Why Biden’s targeting of Christians was EVEN WORSE than you thought



A newly released Department of Justice task force report is confirming concerns that religious Americans — particularly Christians — were unfairly targeted by their own government. And Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has seen it herself.

“We’ve been compiling this stuff for a while now, and I experienced this type of anti-Christian and really anti-religious bias as a lawyer in private practice over the last several years,” Dhillon tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck on “The Glenn Beck Program.”

“I’ll just give you one example. Our government, not just the DOJ but, you know, various aspects of the government, viewed people seeking religious accommodations to not have to get the COVID vaccination if they were government employees as not legitimate,” she explains.

“They basically internally labeled all of those accommodation requests illegitimate,” she adds.


The Supreme Court Bostock ruling, Dhillon explains, “basically made it illegitimate for any person employed by the government to have a Christian viewpoint on gay marriage and issues like that, which are very much spiritual and religious in nature.”

“And so, there was just a complete lack of respect for the Christian,” she adds.

Dhillon explains that according to a FACE Act weaponization report, “disparaging remarks were made by DOJ prosecutors in [her] department” regarding “a magistrate judge being a Catholic, keeping people of faith off of juries, and going after and seeking sentences that were more than double for Christian protesters outside abortion clinics than for really domestic terrorists going after pro-life centers in Florida.”

“So these disparities were marked, they were open, they were written down in emails. And thank goodness that we have a president today who is not just dedicated to changing that but to also documenting what happened so that people should feel ashamed to do this to other people of faith in our country because our country is founded on faith,” she continues.

“And specifically,” she adds, “on the Christian faith.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

What All Americans Can Learn From Clarence Thomas’ Life And Record-Setting Career

While his intellect and writing have become some of Thomas' most defining qualities, they are but a few of the many reasons Americans adore him.

‘We Have To Take Ownership’: Gorsuch Urges Americans To Take Self-Governance Seriously

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has a very simple message for America ahead of its 250th birthday: Take self-governance seriously or risk losing the country. The Trump appointee delivered the straightforward message while speaking at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute (RRPFI) on Tuesday. The justice’s appearance alongside his former law clerk and co-author […]

Don’t Overlook Justice Clarence Thomas’ Concurrence In Racial Gerrymandering Case

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court struck a major blow against race-based policymaking, holding that the law protects voters from discrimination, rather than mandating that states create racial gerrymanders as an ostensible corrective to discrimination. The decision builds on a string of cases whereby the Roberts Court has distinguished itself by rightly opposing present […]

Takeaways from the latest Supreme Court abortion intervention



Recently, the abortion fight had a very interesting speed bump.

On May 1, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling temporarily reinstating the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s older in-person dispensing rules for mifepristone, meaning the drug could no longer simply be prescribed through a telehealth visit and mailed directly to a woman’s home.

Then on May 4, Justice Samuel Alito issued an administrative stay temporarily blocking that order and restoring telehealth and mail distribution of mifepristone while the Supreme Court reviews emergency appeals from the drug manufacturers.

Much of the modern abortion machine depends not merely on legality, but on frictionless access, speed, and streamlined distribution.

Before anyone treats the Fifth Circuit as a crushing victory or the Supreme Court stay as a crushing defeat, it is worth slowing down and looking at what this short-lived legal tug-of-war actually revealed.

There is some good in this ruling, there is some bad in this ruling, and there is one ugly truth that ought to sober anyone who actually wants equal justice for the unborn.

The good

This brief legal battle exposed two facts.

First, modern chemical abortion has become dependent on administrative convenience. Mifepristone is the abortion industry’s preferred first drug in the standard two-pill abortion regimen because it makes the process cleaner, more predictable, and more efficient.

It works by blocking progesterone, the hormone necessary to sustain pregnancy, thereby beginning the death process in the womb. Twenty-four to 48 hours later, a second drug — misoprostol — is taken to induce contractions and expel the dead or dying child.

The Fifth Circuit did not stop chemical abortion by mail, but it did briefly interfere with the abortion industry’s preferred method of remotely prescribing and mailing that first drug. Even that narrow disruption was enough to trigger immediate panic, legal scrambling, and emergency appeals.

That panic shows how much of the modern abortion machine depends not merely on legality, but on frictionless access, speed, and streamlined distribution.

The second fact is just how thin these celebrated legal victories really are. Within three days, the Supreme Court had already suspended the order. So if there is any good here, it is simply that Americans got a brief glimpse at both the abortion industry’s dependence on convenience and the judiciary’s inability to do anything more than create temporary procedural turbulence.

The bad

Chemical abortion was not outlawed. Telehealth abortion was not abolished. Mail-order abortion was not damaged in any lasting or comprehensive sense.

One particular drug in the standard regimen briefly faced restored in-person dispensing requirements. That was all.

Even had the Fifth Circuit order remained in place, abortion providers were already prepared to adjust. Misoprostol can be used by itself as an abortion method. Providers can alter prescribing practices. The abortion industry has never shown itself to be incapable of adapting.

