Declassified memo reveals how Biden admin set stage for feds to hound Americans over 'non-criminal behavior'



Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced last month the formation of the Director's Initiatives Group, a new task force dedicated to ending the weaponization of the federal government.

In addition to declassifying and releasing the John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. assassination files, Gabbard indicated that the DIG had set about reviewing other documents for potential declassification, including information related to "the Biden administration's domestic surveillance and censorship actions against Americans."

One of the documents declassified under this initiative has provided critical insights into how the stage was set in 2021 for the Biden administration's subsequent treatment of traditional Catholics and concerned parents who spoke out at school board meetings as potential terrorists.

A memo titled "Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism" assigned the FBI, the Department of Justice, and other agencies various tasks with the overarching aim of countering perceived domestic terrorism and violent extremism. The memo was reportedly developed by the FBI, the DOJ, and Biden's National Security Council.

The FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center were directed, for example, to provide state and local law enforcement agencies with resources "that cover relevant iconography, symbology, and phraseology used by many domestic terrorists, as well as data-driven guidance on how to recognize potential indicators of DT-related mobilization."

One such "resource" appears to have been the FBI's "Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide," which associated the Betsy Ross flag, the Gadsden flag, the Gonzales cannon with accompanying "Come and Take It" caption, Revolutionary War imagery, and Second Amendment-related imagery with "Militia Violent Extremism."

'A broad brush to start spying on Americans.'

The declassified memo also tasked the Domestic Policy Council with driving "executive and legislative action, including banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines"; reining in the "proliferation of 'ghost guns'"; mitigating "xenophobia and bias" in COVID-19 responses; and supporting "interventions to foster resiliency to disinformation."

Lawmakers and legal experts suggested to Just the News that the more concerning element of the memo was its apparent loosening of the requirements for opening criminal and national security investigations — a drop in standards that may have helped pave the way for fishing expeditions into groups disfavored and/or critical of the Biden administration.

Whereas for decades FBI agents needed "an articulable factual basis" that "reasonably indicates" a crime or a threat has or will occur in order to launch an investigation, experts told Just the News that the memo substantially lowered that standard such that behavior deemed "concerning" was sufficient to begin probing.

The memo tasked the DOJ and the FBI with DHS to "enhance public understanding of the role of federal law enforcement in responding to incidents of concerning non-criminal behavior."

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) told Just the News that the memo amounted to "merely a broad brush to start spying on Americans."

'The types of tools and responses that they have been making for people who are engaged in some type of violence actually applied to non-violent individuals.'

"It doesn't have to be criminal, for sure. But it doesn't have to be heterodox," said Biggs. "It just has to be something that some agent, or some local agent, says, 'Oh, we got a beef about this. We're going to check it out.'"

"It's spying on Americans," added Biggs, "violating the Fourth Amendment."

John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, told "John Solomon Reports" that "back in June 2021, the Biden administration put out its plan for dealing with domestic terrorists. The one that they put out at that time talked about how they were going after criminal activity. And of course, everybody, anybody who's espousing violence or trying to or committing violence, one wants the government to get a handle on that."

"What Tulsi Gabbard declassified was the rest of the document that was there," continued Lott. "What was shocking to me is that the types of tools and responses that they have been making for people who are engaged in some type of violence actually applied to non-violent individuals, non-criminal activity."

The FBI's scrutiny of conservative Catholics appears to have been prompted not by past or anticipated crimes but by "concerns" regarding "non-criminal behavior."

The House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government revealed in a 2023 report titled "The FBI's Breach of Religious Freedom: The Weaponization of Law Enforcement Against Catholic Americans" that the FBI field office circulated an internal memo in January 2023 warning that violent extremists are attracted to "radical traditionalist Catholic ideology."

The committee report stated, "Under the guise of tackling the threat of domestic terrorism, the memorandum painted certain 'radical-traditionalist Catholics' (RTCs) as violent extremists and proposed opportunities for the FBI to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of 'threat mitigation.'"

"There was no legitimate basis for the memorandum to insert federal law enforcement into Catholic houses of worship," said the committee's report. Nevertheless, "this single investigation became the basis for an FBI-wide memorandum warning about the dangers of 'radical' Catholics."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Young Canadians Voted Against Spending Orgy, But Their Insulated Parents Won

Younger Canadians stuck living with their parents and unable to afford starting families supported the Conservative Party. Liberals won.

