support, it was not enough. With 93 percent of the vote counted as of November 6, Cuomo had received 854,995 votes (41.6 percent). Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa received 146,137 votes (7.1 percent). In comparison, Mamdani secured 1,036,051 votes (50.4 percent).
Analysis of the down-ballot races for other city-wide offices makes the situation more clear: Republican candidates for comptroller and public advocate each received more than 420,000 votes. This means many Republicans voted strategically for Cuomo as a “lesser of two evils.” Even so, combining Cuomo’s and Sliwa’s totals would not have overcome Mamdani.
The New American reached out to New York Young Republican Club President Stefano L. Forte for comment. Forte noted that the election revealed deep problems within the Republican Party:
Election Day proved that the Republican Party finds itself helpless when President Trump isn’t on the ballot. It also revealed that the economy is the driving force motivating young people to turn out and vote. My generation feels abandoned by the government — burdened with student loans and debt, holding degrees that offer little real financial return. This election should serve as a warning for what’s to come. The Democrats have gone full communist, and the youth of this country see no viable alternative coming from us. As a party, we must embrace economic populism.
Exit polling showed affordability as the top issue among voters. For many young voters, Mamdani’s promise of free housing, free universal childcare, and free MTA bus rides struck a chord — especially with those already struggling financially.
One young Mamdani voter, when asked on Facebook why he supported the socialist candidate, simply replied, “He wants free housing, free bus rides, and hopefully free train rides. Although I doubt the last part [free subway fares] will happen.” When pressed further on the feasibility of those ideas, the voter simply answered, “Socialism is good. I’m voting for it.”
Such voters fail to recognize that the primary cause of rising prices is not free-market capitalism, landlords, or “greedy” corporations — but rather the inflationary monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. By constantly expanding the money supply, the Fed devalues the dollar, making goods and services more expensive. Yet instead of demanding an end to the destructive policies of the unconstitutional central bank, many voters are now turning to socialism and its promises of “free stuff.”
And Mamdani has never been shy about his socialist beliefs. Throughout the campaign, he promised voters:
- Rent freezes for rent-stabilized apartments
- Universal free childcare
- Government-run grocery stores
- Free MTA bus service citywide
To fund this, Mamdani has proposed raising the corporate tax rate to 11.5 percent and imposing a new two-percent flat tax on incomes of $1 million or more. However, these changes would require the approval of Governor Kathy Hochul and the state legislature — neither of which currently support his plan.
Mamdani has also called for stripping disciplinary powers from the New York City police commissioner and giving them over to the city’s communist-inspired and vehemently anti-police Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). The CCRB was created, in its current form, in 1993 by then-Mayor David Dinkins and the New York City Council. Mamdani now seeks to further fund and empower that body, which has long been influenced by anti-police activists.
Despite Mamdani’s socialist banter that we shouldn’t have billionaires, his victory can largely be attributed to a handful of them: globalist philanthropist Elizabeth Simons, GitHub co-founder Tom Preston-Werner, and socialist financier George Soros.
According to Forbes, Elizabeth “Liz” Simons, “the daughter of the late hedge fund billionaire Jim Simons … cut a check for $250,000 to New Yorkers For Lower Costs, the main independent group backing Mamdani’s campaign, in August.” Simons previously served on the boards of the progressive non-profit Marshall Project and the tax-exempt Foundation for a Just Society. She is also the co-founder and chair of the board of the Heising-Simons Foundation, a philanthropic organization that, since 2007, has given nearly $1.3 billion to groups that advance sustainable development solutions to stop “climate change,” and that seek to “enhance the education of our youngest learners, and support human rights for all people,” according to their website.
According to the New York Post, “In less than a decade, Soros’ ultra-woke grant-making network Open Society Foundations has indirectly funneled a combined $37 million to the Working Families Party and at least [nine other] left-wing groups whose endorsements and get-out-the-vote groundwork played a pivotal role in helping Mamdani upset ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary.”
