Sunday, April 28, 2024
spot_imgspot_img
Sunday, April 28, 2024

Milwaukee Press Club 'Excellence in Wisconsin Journalism' 2020 & 2021 Award Winners

What is a Woman?

spot_img

What is a Woman? It’s the question you’re not allowed to ask. The documentary they don’t want you to see. Join Matt Walsh on his often comical, yet deeply disturbing journey, as he fearlessly questions the logic behind a gender ideology movement that has taken aim at women and children.

How to Watch What is a Woman?

A membership to The Daily Wire is required. You can watch “What is a Woman?” here.


What Is a Woman? movie review: We give the new Matt Walsh film 5 of 5 stars.

Movie critics have shunned Matt Walsh’s epic and brilliant documentary “What Is a Woman?” although more than 110 million people have watched it. That’s okay; the country’s elite critics are making themselves irrelevant in a central debate of our times.

Because the mission of Wisconsin Right Now – Wisconsin’s top conservative news site – is to give you the news the liberal elites censor, we have decided to write a What Is a Woman? movie review most news sites wouldn’t dare. Walsh pointed out on Twitter that only six movie critics had written reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and none from major sites. The IMDb page for the movie says, “The reviews for the film were hidden on Letterboxd.” That’s just wrong. It’s also revealing.

Into this zeitgeist comes Walsh, the Daily Wire podcaster and commentator with a deadpan style that is far more effective and harder to refute than flame-throwing.

To some degree, Walsh’s documentary is a statement on censorship. It’s worth noting that the documentary would have reached far fewer eyes if Elon Musk hadn’t purchased Twitter. What the left can’t argue, they censor. This plays out in interview after interview, where Walsh’s carefully worded, completely legitimate questions eventually cause squirming interview subjects to shut down a conversation they can’t win.

There’s a power shift happening in America, and it started with the concerns of parents at a local level bubbling up to the national stage. The free flow of information is essential. Middle America – and science and common sense – are moving past the left at warp speed, and they don’t even realize it. Simply put, the elite left has lost the argument because they don’t control all platforms to reach audiences anymore (thank you, Elon). They win only through censorship and silencing.

By trying to redefine (or even eradicate) womanhood, the liberal elites have dramatically overplayed their hands. Just ask Target or Bud Lite or the Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, School District. Frankly, we’re surprised that LGBTQ adults aren’t more upset. Going after children is setting their movement back decades.

The biggest mistake the left has made is trying to supplant parents’ decision-making authority with that of liberal educators’. A parental movement that organized and grew in opposition to the excesses of masks and COVID-era online schooling has shifted its focus with a ferocity to trans-indoctrination and mutilation of kids. Liberals make a critical mistake if they think this debate is limited to the far corners of the right or Kid Rock shooting a commemorative beer can. If given the information, few parents will side with the left on this.

“What if my truth is that you no longer exist?” Walsh asks a woman, who says, “I mean if that’s your truth sure, I don’t.”

“But you do because we’re having this conversation,” says Walsh.

“Can you tell me what a cat is?” he asks another person on the streets of San Francisco. A pediatrician objects to Walsh using the word “drugs” to refer to medical treatments given to juveniles after he points out that the drug, Lupron, is also used to chemically castrate sex offenders. She thinks calling drugs “drugs” is harmful.

Sample conversation in Walsh’s film:

“What is a woman?”

“If people feel they’re a woman, they’re a woman.”

“Yes, but what is that?”

“This conversation is over!”

Contrast this with the words of blunt store owner, Don Sucher, who declares that it’s all “common sense.”

“How do I know I’m a man? Because I’ve got a d*ck,” he states.

A slight criticism: One of the most powerful segments in the Walsh documentary focused on hospitals performing mutilation surgeries on minors and exposing them to hormones for which society lacks research documenting the long-term consequences. Walsh interviews Scott Newgent, who describes the horror of the surgical procedures involved in transitioning, even showing the documentarian a mutilated arm which tissue for a penis was harvested from.