Conservatives Can’t Make America Great Again Until They Hold ‘Red State’ RINOs Accountable

In many so-called 'red states' across America, Republican lawmakers are quietly thwarting the will of their constituents.

The book on David Horowitz



My first acquaintance with David Horowitz, who died Tuesday at the age of 86 following a battle with cancer, was as Peter Collier’s co-author on “The Kennedys: An American Drama,” published in 1984. That year in Washington, I heard Peter and David explain their departure from the left, which had people talking.

In 1987, when I met David at his Los Angeles home, he asked me what I did in the 1960s. I told him my primary interest was getting stoned, but like many others, I raised my voice against the war in Vietnam. David promptly invited me to the Second Thoughts Conference in 1987. As Peter Collier explained in the foreword to my “Bill of Writes,” the participants shared one central conviction:

The god of the New Left had failed them personally during its nihilistic strut on the stage of the ’60s and they were ready to testify against the smelly little orthodoxies they had once affirmed. In the future, some of these Second Thoughters went on to be conservatives, but they would always have a more profound identity as “ex-leftists,” who knew that the utopia they (we) had been building had never really been anything more than a Potemkin waste site, and that while leftism might try to disguise itself as “liberal” or “progressive,” totalitarianism by any other name would smell just as rancid.

The ex-leftists, myself now among them, were ready to take on Hollywood. They prompted David to found the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and bring me aboard as a journalism fellow. David once toned down my description of Lillian Hellman as a “Stalinist swamp sow,” but for the most part, we were on the same page. I worked with Peter on Heterodoxy, and both colleagues helped me out on the work that would become “Hollywood Party.” Heterodoxy transformed into Frontpage, where I write to this day.

Photo by Lloyd Billingsley

David considered Peter the better writer, but David never wrote a dull page. Consider, for example, “Radical Son,” which belongs on a shelf with Whittaker Chambers' “Witness,” “Out of Step” by Sidney Hook, and “The God that Failed” by a group of ex-communists, including Arthur Koestler, Andre Gide, and Richard Wright.

I recently reviewed the account of the Black Panthers in “Radical Son,” the founding of their school in Oakland, the murder of Betty Van Patter, and a lot more. But as it turned out, I had forgotten what David had written up front: “To Lloyd, comrade-in-arms, who joined us at Second Thoughts.”

David Horowitz now joins Peter Collier, who died in 2019. Farewell, brave warriors for truth and freedom.

Red-state rot: How GOP governors are handing power to the left



At first glance, outsiders might expect North Dakota to have already passed both school choice and a ban on pornography in public libraries. Republicans hold overwhelming majorities — 42-5 in the Senate and 83-11 in the House — and every statewide elected official is a Republican. Yet, Republican Gov. Kelly Armstrong’s twin vetoes of both bills have forced conservatives to wait another two years to achieve these basic red-state goals. Warnings about Armstrong’s weakness came early and often.

SB 2307 could not be simpler. “A public library or a school district may not maintain in an area easily accessible to minors explicit sexual material,” the final amended text reads. Any sane person should support this standard. The definition of “explicit sexual material” mirrors language already used in other areas of law. The bill does not even ban the books outright — it merely restricts children’s access to sexually explicit material in publicly funded libraries.

Electing more governors like Kelly Armstrong will leave conservatives with nowhere to run.

Without enforcement, any law becomes meaningless. SB 2307 addresses this by requiring local prosecutors to investigate violations. Schools and libraries found out of compliance risk losing state funding.

Despite the bill’s straightforward intent, it barely passed — just 27-20 in the Senate and 49-45 in the House — with more than a third of Republicans joining Democrats to oppose it. Last week, to the shock of party officials, Armstrong vetoed the bill.

“I don’t pretend to know what the next literary masterpiece is going to be,” Armstrong wrote in his veto message. “But I know that I want it available in a library.” In parroting tired liberal straw-man talking points, Armstrong claimed he agreed with the concerns but dismissed the bill as a “misguided attempt to legislate morality through overreach and censorship.”