Because of New York’s electoral fusion voting, in which candidates can appear on the ballot for the same office more than once under two or more parties, Mamdani’s name appeared twice on the general election ballot — as both the mayoral candidate for the Democratic Party and for the Soros-funded, socialist Working Families Party.
Fusion voting is common in New York elections. When Rudy Giuliani successfully won the 1993 and 1997 mayoral elections, his name also appeared twice on the ballot, under both the Republican Party and the Liberal Party of New York.
Many New Yorkers who voted against Mamdani may look to leave the city. But abandoning New York now would only cede and solidify one of America’s greatest cities to socialist control. If anything, this election underscores the urgent need to:
- Strengthen and organize local chapters of The John Birch Society in all five boroughs;
- Educate voters on the reality of socialism, communism, and globalism;
- Expose the destructive inflationary role of the Federal Reserve;
- Restore election integrity and implement statewide voter ID; and
- Confront the effects of mass legal and illegal immigration on the city’s rapidly transforming voter demographic.
The political transformation of New York City did not happen overnight, nor will it reverse itself on its own. Without organized opposition, New York will not be the last major American city to elect an openly socialist mayor. For the sake of New York and the country, the time to engage is now. — Christian Gomez
Top Russian, Chinese Officials Reaffirm Allied Opposition to “Unilateral Coercive Measures”
Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin visited China this week to shore up the alliance between the two superpowers. In a joint communiqué issued after Mishustin met with Chinese premier Li Qiang on Tuesday, the two powers, in a clear reference to the United States’ sanctions and tariffs, pledged to “make every necessary effort to carry out mutual assistance and cooperation in opposing unilateral coercive measures. Any unilateral coercive measures taken by any country or group of countries bypassing UN Security Council resolutions are illegal.” Mishustin also met with Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, in which the latter told the former, “China-Russia relations have stayed the course toward higher-level and higher-quality development, advancing steadily despite a turbulent external environment.” China and Russia’s latter-day rapprochement began with a “no-limits partnership” signed by Xi and Putin just days before Russia invaded Ukraine, and the two powers have been joined at the hip ever since, under the implicit understanding that, in exchange for China’s support of Russia’s war, Russia will return the favor when China moves on Taiwan and other powers in the region. — Steve Bonta
Trump’s Asian Tour
Last week, President Trump visited Southeast and East Asia in a transparent bid to challenge China’s growing influence in the region. His first stop, Malaysia, featured the signing of a peace treaty between Thailand and Cambodia, ending a border conflict that flared recently between the two Southeast Asian countries. He also inked substantial bilateral trade deals with Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Thailand, which are the sort of things America should be doing, instead of sovereignty-compromising multilateralism. Trump then flew to Japan, where he appears to have gotten along very well with Japan’s new conservative female prime minister, Sanae Takaichi. He also claims to have attracted as much as $490 billion in new Japanese investment. In a model of how bilateral negotiations can work, the Trump-Takaichi lovefest proclaimed a new “golden age” of Japanese-American relations, with the two exchanging “Make America Great Again” and “Japan is Back” caps, the slogans of the two administrations. Takaichi is a protégé of the late Shinzo Abe, and, like Abe, is both very pro-America and very anti-Communist China.
Trump then flew to South Korea, where he met that country’s new left-leaning leader, Lee Jae Myung, who has been moving toward rapprochement with both North Korea and Communist China. Once again, progress was reportedly made towards a bilateral trade deal.
