Tuesday, July 27, 2021

Biden Admin Cancels 31 Miles of Border Wall Construction, Already Funded by Trump

Sheer Democrat nastiness

Surprise, surprise. As crisis rages on at the southern border like an untreated infection left to run rampant, the Biden administration is canceling border wall construction that was already funded by former President Donald Trump.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cancelled 31 miles of border wall construction, which was set for Laredo, Texas. It was previously funded by Congress and Trump.

DHS officials claim that is is “not necessary to address any life, safety, environmental, or other remediation requirements” in Biden’s executive order the originally halted construction.

Officials stated in a news release:

DHS continues to review all other paused border barrier projects and is in the process of determining which projects may be necessary to address life, safety, environmental, or other remediation requirements and where to conduct environmental planning. [Emphasis added]

The Administration also continues to call on Congress to cancel remaining border wall funding and instead fund smarter border security measures, like border technology and modernization of land ports of entry, that are proven to be more effective at improving safety and security at the border.
[Emphasis added]

Like I said before, illegal immigration is running rampant and the border crisis gets worse by the day....but sure, cancel the already funded wall meant to help ease the illegal immigration crisis. Makes perfect sense.


Black man abandons dog on side of road and drives off

A Texas man has been arrested for animal cruelty after he allegedly abandoned a husky on the side of the road.

Luis Antonio Campos, 68, was taken into custody on Friday, the The El Paso County Sheriff's office announced, and his bond was set at $5,000.

The video of the incident - which looks to be recorded by another road user - went viral earlier this week shows the dog being abandoned by the side of a road in Horizon City, a suburb of El Paso.

The video shows a young man removing the dog's leash and collar on the side of a road while the driver sits waiting in a nearby SUV.

The video then shows the young man getting into the vehicle, which begins to drive off as the husky is seen chasing after, unable to keep up.

The dog was taken to Huckleberry Hound Dog Rescue, which renamed Nanook, and he was adopted by a family (pictured) within 24 hours


Federal Court Rules CDC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Is Unlawful

A federal court ruled on July 23 that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) overstepped its authority by halting evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Cincinnati-based U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed (pdf) with a lower court ruling that said the CDC engaged in federal overreach with the eviction moratorium, which the agency has consistently extended for months. Several weeks ago, the CDC announced it would allow the policy, which was passed into law by Congress, to expire at the end of July.

“It is not our job as judges to make legislative rules that favor one side or another,” the judges wrote. “But nor should it be the job of bureaucrats embedded in the executive branch. While landlords and tenants likely disagree on much, there is one thing both deserve: for their problems to be resolved by their elected representatives.”

The ruling upheld one handed down by U.S. District Judge Mark Norris, who in March blocked enforcement of the moratorium throughout western Tennessee.

Under the moratorium, tenants who have lost income during the pandemic can declare under penalty of perjury that they’ve made their best effort to pay rent on time. The CDC claimed the measure was necessary to prevent people from having to enter overcrowded conditions if they were evicted, which would, according to the agency, impact public health.

Previously, the CDC’s lawyers argued in court filings that Congress authorized the eviction freeze as part of its COVID-19 relief legislation, while simultaneously asserting that the moratorium was within its authority. Those arguments were rejected by the three-panel appeals court.

“What’s the difference between executive-branch experts and congressional ones? Executive-branch experts make regulations; congressional experts make recommendations,” the appeals court wrote. “Congressional bureaucracy leaves the law-making power with the people’s representatives—right where the Founders put it.”

But last month, the Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision rejected a different plea by landlords to end the ban on evictions.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh had written in an opinion (pdf) that while he believes that the CDC had exceeded its authority by implementing the moratorium, he voted against ending it because the policy is set to expire July 31.

“Those few weeks,” he wrote, “will allow for additional and more orderly distribution” of the funds that Congress has appropriated to provide rental assistance to those in need because of the pandemic.

The CDC moratorium has faced pushback from property owners as well as the National Association of Realtors.

“Landlords have been losing over $13 billion every month under the moratorium, and the total effect of the CDC’s overreach may reach up to $200 billion if it remains in effect for a year,” the organization said in an emergency petition to the Supreme Court.