According to Armstrong, limiting children’s access to sexually explicit material in taxpayer-funded libraries now qualifies as “censorship.”

The rest of Armstrong’s veto message trots out the usual excuses — warnings about frivolous lawsuits, handwringing over enforcement logistics, and complaints about oversight costs. But his main point could not be clearer: Armstrong opposes any effort to shield children from sexual content in public institutions.

Bought out by teachers’ unions

What can parents do when public schools flood classrooms with pornography? Send their kids to private school, of course. Unfortunately, Armstrong worked to block that option, too.

House Bill 1540 would have established Education Savings Accounts for private school students, giving them a chance to compete with just a fraction of the money state and federal governments pour into the public system. The bill passed the House 49-43 and the Senate 27-20 — the same narrow margins as the library porn bill.

In his veto message last week, Armstrong whined that public school students pay taxes, too, and griped that HB 1540 offered them nothing. Instead, he threw his support behind Senate Bill 2400, which turns school choice into another welfare program for the public education establishment. Most of the money under SB 2400 would flow straight to parents whose children already attend public schools.

But why would public school students need education savings accounts when their tuition already costs nothing? The entire school choice movement rests on a simple truth: Government pours massive sums into public education, and families need just a fraction of that money diverted to private options to have a real choice. In North Dakota, the average combined state and federal cost of public education hits about $13,778 per K-12 student. Yet under HB 1540, the proposed funding for education savings accounts ranged from only $1,100 to $4,000, depending on household income — all of it aimed at private school students.

The funding imbalance also explains the shortage of private schools across much of North Dakota. Armstrong cited the lack of private schools outside major cities as justification for pouring even more money into public schools. But with fairer funding, more private schools would emerge. In a duplicitous statement, Armstrong claimed he “strongly supports expanding school choice.” Yet, real expansion demands closing the funding gap — something Armstrong clearly opposes. His true allegiance lies with the teachers’ unions, not with parents seeking alternatives.

A pattern of reckless endorsements

The Senate bill Armstrong promoted also stuffs extra money into school lunch programs and ropes homeschooling parents into the scheme — despite the fact that North Dakota homeschoolers explicitly rejected involvement.

Conservatives had plenty of warning. Armstrong served in the leadership of the RINO Main Street Partnership during his time in Congress. Although North Dakota boasts a growing conservative bench, Trump’s premature endorsement last spring handed Armstrong the governorship in one reckless move.

If Trump keeps up his reckless endorsement habits, every deep-red state will soon struggle to pass even the most basic conservative priorities. Once Trump leaves office, Democrats won’t just revive Biden-era policies — they will escalate.

Deep-red states like North Dakota, immune from political swings in general elections, must become our last strongholds of freedom. Electing more governors like Kelly Armstrong will strip away that sanctuary and leave conservatives with nowhere to run.

Comedian Bill Burr claims white people are having 'meltdowns' while ignoring the 'truly oppressed people' in America



Stand-up comedian Bill Burr positioned himself as a critic of both sides with remarks stating that liberals are crybabies and white people ignore atrocities.

On his "Monday Morning Podcast," Burr threw insults at conservatives and liberals in his ongoing attempt to secure the status of conscientious objector. He began his rant by saying that one of his favorite things is how "each side thinks the other side is dumb and then each side thinks the other side's a bunch of babies."

"Specifically, the right thinks that liberals are a bunch of f**king snowflakes, whiny entitled a**holes, which I mean, come on, that's pretty f**king true, right?" Burr posited.

Burr then began to target white people, specifically saying they were overly upset about a new Disney movie. Though Burr referred to "Cinderella," he likely meant the new "Snow White" movie.

"My people, whitey, were all f**king upset. There's enough of us to get it going trending anyway. We're upset about the new 'Cinderella' movie. 'The actress playing Cinderella isn't white! There's no prince,'" he mocked. "'They changed the story. What am I going to tell my kids?'"

'I don't like trans people and God only makes real boys.'

The 56-year-old then claimed it should be easy for white people to explain the film's changes to children because they are used to avoiding the history of "genocide" and "slavery" in the United States.