The most anticipated event of the trip was Trump’s meeting with Xi Jinping. While no breakthrough on trade was announced, China did suspend its controls on rare earth minerals and agree to buy more U.S. soybeans. The take of the servile legacy media, predictably, was that the Chinese dictator had a strong hand, and completely outmaneuvered the mercurial Trump. The real question, though, is why Trump and his administration would want to continue trade with America’s number-one enemy. Communist China is the most murderous regime in world history, and was responsible for a large proportion of American deaths during the Korean War. Over the past several years, it has been engaged in a campaign of constant bullying and harassment of both Taiwan and the Philippines, and is undergoing the largest and most rapid military buildup the world has ever seen. It is also not only actively involved in subversion and espionage on an epic scale within the United States, but is also a major contributor to the fentanyl scourge that has claimed so many hundreds of thousands of American lives. Oh, and lest we forget, it was China that unleashed Covid on the world — and has been lying and gaslighting about it ever since. This is the regime that Trump and D.C. insiders seem to regard as an indispensable trading partner, all the while shunning free Taiwan, our erstwhile ally. Agreements and negotiations mean nothing to the Chinese communists, except as tools to play for time. With friends like these, who needs enemies? — Steve Bonta
New Life for Covid Death Case: Schara Files Motion for New Trial
Scott Schara has filed a motion for a new trial after losing his first suit, which is the only Covid wrongful death jury trial in the country to date.
His teen daughter died in a Covid hospital in Wisconsin in 2021. She had Down syndrome, and her parents believe she was targeted for destruction on that account.
In June they lost their civil case against St. Elizabeth Hospital in Appleton and against the doctor and nurse in charge of Grace’s care. Healthcare providers blamed Covid for her death; the family blames a unilateral DNR (Do Not Resuscitate order) and an overdosing cocktail of drugs.
Following the verdict, Scott told The New American that an appeal was unlikely. However, the Scharas are now petitioning the circuit court of Outagamie County for a new trial based on evidence they say has recently come to light.
Scott’s motion describes bias on the part of the judge in the previous trial. “During my pretrial hearing on May 20, 2025, after one of my attorneys informed Judge [Mark] McGinnis that I had given an interview to the Appleton Post-Crescent several days prior, Judge McGinnis stated that he found that offensive and that there would be a consequence and then he summarily denied all of my motions in limine,” reads Scott’s affidavit supporting his combined motions for reconsideration and a new trial. (A “motion in limine” is a pretrial request that particular testimony or evidence not be presented in the trial court due to irrelevancy or potential prejudice or harm.)
The affidavit continues:
It was not until September 10, 2025, that I had any knowledge or reason to believe that Judge McGinnis might have a personal resentment toward the Post-Crescent. It was only then that I learned that the Post-Crescent, on January 24, 2024, had published an article critical of Judge McGinnis and his rulings alleging that they were based upon his personal bias.
Had Judge McGinnis, on May 20, 2025, upon learning of my interview with the local publication, informed me of the above facts, I could have asked for his recusal or sought his removal from my case for bias.
My trial attorneys did not inform me of the Post-Crescent’s criticisms of Judge McGinnis, and my late discovery of this information did not arise from a lack of diligence on my part in seeking to discover it.
The full motion filed on October 29 adds another recent revelation “involving the Court issuing over $50,000.00 in cost judgments against Plaintiff in violation of the law,” and says this “showed the Court’s personal bias.” It concludes that “the Court lost the presumption of impartiality.” The motion also charges:
Throughout the trial, this Court allowed Defendants to attack Plaintiff and his family members with their religious beliefs and expressions and views on medicine and the broader health care system, with the presumed purpose and clear effect of undermining their credibility with the jury…. Statute § 906.10 expressly prohibits evidence of religious beliefs or opinions to show that the witness’s credibility is impaired or enhanced.
A third issue raised in the Schara motion regards the request in the previous trial for a declaratory judgment by the judge regarding “an illegal DNR” placed on their daughter’s chart. The judge never ruled on this matter:
The Court’s Dismissal of Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim was erroneous. Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim was his most important claim…. The Court should issue a declaratory judgment that Dr. [Gavin] Shokar [Grace’s attending physician the day she died] placed an illegal DNR on Grace’s chart in violation of Wis. Stat. § 154.19…. The facts necessary for the Court to issue a declaratory judgment that Dr. Shokar placed an illegal DNR on Grace’s chart in violation of Wis. Stat. § 154.19 were undisputed, and the Court had already determined that the statute applied to those facts.