This is horrifying. We think the hospital mutilation angle could have been spun into a second documentary so the angle did not get somewhat lost (read Wisconsin Right Now’s recent investigative article in which we document – in the hospitals’ own spokespeople’s words – the fact that two major Wisconsin hospitals are performing mastectomies on gender dysphoric juveniles and injecting them with hormones that even the FDA has not approved for this use).

Walsh fought initial censorship by Twitter until Musk reversed it and pinned the documentary to the top of his page. The documentary discusses a Canadian father jailed for using the “wrong pronoun” for his daughter and penalized for speaking out against his underage daughter being given hormones to transition without his consent; a Virginia school board that tries to limit debate (until Walsh ingeniously moves into town to qualify); and a Dr. Phil episode that was taken down when the other participants claimed Walsh’s questions caused them “emotional damage.”

To further a new age of censorship, the left has absurdly decided that conservative opinions (and even the “truth”) are actual violence (case in point: Tom Cotton and his New York Times editorial).

But what makes the question “What is a woman?” so incredibly terrifying to the left?

Because they can’t answer it.

Their definition is not based on “truth,” as Walsh argues, but rather a distortion of it. Walsh’s thesis: Their answers are based on feelings and emotion, contradicting reason and science (XX, not XY). It’s the difference between subjective and objective truth. They want us to believe gender is a social construction when they’re the ones constructing it.

“The biological differences between the sexes have long been recognized at the biochemical and cellular levels. Rapid advances in molecular biology have revealed the genetic and molecular bases of a number of sex-based differences in health and human disease, some of which are attributed to sexual genotype—XX in the female and XY in the male,” explains a research article available on the National Library of Medicine. “Every cell has a sex,” says the header.

Walsh twists their logic on his interview subjects (therapists, a Congressman, a pediatrician). For example, they think it’s fine for kids to feel their gender is something else, but kids have such imaginations they believe in Santa Claus. If people can pick their gender because of how they feel then why can’t they pick their race? These are questions Walsh poses.

The film brings one to the inescapable conclusion that gender and sex are the same thing. As the documentary points out, there are men who are more feminine in characteristics or traits than others, and there are girls who are tomboys, but that doesn’t make them something they are not. Sex is not “assigned” by a doctor at birth; it’s determined by biology and God. Men and women are simply not built similarly; just ask the female swimmers who lost to Lia Thomas. Walsh does.

Walsh’s 1.5-hour-long documentary exploring sex and “gender” is a brilliant expose of the insanity of liberal elites. It’s hard not to watch Walsh’s movie and not come away with the reality that a large portion of the United States has completely lost its mind.

One baffled look or smile on the Maasai African tribal members’ faces (visited by Walsh, who asked them about the roles of men and women) proves that point. “We have never seen things like this,” the Maasai warrior says, apparently thinking it’s all nuts. Perhaps the entire “gender” debate is the luxury of a society with too much time on its hands.

Contrast their simple truths to the byzantine logic of the professor Walsh visits who babbles on about “constructs” and is “really uncomfortable” with the language “getting to the truth,” which he considers “deeply transphobic.”

“If I probe about what the truth is?” Walsh says the professor, adding that “we should begin figuring out what the reality is.”

At one point, on the Dr. Phil show (in an episode later censored), Walsh is accused of being extreme and points out that he’s just articulating a position that society held since the beginning of time. Until now, in America. How and when did that become extreme? Why should we fear making these points? Why has America become a country where you fear exercising freedom of speech (as witnessed by a Thomas teammate who was interviewed in shadows for the documentary, although she’s since allowed Walsh to use her name)?

His expose of the forebears of the “gender identity” movement – including Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey, who “wanted to rid society of Judeo-Christian values when it came to sexuality” and believed “children are sexual from birth” – is very disturbing. Kinsey based his data on convicted sex offenders, and performed “horrific sexual experiments on children, some under the age of 1,” according to Walsh, but he remains celebrated by Hollywood and academia, and his work is the foundation for current teachings in schools.

