EXCLUSIVE: A new conservative group has formed with the purpose of analyzing the votes and policies of federal and state lawmakers and assigning them a grade ‘based on the limited government principles of the U.S. Constitution.’

The group, the Institute for Legislative Analysis (ILA), describes its mission as ‘advancing the limited government principles of the U.S. Constitution by increasing transparency within Congress and the 50 state legislatures’ and uses what it calls a ‘Limited Government Index’ to calculate whether an individual lawmaker leans toward a larger role for government or a more limited one.

According to the ILA, the index assigns grades by using thousands of votes and roll calls from each individual legislator, including votes on amendments and procedural motions, leading to a ‘much greater ability to pinpoint exactly where lawmakers stand across the full spectrum of issues.’

The large data set has allowed the group to develop a categorization system that constituents can view to find out their lawmaker’s score across 10 different policy fields. The fields include national and local security, tax and fiscal, energy and environment, workforce and labor, law and scope of government, individual liberties, health care and regulations.

The ILA says this type of grading provides greater insight into an individual lawmaker’s votes rather than a percentage score like those given by other rating groups. The higher the rating, the more limited the lawmaker treats the role of government; the lower the rating, the larger the lawmaker treats the role of government.

The group currently has detailed scores for every member of Congress, and it will be deploying the same system toward every member of all 50 state legislatures in the future.

Speaking with Fox News Digital, ILA President Fred McGrath and CEO Ryan McGowan said the new ratings index can provide crucial information to voters about their respective representatives in Congress and in state legislatures, and it would help them have all necessary information when deciding for whom to cast their vote.

‘We created the ILA to build a legislative scorecard platform with only one agenda – measuring each lawmaker’s adherence to the limited government principles of the U.S. Constitution,’ McGowan said. ‘By equipping the leading advocacy groups with our research and technology, more Americans will have the data needed to effectively hold their lawmakers accountable and make more informed decisions at the ballot box.’

McGrath added, ‘The reality is a number of Americans don’t know who represents them – especially at the state level – let alone how their elected officials vote. Not only do scorecards educate voters on the key policies, but the transparency they provide significantly impacts the votes and policy positions of lawmakers.’

Click here to find your respective lawmakers’ grade.

FIRST ON FOX – Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., announced Monday he will be chairing a congressional hearing on the Biden administration’s ‘push to enter an international pandemic treaty that could cede American sovereignty to the World Health Organization (WHO).’ 

Smith, who chairs a subcommittee concerned with global health and human rights organizations, first raised concerns last May when the White House offered amendments to the WHO’s international health regulations, which the congressman said would grant new unilateral authority to the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health crisis in the United States and/or other sovereign nations without any consultation with the U.S. or any other WHO member states.

Specifically, Smith said, the Biden amendment would strike the current regulation that requires the WHO to ‘consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring in,’ an action he says would be ceding the United States’ ability to declare and respond to an infectious disease outbreak within the U.S. and be dependent on the judgment of the United Nations. 

Smith said top officials from the Biden administration will be invited to testify, but it’s not yet clear who those officials will be. 

Smith’s office says they hope to hold the hearing next month. 

‘Under absolutely no circumstances should the Biden administration surrender American sovereignty to the World Health Organization and allow the voice of the American people and consent of the governed to be subjugated to dictates of an agenda-driven global administrative bureaucracy,’ Smith said. 

‘The American people have a right to know exactly what the Biden administration is negotiating at the WHO, especially as the president remains silent and fails to reassure us that he will protect our Constitution from bureaucrats at this troubled United Nations body,’ said Smith.

Smith said the hearing will help bring greater public scrutiny and ‘much-needed transparency’ to the administration’s ‘aggressive efforts to enter this new accord with the WHO, which took disastrous missteps during the COVID-19 pandemic.’ 

The WHO has had a zero-draft treaty in the works for at least a year. Amendments will be considered in an upcoming meeting in July. A vote to adopt a final version of the treaty will likely take place in 2024. 

Smith says the zero-draft WHO pandemic treaty starts off with ‘very harsh criticism of the United States and the international community by calling it a ‘catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.”

Article 4 of the treaty, he says, ‘pays lip service to sovereignty and then completely overcomes that lip service by saying, ‘provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries.” 

He says that language ’empowers the WHO to step in and prescribe what each country would do.’

Article 10, Smith claims, says the United States would be obligated to provide 20% of its medical supplies – including tests, vaccines, medications and the like – to the WHO. 