"The s**t that my people get upset about. 'What am I going to tell my kids?' Well, f**king talk around it the way we talk around the real history of this country. I think you could do that. For you to talk around f**king genocide and slavery, you could talk around a stupid f**king movie about some broad who didn't exist."

The comic then brought in a bit more humor, joking that conservatives would even be mad at "Pinocchio" because he "transitions into a real boy."

"'I don't like trans people and God only makes real boys. Not some immigrant named Geppetto. What am I supposed to tell my kids?'" Burr stated, from the perspective of an alleged conservative.

Bouncing back to liberals, Burr mocked the idea of leftists having an "absolute f**king meltdown" over being referred to by the wrong pronouns.

In the end, Burr decided to wrap up his point by again referring to white people as being ignorant of oppression in America.

"It's my people having meltdowns while ignoring truly oppressed people in this country."

The respected comedian made headlines recently after he accused reporters of trying to use him for clickbait after he was asked to defend his remarks on a sneaker-shopping show.

"Free Luigi!" Burr said on a show by outlet Complex, referring to Luigi Mangione, a man accused of murdering a health insurance CEO.

"I don't think you should be asking a comedian," he told the reporters in early April. "That’s you guys passing the buck. You guys need to have balls again, which you don't," he added.

Burr also made similar remarks on the "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" show in January.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Austin Metcalf’s death sparks outrage — and opportunism



The death of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a track meet in Frisco, Texas, is every parent’s nightmare. The circumstances make the loss even more devastating. Metcalf, a student at Memorial High School, was stabbed in the chest by another teen, Karmelo Anthony, after a brief argument.

Anthony, a student at Centennial High School, was reportedly sitting under the tent reserved for Memorial High. A witness told police that Metcalf asked Anthony to move. When Anthony refused, Metcalf reportedly grabbed him. At that point, according to the witness, Anthony pulled out a knife, stabbed Metcalf once in the chest, and fled the scene.

The people pushing identity politics are long on hubris and short on wisdom.

Police later arrested Anthony and charged him with first-degree murder. His bail was set at $1 million.

Austin’s twin brother, Hunter Metcalf, held him during his final moments, making the situation even more tragic.

As often happens — especially online — the story of Austin Metcalf’s death quickly shifted from a tragedy about a young life lost and a grieving family to a debate about race.

Metcalf was white. The accused, Karmelo Anthony, is black. Social media users, particularly on X, widely claimed that the case would have drawn national headlines and sparked protests if their races were reversed.

But the facts don’t support claims of media silence. NBC News, ABC News, and Fox News all covered the incident.

Still, accusations of selective coverage illustrate a broader frustration with “outrage inequity” — the notion that moral outrage and condemnation often hinge on the racial identities of both the victim and the accused. The primary indication of this phenomenon is the uneven application of moral indignation and condemnation based on particular victim-perpetrator color combinations.

Critics argue that progressives frequently engage in this pattern, particularly when racially motivated hate crimes make headlines.

In 2022, for example, Payton Gendron drove three hours to a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, where he fatally shot 10 black people. That attack allowed liberal commentators to reinforce a familiar narrative: White violence against black Americans stems from “whiteness” and “white supremacy.”

Progressives often cite slavery, Jim Crow-era lynchings, and even verbal altercations between people of different races as proof of a persistent hatred embedded in white identity.

Rise of the ‘woke right’

A growing number of conservatives use incidents like Austin Metcalf’s killing to support their preferred narratives. They see Karmelo Anthony’s actions as a reflection of a much broader pathology among blacks and cite violent crime statistics to prove their point.

Some attribute these outcomes to culture, specifically the breakdown of the nuclear family and fatherlessness. Others believe the dysfunction is a matter of blood and bone, citing lower IQ scores and genetics as the main culprit.

The increasing prevalence of this rhetoric among conservatives is a microcosm of a much bigger phenomenon: the rise of the race-conscious right. Some people use “woke right” to describe this ascendant ideology, but the specific terminology is less important than the reality it describes.

The political left is notorious for making everything about race. Any incident that involves a white person doing something negative to a black person is strained through a racial prism. Police shootings and incarceration statistics are the clearest examples. Disparities in education outcomes and household income are another.

The left’s overarching narrative is that black people in America face unique obstacles because our institutions are infected with anti-black racism. No amount of evidence to the contrary moves them from that position.