John Money, a psychologist and university professor, who coined the terms gender identity and gender roles, according to Walsh, believed babies were “gender neutral at birth.” He experimented on a pair of twins, according to Walsh. One ended up committing suicide.

“During the twin’s psychiatric visits with Money, and as part of his research, (Bruce) Reimer and his twin brother were directed to inspect one another’s genitals and engage in behavior resembling sexual intercourse,” according to an article on the Arizona State University website.

Walsh’s understated style – he doesn’t need to throw flames to make a point – emphasizes his interview subjects’ absurdities. There is a point in each interview where they each suddenly realize that they’ve been had. When they can no longer answer his (legitimate) questions without looking like fools, they end the interviews.

In an effort to “understand the truth,” Walsh traverses the country, setting up interviews with therapists and doctors.

In one of the most ingenious segments, he heads into the bowels of a “women’s march.” If anyone should be able to answer the question “What is a woman,” it’s women wearing pink vagina hats. Instead, they bumble over the answer and chant that he’s an “as*hole.” If you can’t answer the question, call people names to shut down the debate.

We wish the film had explored the silence of the feminists more, perhaps tracking down Gloria Steinem. If you don’t have women, you don’t have women’s rights, so where are they? They fought tooth and nail to give women sports equality, so why are they not standing behind Riley Gaines?

Walsh is like a more understated and sophisticated Borat, only he’s skewering the left, and they’re the ones in costume (note on “furries” – there’s a handful of them in our kids’ schools. Just ask them.)

Walsh’s documentary could be called, “What is the truth?”

After watching Walsh’s movie, all but the most indoctrinated will plainly see the answer and the most indoctrinated will have to pause.

What is a woman? It’s like that old U.S. Supreme Court definition of obscenity: You know it when you see it (or her).

Wisconsin Supreme Court Redistricting Hearing Wisconsin should soon have an answer about ballot drop boxes and just who can return absentee ballots. wisconsin supreme court

Wisconsin Pro-life Groups Tell Supreme Court There’s No Right to Abortion

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s pro-life groups are unified in telling the Wisconsin Supreme Court it is not the court’s job to create a right to abortion.

Wisconsin Right to Life, Wisconsin Family Action and Pro-Life Wisconsin all filed a joint brief with the court that argues there is no right to abortion and add that if there is to be one, that decision is up to lawmakers.

“The Supreme Court is not the proper venue to create health and safety law nor the proper mechanism to add a constitutional amendment. The legislature is the proper body to weigh the policy considerations and create law, not the court,” Wisconsin Family Action president Christine File said.

“Finding a right to abortion in our state constitution, where there clearly is none, would be the most extreme form of legislating from the bench,” Dan Miller, state director at Pro-Life Wisconsin, said. “The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled in Dobbs that there is no federal constitutional right to abortion. Nothing in Wisconsin’s constitution or the history of our state would remotely suggest such a right. We implore the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reject Planned Parenthood’s radical and self-serving plans.”

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin in February asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide if there is a right to abortion in the state.

The Supreme Court has accepted the case, and the filing from Wisconsin’s pro-life groups is in response to that case.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty also filed a brief in the case.

“There is no right to an abortion in Wisconsin’s Constitution. No judge, justice, or lawyer should be creating policy for Wisconsinites out of thin air. Reversing Roe v. Wade through the Dobbs decision rightfully placed the abortion issue back where it should have been all along – in the halls of state legislatures,” WILL Deputy Counsel Luke Berg said. “That’s where the debate and conversation must remain.”