‘They would say, ‘We want it, you have to provide it,’’ he said.

‘My colleagues and I look forward to having the Biden administration address these grave concerns that have rightfully alarmed many American citizens, including me,’ said Smith Monday.

EXCLUSIVE: Fox News has learned that more than 100 former Trump administration officials have formed a growing coalition backing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to be the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nominee.

According to multiple sources within the group, officially known as ‘The Eight-Year Alliance,’ DeSantis is ‘a proven winner,’ a contender with a depth of policy proven by what he’s accomplished at the state level, and a leader who ‘does what he says.’

The primary motivation of the group, the sources said, is to promote a candidate they feel would be a viable contender for two presidential terms, something they see in DeSantis. They also want to prevent former President Donald Trump ‘immediately becoming a lame-duck president’ should he win back the White House, considering the polarizing affect his persona has had on American politics.

The group includes former Acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio, former Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense Will Bushman, former Counselor to the Secretary and White House Liaison at the Department of Labor Pedro Allende, former Senior Counsel and Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Commerce James Uthmeier and Principal Deputy General Counsel at the Department of Commerce David Dewhirst.

Uthmeier, who currently serves as DeSantis’ chief of staff in Tallahassee, and Dewhirst have also been deeply involved in the process of growing the coalition.

Fox has not yet been provided a full list of names of those that have signed on as part of the coalition.

The sources emphasized that they were not seeking to bash Trump, and that they were ‘proud’ of their service to the Trump administration and its effort to ‘shake things up’ in Washington, D.C., but that they were now ‘wholeheartedly’ behind DeSantis.

DeSantis is expected to officially enter the 2024 presidential race this week after months of buildup and speculation, and will join an increasingly crowded field of Republican candidates that includes Trump, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, conservative radio host Larry Elder and businessman Perry Johnson.

Early polls have consistently shown Trump with a commanding lead over his opponents, and DeSantis in a distant second.

Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

A bulldozer began moving sand along a stretch of badly eroded beach Monday in a Jersey Shore town where the bitter fight over how to protect its rapidly shrinking shoreline has led to $33 million worth of litigation.

Before the summer tourism season kicks off this weekend, North Wildwood hopes to repair dunes in the most heavily eroded section of its beach and restore beach access points to usable condition. The state Department of Environmental Protection granted permission for emergency repairs last week.

The town and the state have been fighting for years over how best to protect North Wildwood’s shoreline as it waits to become the last part of the state to receive a beach replenishment project that is still at least two years away.

The state has fined North Wildwood $12 million for past unauthorized work on its beaches that the state claims could actually worsen erosion.

North Wildwood, in turn, is suing the state for $21 million, which it says is how much it has spent trucking sand to the shoreline over the past decade to try to keep up with erosion.

‘We are happy to get this work completed soon,’ said Mayor Patrick Rosenello. ‘But this certainly doesn’t fix the much larger issue, which is the lack of a beach nourishment project in North Wildwood.’

North Wildwood and its surrounding coastal neighbors have not received the periodic beach replenishment projects that most of the rest of the Jersey Shore has been getting for decades, due in part to the difficulty of getting approval from property owners.

As a result, it has experienced serious erosion over the last decade, and says it needs to take immediate emergency steps including shoring up dunes and building another steel sea wall to complement one it already built.

Numerous violation notices issued by the state remain active, including one that involves work the city did several years ago along a section of beachfront that it said had become badly eroded. The state said the work destroyed 8 acres of vegetated dunes, including 6.7 acres of critical wildlife habitat, and 1.1 acres of freshwater wetlands.

North Wildwood previously built a vinyl and steel bulkhead for about 10 blocks without state approval, saying it needed to act urgently to protect lives and property. That is separate from the latest bulkhead the city wanted to build, but agreed to forego for now.

<!–>

–>

A bill introduced by Wisconsin state Rep. Joy Goeben and state Sen. Jesse James, both Republicans, would make possession of child sex dolls a felony.Under the proposed law, prison sentences for possession could range from 3 ½ years or less for a first-time offender, to 25 years for someone caught multiple times with dolls resembling a specific child.Goeben called the dolls ‘horrifying’ in a phone interview, adding ‘it’s really scary that this is something that exists and it’s being used against our children. We need to stop that. We need to protect our kids.’

Wisconsin Republicans have joined a national push to outlaw child sex dolls, releasing a proposal Monday that would make possessing one a felony.

Some groups say the dolls help protect children by providing those attracted to children another outlet. Others find the dolls abhorrent.