Penn State to Remove Fidel Castro Quote From Campus Building After Student Petition

Pennsylvania State University has agreed to remove a quote by Cuban communist leader Fidel Castro following a student-led campaign to take down the text from a campus building.

The quote in question is printed on a wall inside Penn State’s Paul Robeson Cultural Center, according to student newspaper Daily Collegian. The quote reads:

“The equal right of all citizens to health, education, work, food, security, culture, science and wellbeing—that is, the same rights we proclaimed when we began our struggle, in addition to those which emerge from our dreams of justice and equality for all inhabitants of our world —is what I wish for all.”

“The presence of the quote has just come to the university’s attention from a student who expressed concern,” a university spokesperson said in a July 17 statement to Daily Collegian. “We agree with the concerns, and the quote is being removed. We also have reached out directly to inform the student who raised the concern that this is the university’s decision.”

The student, Erik Suarez, is from Venezuela, an once-prosperous South American nation struggling with massive economic and humanitarian crises created by socialism. He said he was disturbed to find on campus the same kind of propaganda that inspired the deadly socialist experiment in his home country.

“Fidel Castro represents the misery of not only the Cuban people, but Venezuelan people as well, as being the inspiration for the regime in my country as well,” the rising senior wrote on Twitter.

In a letter to Penn State’s President Eric Barron, Suarez argued that the benign-sounding quote masked Castro’s decadeslong rule as a communist dictator and went against the university’s values. He was joined by students identifying as victims of communism and totalitarianism, and representatives of the Penn State College Republicans, National Young Americans for Freedom, and the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans.

“For many across campus, Castro is a figure of totalitarianism and oppression that many victims of communism and their families have experienced during their lives,” Suarez wrote in his letter. “We believe this figure does not represent the values of Penn State and having his words on campus washes the reality of who he really was, a dictator.”

“If Penn State truly values freedom and prosperity, then it cannot ignore the atrocities and plights committed by Fidel Castro,” the letter adds. “His quote misrepresents his infamous legacy, and in return, ignores those values that we enshrine as a community and university.”

Suarez’s petition comes as the Cuban people stand up against the communist regime that has been ruling over the Caribbean nation since 1959. In the largest-scale protests seen in decades, people took to the streets in cities and towns across Cuba, including Havana, to not only rally against chronic shortages of food and basic goods, but call for the end of the communist dictatorship that caused their suffering.

While he welcomed the university’s decision, Suarez said he would not stop there, noting the fact that a Castro quote was even displayed reveals how much the community misunderstand the reality of socialism and authoritarianism.

“We will keep this moving going to make sure phrases of dictators will not appear on campus ever again,” he said.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)


Thursday, July 22, 2021

DeSantis: Disrespected Police Officers Can Relocate to Florida

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said on July 12 that police officers from around the United States are welcome to relocate to Florida for a better workplace “culture” if they feel disenchanted.

“I do think you will see; I think you’ve already seen. But there are people in these police departments in various other parts of the country who, if they can get a job in Florida, they want to come to Florida to be able to do it,” he said, according to local media. “Because the culture is better, and they understand they’re going to be supported much more resolutely [in] what they do.”

DeSantis referenced rampant anti-police protests last year following the death of George Floyd, arguing that the lack of support for law enforcement has caused crime rates to spike. Some city governments moved to cut funding to their police departments in the face of left-wing calls to “defund the police.”

Some cities such as Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Portland, Oregon, cut police funding in the wake of the demonstrations and riots—although some municipalities recently have begun to pledge additional funding to departments.

“Make no mistake: the reason that you have such huge spikes in crime in many parts of the country is because of not standing up for law enforcement, having weak policies where you’re letting people out, and you’re not prosecuting people who are committing habitual offenses,” the Republican governor said. “That is clearly causing disastrous consequences.”

Epoch Times Photo
Thousands of people take part in a demonstration to defund the police in support of Black Lives Matter in Toronto, on June 19, 2020. (The Canadian Press/Nathan Denette)
The governor’s comments come amid a wave of retirements and resignations in police and sheriff’s departments across the United States. Recruitment is also down across departments.