The court is expecting responses from everyone involved in the case by today. The court has not said when it expects to hear oral arguments.

trump waukesha

President Trump Will Hold Rally in Waukesha on May 1; How to Get Tickets

President Donald J. Trump will travel to Waukesha, Wisconsin, on May 1 "to contrast the...
barry braatz

Washington County DA Candidate Barry Braatz Promises to ‘Hold Criminals Accountable,’ Gets Big Endorsement

"I will work side-by-side with law enforcement to hold criminals accountable" - Barry Braatz. Barry Braatz,...
Evers Vetoes

Senator Dan Knodl: Evers Vetoes Cast Shadow Over End of Tax Season

For taxpayers, it has been a symbolically momentous week. Tax Day arrived as usual on...
Trump Holds Cash Special Counsel Jack Smith Iowa Victory for Trump Remove Trump From Primary Ballot

Prosecutors Begin Laying Out Case Against Trump to Jury

Federal prosecutors on Monday began laying out what they say is election fraud in 2016 by former President Donald Trump.

Trump, 77, is the first former U.S. president to be charged with a felony. Prosecutors and defense attorneys presented their opening statements to the jury of five women and seven men.

Prosecutors said Trump corrupted the 2016 election, The Hill reported on Monday.

"This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up," Manhattan prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said. "The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election, then covered it up."

Trump will spend four days a week in court in New York for the next six to eight weeks on state charges that he disguised hush money payments to two women as legal expenses during the 2016 election. Judge Juan Merchan has not scheduled trial days on Wednesdays.

On Monday, his defense attorneys said he had done nothing wrong.

"President Trump is innocent," Trump attorney Todd Blanche told the jury. "He did not commit any crimes. The Manhattan district attorney's office should never have brought this case."

Trump pleaded not guilty in April 2023 to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

Merchan's gag order remains in place, ordered last month before the trial began. Trump, the nation's 45th president, is prohibited from making or directing others to make public statements about witnesses concerning their potential participation or about counsel in the case or about court staff, district attorney staff or family members of staff.

Prosecutors said Trump's $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels was falsely covered up as a business expense, that the money was to help keep her quiet. Prosecutors say they had a sexual encounter.

Prosecutors also said Trump paid Karen McDougal, a Playboy magazine "Playmate," and reimbursed then attorney and fixer Michael Cohen to cover it up.

"This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior," Colangelo said. "It was election fraud, pure and simple."

Reuters reported that Blanche countered that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg should have never brought the case to trial.

"There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election" Blanche said. "It's called democracy. They put something sinister on this idea, as if it's a crime."

Prosecutors say Trump falsified internal records kept by his company, hiding the true nature of payments that involve Daniels ($130,000), McDougal ($150,000), and Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen ($420,000). Prosecutors say the money was logged as legal expenses, not reimbursements. In a reversal of past close relationships now pivotal to the prosecution against him, both Cohen and Daniels are expected to testify.

Under New York state law, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony that carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison.

Even if convicted and sentenced to jail, Trump could continue his campaign to return to the White House. He's facing the Democratic incumbent who ousted him in 2020, 81-year-old President Joe Biden.

Trump faces 88 felony charges spread across four cases in Florida, Georgia, New York and Washington.Trump has said the criminal and civil trials he faces are designed to keep him from winning the 2024 rematch versus Biden.

Waukesha County DA Declines Charges in Brandtjen Campaign Finance Case

(The Center Square) – Another local prosecutor declined to bring charges against a Republican state lawmaker in a campaign funding raising case.

Waukesha County’s District Attorney Sue Opper said she would not file charges against state Rep. Janel Brandtjen. But Opper said she is not clearing Brandtjen in the case.

“I am simply concluding that I cannot prove charges against her. While the intercepted communications, such as audio recordings may be compelling in the court of public opinion, they are not in a court of law,” Opper said.

Wisconsin’s Ethics Commission suggested charges against Brandtjen and a handful of others in a case that investigators say saw them move money around to allegedly skirt Wisconsin’s limits on campaign donations.

Opper said the Ethics Commission investigation was based on “reasonable suspicion and then probable cause.” But she added that those “burdens are substantially lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is necessary for a criminal conviction.”