Some dolls can be constructed to resemble specific children. For example, a Florida mother in 2020 discovered photos of a child sex doll being sold online that exactly resembled her 8-year-old daughter, according to the Child Rescue Coalition, a nonprofit organization that works to protect children from sexual exploitation.

A number of states have passed laws outlawing child sex dolls since 2019, including Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota and Hawaii. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signed a bill Friday outlawing the dolls in her state. Republican legislation banning them nationwide — dubbed the Creeper Act — has been floating around the U.S. House of Representatives since at least 2017.

England has banned importation of such dolls, and Canadian law classifies the dolls as child pornography.

Wisconsin state Rep. Joy Goeben and Sen. Jesse James’ bill would define a child sex doll as an anatomically correct doll, mannequin or robot with features that resemble a minor and is intended for sexual uses.

Anyone caught possessing such a doll would be guilty of a felony punishable by up to 3 1/2 years in prison. A first offense involving three or more dolls or a second offense would be punishable by up to 6 years. A third or subsequent offense would be punishable by up to 10 years.

If the doll resembles a specific minor the offender would face up to 15 years in prison for a first offense. Subsequent offenses involving a doll resembling a specific child would be punishable by up to 25 years.

Offenders who have already been convicted of a child sex crime would face one felony level higher than the possession charge. For example, a person convicted of child sexual abuse would face up to 6 years for possessing a doll rather than 3 1/2 years.

Goeben said she believes pedophiles use the dolls in a lead-up to actually assaulting children.

‘(The dolls) are horrifying,’ she said in a telephone interview. ‘It’s really scary that this is something that exists and it’s being used against our children. We need to stop that. We need to protect our kids.’

James, who served as police chief in the city of Altoona before he was elected to the Legislature, said the dolls leave him ‘absolutely disgusted.’ He, too, insisted that the dolls are a gateway to real assaults that can devastate children and families.

‘They’re to serve a purpose that may temporarily, in my opinion, satisfy the sexual urges,’ he said. ‘However, I think that nothing ever replaces the real thing. (The dolls are) a temporary fix.’

Aides to Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu didn’t respond to an email inquiring about whether leadership supports the proposal.

Not everyone opposes the dolls. The Prostasia Foundation, which describes itself on its website as working to protect children from sexual assault with laws based on evidence rather than emotion, maintains that doll bans are an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and remove a harmless outlet for those attracted to minors, perhaps leading to sexual assaults against real children.

‘Don’t let emotional scare tactics win out over sound science,’ the foundation said in an online essay urging voters to reject South Dakota’s ban.

The National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine last year released findings from a survey of 85 child sex doll owners and 120 of what the survey termed ‘minor-attracted people’ who don’t own dolls, The respondents were recruited through online forums for people sexually attracted to children.

The survey found that generally doll ownership was associated with lower levels of sexual preoccupation but more sexually objectifying behaviors and anticipation of sex with children.

Goeben and James have given their fellow lawmakers until May 30 to sign on as co-sponsors.

<!–>

–>

Authorities could temporarily seize firearms and background checks would be expanded for gun buyers, under two bills passed Monday in the Pennsylvania House, where Democrats are using their razor-thin majority to push gun-control measures after a yearslong standstill in the politically divided government.

The party describes the proposals as relatively moderate measures to cut down on gun trafficking, suicide deaths, accidental shootings and day-to-day violence. Republicans oppose the bills, saying they punish law-abiding gun owners.

‘While this is just the first step, by passing these commonsense and responsible gun safety measures we’ve shown our neighbors and communities that we are listening and we are acting, and that we stand with them in combating senseless gun violence,’ said House Speaker Joanna McClinton, a Philadelphia Democrat.

The ‘red flag’ bill, which would allow a judge to order the seizure of firearms if asked by family members or police, passed on a 102-99 vote, with two Republicans voting alongside Democrats, and one Democrat flipping to vote with Republicans. Nineteen states have similar laws, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a leading gun control advocacy group.

Rep. Mike Schlossberg, a Democrat from Lehigh County, recalled his own struggles with mental health as he spoke in favor of the bill.

‘I find myself wondering frequently what would have happened that morning, Feb. 3, 2002, if I had had a gun,’ he said. ‘Some of you have been in that deep, dark place. But for those of you who haven’t, you have to understand that getting someone through a moment of suicidal crisis — and it is often just a moment — is the most critical thing you can do to save someone’s life.’

But Republicans said the bill unfairly targets legal gun owners.