Women may still obtain abortion pills, providers may still facilitate chemical abortions, and mail-in abortion still remains. The machinery of child killing was never prohibited. One preferred cog in the machine was briefly adjusted. That is all.

RELATED: The judgment behind the abortion numbers

SUZANNE CORDEIRO/AFP/Getty Images

The ugly

The ugliest part of this ruling is not legal, but moral. Because once again, America is being taught to celebrate procedural management in place of equal justice.

The central question before any civilized legal system should be painfully simple: Does the child in the womb possess the same right not to be intentionally killed as every other innocent human being?

Neither the Fifth Circuit ruling nor the Supreme Court stay answers yes. Neither criminalizes the act of chemical abortion, recognizes the unborn child as a rights-bearing victim, or places the mother or provider under homicide law.

This entire legal fight is over whether one preferred poison may move through one preferred channel under one preferred federal rule.

That is not equal protection.

It is the same perverse legal language America has spoken for decades: not that the child must not be killed, but that the child may be killed under approved procedural conditions while judges supervise the administrative details.

That is the ugly truth.

This week’s courtroom chaos may restrict one preferred abortion protocol on Friday and restore it on Monday, but it leaves the underlying legal fiction untouched — that some humans may still be intentionally destroyed so long as the state is satisfied with the process.

Jackson Accuses SCOTUS Of ‘Partiality’ She And Her Fellow Liberal Justices Are Guilty Of

If Jackson and her liberal colleagues had any interest in the Supreme Court avoiding 'the appearance of partiality,' they'd cut their left-wing political theater.

Supreme Court Clears Way For Louisiana To Redraw House Map Before 2026 Primaries

'This period is subject to adjustment'

Alito shreds Ketanji Brown Jackson's unhinged dissent to SCOTUS' demand that Louisiana immediately redistrict



The U.S. Supreme Court issued a hugely consequential 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais last week, striking down the Bayou State's controversial 2024 congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and providing some much-needed clarity on "whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting."

Democrats and other liberals — including Justice Elena Kagan — condemned the ruling, construing it as a gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and a setback for racial minority representation in American politics.

Less than a week after its monumental ruling, the high court gave critics another reason to rend their garments.

'The dissent's rhetoric ... lacks restraint.'

While it customarily waits 32 days after a ruling to issue its judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday granted Louisiana Republicans' request to fast-track the process and immediately finalize its opinion in the case, thereby enabling the Bayou State to draw a new congressional map favoring the GOP in time for the 2026 midterm elections.

The court noted in its unsigned order that the usual 32-day delay ordinarily affords the "losing party time to file a petition for rehearing"; however, in this case, the defenders of the unconstitutional gerrymander "have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment."

RELATED: Obama, Mamdani, other Democrats throw ugly tantrums after SCOTUS strikes racial gerrymander

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. JACQUELYN MARTIN/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Absent that expression of intent or any opposition from Louisiana, the court allowed its ruling to go into effect immediately, prompting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to lash out at her colleagues in an unhinged four-page dissent.

"The Court's decision in these cases has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana," Jackson said in her opening salvo.

After criticizing Louisiana's eagerness to ditch its unlawful congressional map in the wake of the Callais ruling, Jackson said that "to avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures. But, today, the Court chooses the opposite."

Jackson said further that the court's expedited certification of the ruling "is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana's rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map" and represents an abandonment of constraints and principles that is "unwarranted and unwise."

Evidently it was Justice Samuel Alito's turn to dunk on Jackson over the latest in her series of trademark screeds.

Alito underscored in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch that the charges leveled in Jackson's dissent "cannot go unanswered."

The conservative justice pointed out that if Jackson had her way, the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana would be "held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional," and that the Biden-nominated justice had failed to make the case for why it is somehow now too late for Louisiana to adopt a new, constitutionally compliant map and "not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map."

In response to the two reasons Jackson did provide for dooming Louisiana to use an unconstitutional map in the midterm elections — first, that the court should observe the customary 32-day delay, and second, that the court should do so to avoid the appearance of bias — Alito wrote that "one is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting."

Turning on its head the assertion by Jackson that an expedited ruling-certification process screams bias, Alito noted that the Biden-nominated justice failed to explain why "unthinking compliance" with the custom "does not create the appearance of partiality (by running out the clock) on behalf of those who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map."

Alito called Jackson's claim that the decision represents an unprincipled use of power "a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge."

The conservative justice concluded, "The dissent accuses the Court of 'unshackl[ing]' itself from 'constraints.' It is the dissent's rhetoric that lacks restraint."

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

Alito Torches Jackson’s ‘Trivial’ And ‘Insulting’ Hot Take On Supreme Court’s Latest Callais Order

"The dissent accuses the Court of 'unshackl[ing]' itself from 'constraints.' ... It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint," wrote Justice Alito.

3 Clever Ways To Pass The SAVE America Act If Republicans Keep Stonewalling

If Congress cannot quickly pass the SAVE America Act, policymakers should focus on what can be done now to advance its core provisions.