Opper said the Ethic Commission could pursue a civil case against Brandtjen and the others. She also opened the door to other investigations.

“This decision does not clear Rep. Brandtjen of any wrongdoing, there is just not enough evidence to move forward to let a factfinder decide,” Opper said.

She’s the fourth local prosecutor in the state to decide against filing charges.

Jack Smith Enticing Illegal Immigration Overturns Gov Evers Legislative Maps Arizona Elections Cases

Some Good News Out of Court Lately [Up Against the Wall]

Finally, a few correct court decisions. It’s about time. First, out of the U.S. Supreme Court,...
Speaker Johnson

As Threat to Remove Speaker Johnson Looms, Cooler Heads Should Prevail [WRN VOICES]

Trump gets it. We all need to get it. We currently find ourselves in the...
Brad Schimel

Brad Schimel Says He Won’t Repeat Mistakes of Last Supreme Court Race

(The Center Square) – Judge Brad Schmiel says he’s not going to repeat the mistakes of the last supreme court race in Wisconsin.

Schimel told News Talk 1130 WISN’s Jay Weber he isn’t going to politicize the race like liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz, and he’s not going to ignore his campaign like former conservative Justice Dan Kelly.

Schimel said he can run for the court next year without injecting Republican politics into the court.

“I've had plenty of people on our side that suggested ‘Brad, you just got to do the same.’ No. I cannot do that,” Schimel said. “We still have to respect the rule of law. We still have to respect the Constitution. We still have to respect judicial ethics. I'm not going to go out and promise people what I'm going to do. But I will promise people that they can look at my record, and they know that I've done the right thing. That I have put the law above politics. I put the law above my own personal opinions.”

Republicans roundly criticized Protasiewicz for her comments about abortion and Wisconsin’s state legislative maps during the 2023 campaign.

Republicans also roundly criticized former Justice Dan Kelly, who lost to Protasiewicz, for his perceived lack of campaigning.

“We couldn’t have put a brighter, more reliable conservative on the Wisconsin Supreme Court than Dan Kelly,” Schmiel added. “But, with the campaign there were some mistakes that were made.”

Chief among them, Schimel said, was Kelly’s decision to reject money from the Wisconsin Republican Party that could have gone toward TV ads.

Schimel said that left Kelly at a huge disadvantage.

“Janet Protasiewicz took almost $10 million from the state [Democratic] Party. Dan took the money too late. He realized ‘Oh my gosh, I'm going to get burned on this.’ By the time he took it the best ad buys were gone, and he wasn't able to spend the money effectively,” Schimel said. “He spent $585,000 on TV. That was what his campaign spent. Janet Protasiewicz’s campaign spent $10.5 million. When you are out-spent 20-to-one on TV, you better just start writing your concession speech.”

Schmiel vowed not to be outspent this time around.

“I have made it clear. I will take all legal, ethical contributions to my campaign because we have to win,” Schimel said. “Because we have to stop standing on this hill of principle that we end up dying on.”

Defund NPR

Multiple Bills Introduced in Congress to Defund NPR

Several U.S. House Republicans introduced multiple pieces of legislation to defund National Public Radio following new allegations of “leftist propaganda” from the taxpayer-funded news source.

House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good, R-Va., Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., and Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., introduced similar legislation to prohibit federal funding for NPR, including barring local public radio stations from utilizing money from federal grants to “purchase content or pay dues to NPR.”

Over the years, Republicans have made multiple attempts to defund NPR, citing similar complaints. The latest outrage follows an editorial from former NPR Editor Uri Berliner, who criticized the news source claiming it had "lost America's trust."

Berliner criticized NPR’s coverage of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the COVID-19 lab leak theory and of Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop as examples of the outlet’s left-leaning bias. He described “the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity.”

Banks took aim at NPR’s new Chief Executive Officer Katherine Maher, who has expressed criticism of the First Amendment in efforts to combat “misinformation.”