An analysis by The Epoch Times last month revealed that the top three police departments in the country—New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago—have lost thousands of officers since 2019. Other cities have seen significant declines in their law enforcement ranks.

Over the past two years, the LAPD has lost about 600 officers, which reportedly has been blamed on a government hiring freeze implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the City Council’s move to cut the department’s budget by about $150 million amid “defund the police” calls.

In Chicago, 646 officers resigned or retired in 2020, while as of April 30, 330 have left the department, the analysis shows.

New York hasn’t fared much better, either, with retirements spiking to 2,600 last year from 1,509 in 2019, an NYPD spokesperson said. An additional 350 NYPD officers have exited this year, as of May 15.


California Appeals Court Overturns Anti-Misgendering Law on First Amendment Grounds

A California appeals court struck down as unconstitutional a state law that penalized elder-care workers for using pronouns inconsistent with elderly long-term care patients’ claimed gender identity.

Gender identity is a disputed concept. A lack of linguistic clarity has clouded the issue in recent years as the concepts of sex and sexual identity, or gender, a politically and scientifically contentious concept whose definition isn’t universally agreed upon, have become difficult to separate. Despite the distinct meanings of the two words, many institutions and individuals use “gender” to mean biological sex, especially on fillable forms and documents.

Failing to use gender in its new meaning can be costly nowadays.

A New York human rights law banning gender identity discrimination imposes fines of up to $250,000 for failing to use a person’s preferred personal pronouns.

Social media giant Twitter bans users for “misgendering” or “deadnaming” transgender people, categorizing it as harassment and abuse. Deadnaming is referring to people by names they used before they changed their gender identity—for example, calling Caitlyn Jenner by that person’s birth name, Bruce Jenner.

Facebook reportedly recognizes at least 58 genders, allowing users to select which gender to use in their profile self-descriptions. Among them are Androgynous, Bigender, Cisgender, Gender Fluid, Genderqueer, Non-binary, Pangender, Trans, and Two-Spirit.

But in a rare legal defeat for the transgenderism movement, a ruling by the Court of Appeal of the State of California, 3rd Appellate District, sided with First Amendment speech protections over activists. The ruling by the three-judge panel was unanimous.

The court decision in Taking Offense v. State of California, came on July 16. Taking Offense is an informal group of state taxpayers.

The court decision affects the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights, which the California Legislature added to the state’s Health and Safety Code in 2017.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat, said in 2017 that he wrote the bill because LGBT seniors face special challenges that weren’t covered by existing nursing home laws, local media reported.

Wiener said he had received reports of LGBT seniors being mistreated.

“We have a number of advocacy organizations that are very excited about the bill, that helped us get it passed, and they are definitely putting the word out that people living in long-term care facilities have these protections and should be aware of them,” he said.

Health and Safety Code section 1439.51, subdivision (a)(5), “prohibits staff members of long-term care facilities from willfully and repeatedly referring to a facility resident by other than the resident’s preferred name or pronoun when clearly informed of the name and pronoun,” according to court documents.

Taking Offense challenged that provision, arguing that it violates care facility staff members’ rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, and freedoms of thought and belief, and is vague and overbroad.

The court said it “recognized the Legislature’s legitimate and laudable goal of rooting out discrimination against LGBT residents of long-term care facilities,” but stated that “we agree with Taking Offense that … the pronoun provision, is a content-based restriction of speech that does not survive strict scrutiny.”

“The pronoun provision—whether enforced through criminal or civil penalties—is overinclusive in that it restricts more speech than is necessary to achieve the government’s compelling interest in eliminating discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of sex. Rather than prohibiting conduct and speech amounting to actionable harassment or discrimination as those terms are legally defined, the law criminalizes even occasional, isolated, off-hand instances of willful misgendering—provided there has been at least one prior instance—without requiring that such occasional instances of misgendering amount to harassing or discriminatory conduct.

“Using the workplace context as an analogy, the statute prohibits the kind of isolated remarks not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment.

“There is no requirement in the statute that the misgendering at issue here negatively affect any resident’s access to care or course of treatment. Indeed, there is no requirement that the resident even be aware of the misgendering.”