Yet another topic raised in the motion regards the judge’s dismissal of a battery claim that alleged Shokar and Grace’s nurse, Hollee McInnis, committed that crime in administering medications to Grace without informed consent. The document calls this dismissal “erroneous”:
Under the overarching idea of a patient giving implied consent by being in a hospital, the Court based its dismissal on its finding that Plaintiff had consented to the contact.… Lacking evidence of express consent from anyone in Grace’s family, the Court looked for implied consent through its own biased lenses, ignoring the context of their testimony, and claimed to have found it.
This week, the judge set a hearing on December 11 at 3:00 p.m. in the Outagamie County Courthouse. The defendants from the original trial have also filed a joint brief in opposition to Schara’s motion for reconsideration and a new trial. Check TheNewAmerican.com for updates to this developing story. — Rebecca Terrell
Latvia Moves to Buck Globalist Istanbul Charter, Signaling Growing Populist Traction
Latvia is making significant moves to exit the Istanbul Charter, a product of the Council of Europe. If finalized, the Baltic nation would become the second country — Turkey withdrew in 2021 — to leave the convention, marking another win for the anti-globalist movement.
Ratified in 2011, the convention’s alleged purpose is to “protect women against all forms of violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence,” but by design, the convention erodes national sovereignty and imposes leftist gender ideology on signatory nations.
The initial Latvian withdrawal effort was passed through the 100-seat parliament with a 56-vote majority. But on November 5, the parliament voted to postpone the withdrawal to an unknown date.
“Latvian parliament has voted to indefinitely postpone the withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention,” Prime Minister Evika Siliņa said in a post on X. “I welcome this vote. It is a victory of democracy, rule of law and women’s rights.”
Parliament can still execute the withdrawal with another vote, which operatives are speculating will take place after next year’s election.
The globalist Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe reprimanded the Latvians for daring to follow their own laws to protect women: “Latvia’s proposed withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention is a serious setback to the protection and rights of the country’s women and girls.… Not only does it weaken survivors’ trust in the system as a whole, but it also makes women solely reliant on national authorities without the international guidance.”
Despite the setback, the right-wing populist Latvia First Party is continuing to push for leaving the convention.
“This will not influence domestic violence in any way,” Gunars Gutris, a member of parliament from the Greens and Farmers Union, told the press. “Protections against domestic violence were in Latvian law even before the Istanbul Convention.”
Linda Liepina, a lawmaker from the Latvia First party, told parliament, “What I see is how a foreign ideology is creeping into our everyday lives.”
In a statement to Euronews, Latvia First doubled down on their desire to exit the convention, saying, “The Istanbul Convention is a product of radical feminism based on the ideology of gender.”
While the outcome of withdrawal efforts remains to be seen, the growing hunger for nationalist policies is spreading across Europe, which should be celebrated by all freedom-loving people. — Andrew Muller
Radical Leftists Seize Key Offices in Elections
In an unfortunate turn for Americans, the November 4, 2025 elections delivered victories to far-left Democrats in multiple high-profile races, signaling a slide toward socialist policies in major jurisdictions. The election attracting the most attention is the New York City mayoral race, won by New York State Representative Zohran Mamdani (D-Queens), a self-proclaimed democratic socialist.
However, the disappointing election outcomes extended beyond New York City. U.S. Representative Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) won the New Jersey gubernatorial race, former U.S. Representative and CIA officer Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) won the Virginia gubernatorial race, and former Virginia House of Delegates member Jay Jones (D-Norfolk) won the Virginia attorney general race.
Sherrill, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate, former federal prosecutor, and four-term member of Congress, defeated Trump-endorsed Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli to win the New Jersey gubernatorial race, ensuring Democrats retain control of New Jersey for an unprecedented third consecutive term. With 95 percent of the votes counted, Sherrill had 56.3 percent (1,805,244 votes) and Ciattarelli had 43.1 percent (1,384,601 votes). Sherrill’s congressional voting record reveals a lifetime Freedom Index score of just five percent, reflecting a tenure in office marred by consistent opposition to constitutional principles.