“NPR’s new CEO is a radical, left-wing activist who doesn’t believe in free speech or objective journalism. Hoosiers shouldn’t be writing her paychecks. Katherine Maher isn’t qualified to teach an introductory journalism class, much less capable of responsibly spending millions of American tax dollars,” said Banks.

The Indiana congressman continued by describing the news outlet as a “liberal looney bin” under prior leadership, drawing attention to a systemic problem.

“It’s time to pull the plug on this national embarrassment. Congress must stop spending other people’s hard-earned money on low grade propaganda,” Banks lamented.

Good was a bit more reserved in his take-down of the news outlet.

“It is bad enough that so many media outlets push their slanted views instead of reporting the news, but it is even more egregious for hardworking taxpayers to be forced to pay for it. National Public Radio has a track record of promoting anti-American narratives on the taxpayer dime,” Good said in a news release. “My legislation would ensure no taxpayer dollars are used to fund the woke, leftist propaganda of National Public Radio.”

Tenney, a former newspaper owner and publisher, accused NPR of using taxpayer funds to “manipulate” and promote a political agenda controlled by “left-wing activists.”

"I understand the importance of non-partisan, balanced media coverage, and have seen first-hand the left-wing bias in our news media. These disturbing reports out of NPR confirm what many have known for a long time: NPR is using American taxpayer dollars to manipulate the news and lie to the American people on behalf of a political agenda. It’s past time the American people stop footing the bill for NPR, and the partisan, left-wing activists that control it," Tenney said in a news release.

The lawmakers cited the political make-up of the NPR’s D.C. news team, which they say includes 87 registered Democrats and no registered Republicans.

The Center Square uncovered records showing that Maher exclusively donated to Democratic political candidates before her role at NPR. Her largest donation of $1,500 was given to Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello in 2017, and most frequently donated to Virginia state Sen. Jennifer Carroll Foy, in the amounts of $25 over nine times.

Good underscored the original purpose for the publicly funded news outlet, which he says was “created to be an educational news source and to ‘speak with many voices.’” He added that NPR has now become “a primary outlet for advancing biased and radical media coverage of political and social issues.”

Eric Hovde TIES Wisconsin Senate Race Against Sen. Tammy Baldwin With Likely Voters

It all adds up to one thing: Tammy Baldwin and Joe Biden are in trouble...

Fond du Lac County DA Eric Toney Endorses Jim Piwowarczyk for Assembly

Former Republican Attorney General Candidate and Fond du Lac County DA Eric Toney has endorsed...

Senator Ron Johnson to Speak at Concordia University [Canceled]

Update: This event has been canceled. Ron Johnson was held up in Washington DC. The Young...

Israel & Iran – The War Escalates | Up Against the Wall

Well, like I said, the war would escalate so long as Biden shows a lack...
trump, derrick van orden

We Asked a Wisconsin U.S. Rep., ‘What Is Donald Trump Really Like?’ The Answer Will Make You Tear Up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g0YE9DQNL8 "What is Donald Trump really like?" we asked Wisconsin Congressman Derrick Van Orden, a Republican...
derrick van orden

Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden: FISA Amendment Would Have Given Protections to 9/11 Terrorists

https://youtu.be/bzqQ7sgQLec?si=96g0cUP5vc64jCQX Wisconsin Congressman Derrick Van Orden, a Republican who served as a Navy SEAL, says he...

The COVID Generation: Let’s Stop Scaring Our Kids [WRN Voices]

As a local school board member, I have witnessed firsthand many of the issues of...

Rep. Janel Brandtjen: Threats to WEC Chief Don’t Help

(The Center Square) – One of the biggest critics of Wisconsin’s election administrator says no one should be threatening her and says threats don’t help fix election integrity issues.

State Rep. Janel Brandtjen, R-Menomonee Falls, on Tuesday offered her thoughts after the Wisconsin Elections Commission confirmed elections administrator Meagan Wolfe is receiving extra security protection.