Conservatives historically responded to this narrative by promoting “colorblindness,” treating people as individuals, cautioning blacks to resist self-pity, and encouraging them to embrace personal responsibility. In fact, the right regularly chastises liberals for painting police with a broad brush based on the actions of a few “bad apples.” Their message was always clear and consistent: Don’t engage in hasty judgments or sweeping generalizations that tempt you into seeing entire groups as villains or yourself as a victim.

Animus without evidence

That is no longer the case, and the parallels between the race-obsessed left and right are becoming increasingly clear.

One is assuming racial animus is at play — often without sufficient evidence — when you feel attacked by public institutions. For instance, activists on the left saw George Floyd as the living embodiment of the historical oppression black men have faced in America at the hands of racist police. That idea persists to this day, even though prosecutors stated there was no evidence Derek Chauvin’s actions were racially motivated.

The right’s rhetoric during much of Daniel Penny’s criminal trial made it clear that for some, he was the embodiment of the current persecution of white males in American society. It wasn’t just that Penny was being punished for standing up to a mentally ill homeless man. They believed that Penny was being prosecuted because the black District Attorney Alvin Bragg was bent on weaponizing the justice system against a straight white male in New York City.

Another example of conservative race-consciousness is the tendency to individualize in-group misdeeds while collectivizing the sins of out-groups. This explains why conservative commentators would never think to insert a racial descriptor when discussing teachers who have sex with students, even though it feels like every week brings another incident involving white women engaging in inappropriate conduct with teens.

Likewise, for all their time spent fighting against trans ideology, influencers on the right don’t make a habit of describing its most vocal proponents in racial terms. White abusers and perverts only have to answer for their own behavior, while black people who misbehave in public are seen as representatives of a larger group.

Both sides also make a habit of turning isolated tragedies into existential crises. Progressive pundits stoking the flames of race explain why a black man living in Brooklyn comes to feel “white supremacists” are the real threat to his life even though every shooter in his neighborhood shares his complexion. Likewise, conservatives who live in all-white neighborhoods repost old videos of black criminals halfway across the country with captions claiming their children are under attack.

From Robin DiAngelo to David Duke

Even the quick expressions of forgiveness from Austin Metcalf’s father were ridiculed by some conservatives online. This mirrors the frustration black commentators expressed after family members of Dylann Roof’s victims forgave him two days after he shot nine black churchgoers at a church in South Carolina.

One of the worst parts about the rise in right-wing race consciousness is that it was completely predictable. Progressives spent years arguing that white people are the cause of all the country’s problems. Pundits who love to lecture conservatives about embracing Ibram X. Kendi-style “antiracism” regularly said the vilest things on TV about white people. Over the past few decades, the left went from fighting against racism to publicly waging war against “whiteness.”

The fact that most of the people running the institutions — from universities to Fortune 500 companies — are white doesn’t lessen the damage. Only a complete fool would think you can demonize the largest ethnic group in your country without some type of blowback.

Unfortunately, the people pushing identity politics are long on hubris and short on wisdom. Not only do they reduce Americans down to their immutable traits, but they also create the perfect breeding ground for extremist views. Simply put, when you “sow” Robin DiAngelo, you will “reap” David Duke. This is not unique to white people. Rejection of moderation almost always leads to radicalism.

It’s not entirely clear where we go from here as a nation, but I wish both liberals and conservatives alike would turn down the racial rhetoric. This is one reason Austin Metcalf’s father pleaded with people not to make his son’s death about race or politics. Through his grief, he intuitively understands that seeing victims of crime as pieces to be moved around a cultural chessboard is a sign of a sick society that places a higher value on political narratives than on preserving life. This applies equally to the left and right.

Murder is wrong because every person is made in the image of God. It shouldn’t be hard for pundits on either side of the aisle to say.

Why Transhumanists Like Elon Musk Can Never Be Conservative

Humanity is so much more than a 'biological bootloader.'

Palmetto pretenders push ‘cut’ that costs more for most



South Carolina Republicans aren’t trying to limit government — and they don’t appreciate the Freedom Caucus pressuring them to do so. Instead, they’ve concocted a devious plan to push a bill that sounds like a flat tax but would raise taxes on most residents earning under $115,000. The goal? To trap Freedom Caucus members into opposing a bill GOP leaders intend to promote as a tax cut during campaign season.