‘The plan and the strategy has always been and will be to disarm law-abiding citizens,’ said Rep. Stephanie Borowicz, a Republican from Clinton County. ‘And any Republican that thinks they can vote for this today: Know that you are aiding and abetting the socialism and communism that the Democrats are pushing in this nation.’

Another bill, which passed by a 109-92 vote, seeks to expand background checks on firearms buyers in Pennsylvania and end an exception for private sales of shotguns, sporting rifles and semi-automatic rifles, known as the ‘gun show’ loophole.

‘This is not major legislation. This is not a heavy lift,’ said Rep. Matthew Bradford, a Montgomery Democrat. ‘This is a modest bill, with a modest impact, that will have real impact on some of the most lethal weapons in our Commonwealth.’

A third bill, which failed by a 100-101 vote, would have required gun owners to report a lost or stolen firearm to police within three days. Repeat offenders would have faced a misdemeanor charge.

A fourth measure in the package, which would require long-barreled firearms to be sold with trigger locks, did not come up for a vote.

The bills that make it through the House must still go through the Republican-controlled Senate, which has historically been protective of gun rights, while working with Democrats to boost funding for anti-violence and mental health programs.

The measures come as the U.S. is setting a record pace for mass killings in 2023. In Philadelphia, gun violence played a big role in the campaign for mayor, and the city is asking the state’s highest court to allow it to impose its own gun-control policies.

The Pennsylvania Legislature, long controlled by Republicans, has not seriously considered broadening gun-control measures since 2018. With the newfound Democratic majority in the House, the chamber kicked off this session’s debate over gun violence with a hearing in March.

<!–>

–>

Former President Donald Trump’s accuser E. Jean Carroll has filed a motion to amend her defamation lawsuit to include the former president’s comments made to CNN during a town hall earlier this month.

The defamation lawsuit that she has moved to amend was filed in 2019 and is separate from the suit that was decided nearly two weeks ago.

Monday’s court filing looks to increase the amount of damages Carroll is seeking from Trump.

On May 9, a federal jury ruled Trump was not liable for rape but was liable for sexual abuse and defamation. As a result, the former president was ordered to pay $5 million to Carroll.

Trump chose not to attend the civil trial and was absent when the verdict was read.

Carroll, now 79, alleged that in 1996, Trump raped her at the Bergdorf Goodman department store across the street from Trump Tower in Manhattan. According to Carroll, the two had a chance run-in at the store, where Trump was shopping for a gift for ‘a girl.’ She said he asked for her advice, and the two shopped together before he pushed her into a dressing room and assaulted her.

Trump and his legal team insist the allegations are fabricated, and the former president’s initial reaction included an accusation that Carroll was motivated by wanting to sell copies of her book.

The accusation led to Carroll slapping Trump with a defamation claim, alleging that his response caused harm to her reputation.

Earlier this month, Trump participated in a town hall in New Hampshire that was moderated by CNN.

During the town hall, Trump was asked about the allegations and jury’s verdict.

‘This woman, I don’t know her. I never met her. I have no idea who she is. I had a picture taken years ago with her and her husband, nice guy John Johnson,’ Trump said. ‘He was a newscaster, very nice man. She called him an ape, happens to be African-American. Called him an ape – the judge wouldn’t allow us to put that in. Her dog or cat was named vagina, the judge wouldn’t allow to put that in.’

The former president continued to tell the host he never met the woman, despite her allegations.

READ THE AMENDED LAWSUIT HERE:

When the host told Trump the jury found that he sexually abused Carroll, he said, ‘they didn’t.’

He again said he did not know who the woman was, even swearing on his children, adding that it was a fake story.

In response to the statements made by Trump during the town hall, Carroll motioned to amend her complaint by adding allegations concerning the verdict against Trump, and his response to the verdict.

Carroll and her attorneys claim Trump’s statements involved repeating claims the jury found to be ‘defamatory.’ They argued the statements are directly relevant to the issue of punitive damages on the defamation lawsuit.ges on the defamation claim.

‘Punitive damages in relation to a libel claim – the defamation claim – may be awarded to punish a defendant who has acted maliciously and to discourage others from doing the same… a statement is made with malice or it’s made maliciously… if it’s made with deliberate intent to injure or made out of hatred or ill will or spite or made with willful or wanton or reckless disregard of another’s rights,’ the motion reads. ‘The nature of Carroll’s underlying claim for defamation against Trump based on his 2019 statements, however, remains the same.’