"Threatening Administrator Meagan Wolfe, or any election official, is unacceptable and counterproductive. Venting frustrations on individuals like Wolfe, clerks, or poll workers is not only illegal but also harmful to rebuilding trust in our elections,” Brandtjen said. “Threats only undermine our republic and empower the courts and media. It's essential to address any concerns about election processes through legal channels. Threats have no place in our democracy.”

Brandtjen has been one of Wisconsin’s loudest critics of Wolfe. She led hearings as far back as 2021 into Wolfe’s role in the 2020 election. Brandtjen also led the push to get Wolfe removed from the Elections Commission.

“Wolfe’s term has indeed expired, and according to Wisconsin Statutes 15.61(1)(b)1, she should be removed, but Republicans are too worried about the press or too compromised to follow existing law.” Brandtjen said.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission on Monday clarified that Wolfe is receiving extra security but refused to offer any details.

“The Wisconsin Elections Commission has had productive conversations about safety and security with state leadership, including the governor’s office, which is tasked with approving security measures for state government officials,” WEC spokesperson Riley Vetterkind said in a statement. “Those conversations have resulted in additional security measures being approved for Administrator Wolfe and the WEC when the need arises.”

Brandtjen on Tuesday blamed Wisconsin Republicans, and once again blamed Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, for Wolfe’s continued time on the Elections Commission.

“It's disappointing that Sen. Dan Knodl and Rep. Scott Krug, chairs of the election committees, have not exercised their investigative and subpoena powers. This inaction has allowed the neglect of essential laws, such as providing ballots to individuals declared incompetent, lack of checks in military ballot requests, an insecure online system, and improper guidance on voting for homeless individuals without proper documentation,” she said. “The Legislature, particularly Speaker Vos' control, is responsible for the frustration caused by election irregularities due to their inaction.”

Wisconsin’s local election managers have reported an uptick in threats and angry rhetoric since the 2020 election, and some local election offices have taken extra precautions. But there haven’t been any cases in Wisconsin where someone has acted on an election threat.

Wisconsin’s Largest Business Group Sues Over Evers’ 400-year School Funding Veto

(The Center Square) – There is now a legal challenge to Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year school funding veto.

The WMC Litigation Center on Monday asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take up their challenge to the governor’s summer veto that increased per-pupil funding for the next four centuries.

“At issue is Gov. Evers’ use of the so-called ‘Vanna White’ or ‘pick-a-letter’ veto,” the group said in a statement. “The governor creatively eliminated specific numbers in a portion of the budget bill that was meant to increase the property tax levy limit for school districts in the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years. By striking individual digits, the levy limit would instead be increased from the years 2023 to 2425 – or four centuries into the future.”

The WMC Litigation Center is an affiliate of Wisconsin Manufactures & Commerce (WMC), the combined state chamber and manufacturers’ association.

Litigation Center Executive Director Scott Rosenow said while Wisconsin’s governor has an incredibly powerful veto pen, there are limits.

“No Wisconsin governor has the authority to strike individual letters or digits to form a new word or number, except when reducing appropriations,” Rosenow said. “This action is not only unconstitutional on its face, but it is undemocratic because this specific partial veto allows school districts to raise property taxes for the next 400 years without voter approval.”

Wisconsin lawmakers and voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1990 that put limits on the governor’s veto power.

Rosenow and the WMC Litigation Center say the governor’s veto goes beyond those limits.

The legal challenge also raises the constitutional issue that all state spending has to originate with, and be approved by, the legislature.

“In no uncertain terms, 402 years is not less than or part of the two-year duration approved by the Legislature – it is far more,” concluded Rosenow. “The governor overstepped his authority with this partial veto, at the expense of taxpayers, and we believe oversight by the Court is necessary.”

The WMC Litigation Center is asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case as quickly as possible.

Let’s Thank Rep. August, Sen. Wimberger, & WI Voters For Ending Zuckerbucks

Remember when Elon Musk challenged Mark Zuckerberg to a cage match? That fight between Twitter/Threads billionaires...