In the Virginia gubernatorial race, Deep State politician Spanberger defeated Republican Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears, becoming the state’s first female governor. With 96 percent of the votes counted, Spanberger had 57.2 percent (1,921,471 votes) and Earle-Sears had 42.6 percent (1,433,561 votes). Spanberger’s victory in Virginia raises similar red flags, as her congressional voting record reveals a pattern of supporting unconstitutional policies. Her lifetime Freedom Index score stands at an abysmal seven percent. As governor, her agenda will undoubtedly erode Virginia’s recent gains under Governor Glenn Youngkin.
Perhaps the most concerning election outcome was the Virginia attorney general race, where Jones defeated the incumbent, Republican Jason Miyares, despite the release of text messages in which Jones made violent threats against former Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates Todd Gilbert, stating that Gilbert “gets two bullets to the head,” and wishing that his children “die in their mother’s arms.”
These text messages raise serious concerns about Jones’ fitness for public office. His election as the state’s top law-enforcement officer highlights the normalization of violent extremism within the Democratic Party, as well as the long history of violence advocated by those advancing leftist ideologies.
As Mamdani, Sherrill, Spanberger, and Jones assume power, Americans must remain vigilant against the communist agendas that threaten our Republic, and work to prevent them from further expanding their influence nationwide. — David DeRidder
Trump Sets Lowest-ever Refugee Cap
In a victory against mass migration, President Donald Trump has set the refugee-admissions cap at 7,500 for fiscal 2026, the lowest-ever ceiling since Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980.
Trump made this announcement in a presidential determination dated September 30, but only published in the Federal Register on October 31.
For context, in his last two years as president (fiscal 2016 and 2017), Barack Obama set the refugee-admissions cap at 85,000 and 110,000, respectively. When Trump took office, he promptly lowered the fiscal 2017 cap to 50,000. He then lowered the cap to 45,000 (fiscal 2018), 30,000 (fiscal 2019), 18,000 (fiscal 2020), and 15,000 (fiscal 2021). By contrast, when Joe Biden took office, he raised the fiscal 2021 cap to 62,500, and subsequently raised the cap to 125,000 for each fiscal year from 2022 through 2025. These numbers represent upper limits, so the actual number of refugee admissions is typically lower (for example, only 27,308 refugees were admitted in fiscal 2025, partially because Trump suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program in January).
Trump also announced that his administration will prioritize admissions of Afrikaner refugees from South Africa.
The lowered refugee-admissions cap is only the latest Trump administration action to limit legal and illegal migration. For example, the administration has restricted employment visas and criteria for entering the United States, and illegal entries have fallen to historical lows.
Further administration actions could soon follow. As The New American recently reported, the Trump administration is considering ending the United Nations’ role in U.S. refugee admissions.
The refugee-admissions cap as established in the Immigration and Nationality Act is unconstitutional. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution declares that “all legislative Powers … shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” By allowing the U.S. president to unilaterally decide how many refugees are admitted into the country annually, the act unconstitutionally delegates Congress’ lawmaking authority to the president. Although Trump is exercising this authority in a relatively sound manner, other presidents could exercise it — and have exercised it — in a manner detrimental to U.S. sovereignty.
Mass migration — both legal and illegal — threatens American independence. By importing migrants into the United States en masse, which prevents their assimilation into American philosophy and culture, the Insiders are able to reshape the nation to their liking. Although much more work is needed to align U.S. immigration laws with Americanist principles, Trump’s first-year immigration-related actions represent good first steps toward protecting U.S. borders and sovereignty. — Peter Rykowski
In Election Bright Spot, Texas Approves Pro-liberty Constitutional Amendments
In a rare bright spot in Tuesday’s elections, Texas voters approved multiple amendments to the state constitution that protect limited government and God-given rights.