House Speaker Murrell Smith Jr. (R) promised voters a tax cut throughout the session but didn’t reveal the bill until last week. Now we know why. The proposal would amount to a net tax increase on 66% of state tax filers, including nearly all who earn less than $115,000. Despite this, Republican leaders still hope to get the bill to Republican Gov. Henry McMaster’s desk by May 8.

Until voters start focusing on primary elections — where the real ideological battles are fought — red states will keep giving us the big government blues.

Currently, South Carolina taxes income above $17,000 at 6.2% — one of the highest rates in the low-tax Southeast. Seeking to catch up with other red states, House leaders, with support from the governor, introduced H. 4216 to implement a 3.9% flat tax. On paper, it looks like a voter-friendly reform.

But buried in the bill is a major shift: It redefines taxable income to include earnings before federal taxes and deductions. Under current law, South Carolina only taxes adjusted income after those reductions. The change would quietly increase the tax burden for most middle-income residents — even as lawmakers pitch it as a cut.

The state Freedom Caucus quickly flagged the problem, releasing an analysis showing how the bill would impact working families. Because of South Carolina’s relatively low income levels, someone earning the state’s median income would pay $716 more per year under the proposal. Lower-income families could see increases of $800 to $1,000 annually.

Even families earning $100,000 — roughly the combined salary of a married teacher and police officer — would face a net increase of $327. Taxpayers wouldn’t break even until they hit $115,000 in income. And even then, a household making $119,000 would only see a modest benefit of $93.

The Office of Revenue and Fiscal Affairs released a distributional analysis showing the percentage of taxpayers at each income level who would pay more under the proposed tax structure:

— (@)

According to the data, between 78% and 90% of those earning $20,000 to $75,000 would see their taxes go up. Even among those earning $100,000 to $150,000, about 60% would end up paying more.

While it’s reasonable to want to broaden the tax base — which any flat tax will do — you can’t call this a tax cut if the overwhelming majority of middle-class families are paying more. To deliver actual relief, lawmakers would either need to drop the flat rate even lower or apply the 3.9% rate only to income after federal taxes and deductions.

Math doesn’t lie. This isn’t a cultural dispute, a philosophical debate, or a regulatory disagreement. State leaders know exactly what the numbers say — so the real question is: Why are they still pushing this bill?

The answer is simple. They don’t want to cut spending to pay for a real tax cut. In fact, the governor is proposing a 3.5% increase in the state budget. That’s why Republicans are promoting a tax plan that isn’t a tax cut at all.

Instead, they’re laying a political trap. By presenting this proposal as tax relief, they aim to paint the Freedom Caucus as anti-tax cut — even though the bill raises taxes on the majority of state residents. A few co-sponsors have already withdrawn their names, slowing the bill’s momentum, but it’s telling that this was the strategy in the first place.

Here’s the bottom line: Once a state adopts a progressive income tax, fixing it within the current framework is almost impossible. A better path would be to follow Mississippi’s lead. It recently joined nine other states — Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming — in eliminating its income tax entirely.

South Carolina could do the same by cutting spending to offset lost revenue or transparently pairing income tax repeal with increases elsewhere. But to sell a plan that raises taxes on two-thirds of residents as a “cut” is flat-out dishonest.

Unfortunately, this move by South Carolina GOP leadership is nothing new.

A recent analysis using the Club for Growth’s conservative scorecard found that Republican House members — excluding the South Carolina Freedom Caucus — averaged just 27%. That’s barely above the average Democrat. In contrast, Freedom Caucus members averaged a score of 92%.

In other words, the ideological gap between the Freedom Caucus and the rest of the state GOP is far wider than the gap between Republicans and Democrats.

Until voters start focusing on primary elections — where the real ideological battles are fought — red states will keep giving us the big government blues.

Musk Hands Out $1 Million Checks In Green Bay Before ‘Big Deal’ WI Election

The billionaire tech titan said Tuesday's Wisconsin Supreme Court election 'might decide the future of America and Western Civilization.'