These amendments include:
- Proposition 2, which bans the state from imposing capital gains taxes;
- Proposition 6, which bans the state from imposing securities taxes;
- Proposition 8, which bans the state from imposing inheritance taxes;
- Proposition 9, which expands the property-tax exemption on business inventory and equipment, a small step toward reducing and ultimately eliminating property taxes;
- Proposition 12, which changes how members of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct are appointed, taking a small step away from technocracy and toward restoring representative government;
- Proposition 13, which increases the homestead tax exemption — the portion of home values that are automatically exempt from property taxes — from $100,000 to $140,000, another small step toward reducing and ultimately eliminating property taxes;
- Proposition 15, which recognizes that parents have the “fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control” of their children, “including the right to make decisions concerning [their] upbringing”; and
- Proposition 16, which creates a constitutional requirement that voters be U.S. citizens.
Unfortunately, other amendments expanded the size and scope of government. For example, Proposition 1 established an $850 million endowment for Texas State Technical College, Proposition 4 authorized $20 billion for water projects, and Proposition 14 created a dementia-research fund with an initial $3 billion investment. Overall, however, the amendments take a step toward protecting limited government and God-given rights.
Although critics of the amendments — particularly of Propositions 2, 6, 8, and 15 — noted that they merely enshrine existing state laws and policies, putting them in the Texas Constitution ensures that limited government and individuals’ God-given rights will continue to be protected regardless of who is elected to the state Legislature and governorship in coming years and decades.
As the TNA article “Restore State Government” (published in the October 14, 2024 issue of The New American and now available as a reprint) points out, “State governments must ensure that their own policies protect God-given rights and align with the limited-government principles of the Founding Fathers.” This includes ensuring that their constitutions effectively uphold God-given rights, limited government, and a republican form of government. Rather than enshrining bureaucratic boards and commissions, ballot measures, and government involvement in areas where it ought not be involved, state constitutions should align with America’s founding principles. As the federal government under the U.S. Constitution has demonstrated, a carefully designed government structure can be instrumental in preventing — or at least significantly slowing down — infringements on God-given rights.
Texas’ constitution still has a long way to go before it meets this standard. As the second-longest state constitution (with 92,345 words, as of 2022), it is riddled with big-government provisions, including the just-passed Propositions 1, 4, and 14. Nonetheless, the majority of amendments that passed on Tuesday take a small but real step in the right direction. — Peter Rykowski
Hungary, Poland, Slovakia Refuse to Abide by EU-Ukraine Trade Deal
Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia are refusing to comply with a European Union trade agreement with Ukraine. Politico reports:
Poland, Hungary and Slovakia are openly defying efforts to reset trade relations as a revised trade deal with Kyiv kicks in. The bans, covering Ukrainian grain and other farm products, breach EU single market rules that prohibit national trade barriers….
“We see no justification for maintaining these national measures,” Commission Deputy Spokesperson Olof Gill said Thursday, a day after a new European Union trade agreement meant to address EU members’ concerns about negative impacts from a flow of Ukrainian imports took effect.
In an email, Gill said the EU executive would “intensify its contact” with the intransigent capitals. Pressed on whether the Commission had ruled out launching infringement proceedings, Gill replied: “All options are on the table.”
Brussels has been reluctant to act since the bans were introduced in 2023, hoping the updated trade deal would make them redundant. Officials familiar with the talks say politics are also playing a part. Taking Poland to court could strain relations with Donald Tusk’s pro-EU government, while singling out Hungary and Slovakia would look like a double standard.
Although the three nations’ defiance of the EU-Ukraine trade agreement is based on practical economic concerns, it is an encouraging defense of national sovereignty. The EU — not national governments — sets trade policy and makes trade agreements with foreign countries. It also collectively represents its member states in the World Trade Organization.
Accordingly, EU member states are unable to conduct independent trade policies — this is one of the growing number of areas where they have given up their sovereignty. EU nations must reclaim their sovereignty, and the United States must reject all schemes that undermine its own independence. — Peter Rykowski
NYMHM: News You May Have Missed
History Will Not Be Kind to Dick Cheney
Glamour UK Names Nine Men “Women of the Year.” Morgan, Rowling React.
Illinois Law Would Shield Illegals From Arrest, Allow Them to Sue Agents Who Arrest Them
BBC “Doctored” Trump J6 Speech to Make It Appear as if He Urged Violence
[END]