In this case, the attorney general “has not shown that criminalizing occasional, off-hand, or isolated instances of misgendering, that need not occur in the resident’s presence and need not have a harassing or discriminatory effect on the resident’s treatment or access to care, is necessary to advance that goal.”


Be careful whom you celebrate

Many Americans have a "thing" for bad boys and make heroes of them. Along with Jesse James, they celebrate bloodthirsty revolutionaries like Che Guevara, cop-killers like Mumia Abu-Jamal, drug lords like Joaquín Guzmán (El Chapo) whom they lionize in songs (narcocorridos), robbers like Bonnie and Clyde, and all manner of scum and villainy not fit for society. Maybe they'd have a different bunch of heroes had they been victims of their intemperate heroes.

This celebration of criminals goes back decades. But nowadays, if one isn't a big-time evildoer, one can still ascend into the pantheon if one is a victim like, say, George Floyd. Mr. Floyd certainly didn't deserve the treatment he got from the Minneapolis police, but neither does he deserve the shrines. He resisted arrest and had used fentanyl, microscopic amounts of which are fatal. Floyd also had quite a rap sheet, with stints in prison. Should he really be beatified?

Consider another type of hero:

The University of Missouri in Columbia was the first university established in the territory of the Louisiana Purchase, a rather smart investment made by one Thomas Jefferson. In 1883, descendants of Jefferson donated his original tombstone to UMC, which "was unveiled at the university on July 4, 1885."

On July 6, I visited the campus of UMC, and, strolling on the quadrangle, I learned that Jefferson's tombstone had been encased in acrylic to protect it from student vandals. In September of 2020, the Columbia Missourian reported:

The acrylic case was put in place by MU to ramp up security around the obelisk after incidents of vandalism occurred near it and the bronze statue of Jefferson sitting nearby.

"We took this action to protect it from vandalism," MU spokesperson Christian Basi said in an email. "This is Jefferson's original tombstone, and it was entrusted to the university. We have a responsibility to ensure that it is preserved appropriately."

Many took to Twitter after the case was built to criticize the decision.

The university might do a little introspection to see if it could be responsible for engendering its students' self-righteous indignation at Jefferson's obelisk. How do dumb kids get the idea that they are moral arbiters of anything if not by their professors? Students are being told that they're morally superior. They have no doubts and make heroes and martyrs out of ne'er-do-wells like George Floyd while destroying the shrines to those whose greatness they have neither the maturity nor sophistication to understand.

Students who harm our heritage, like Jefferson's tombstone, should be expelled and indicted. Teachers who fill students' minds with garbage should be summarily fired. On July 18, Mark Levin provided a roadmap on how you can "push back" against the idiocy in education; watch this four-minute video of it.

America needs a better bunch of heroes. I suggest the old ones, like Jefferson.


Pastor Who Resisted Church Lockdowns Threatened With Death, His Family Intimidated

Pastor Brian Gibson, who has been a target of cancel culture for resisting draconian lockdown measures as well as for exercising his First Amendment rights, has received hundreds of death threats. He and his family have experienced various forms of harassment.

“Just for being a vocal proponent of the First Amendment, just for being someone that supported President Trump, and someone that spoke out actively, I received close to 1,500 death threats. People broke into my house, kicked my gate down, hacked all of our accounts,” Gibson said on EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program.

“It’s amazing what they can do and how coordinated some of these intimidation rings can really be. I think I underestimated what that would really be until it happened to me.”

Gibson and his family were threatened on social media and received intimidating phone calls or mail. It affected his three kids, aged 9 to 15, the pastor said.

“My kids … weren’t able to go home for over a month. And then … we had to sell that home and relocate.”

Gibson took his family to a rather isolated place in the Rocky Mountains to get away, but they were found, even there, and intimidated while spending time in a park.

“I didn’t know if they were going to try to kill me,” Gibson said. “So I went into a convenience store, sent my kids out the back through woods to where we were staying, and I went around the other side of a building—flanked this guy and found out what he was doing there [and] confronted the man.”

Gibson has multiple churches in Texas and Kentucky. Through his organization Peaceably Gather, he has helped churches to reopen when pandemic-related lockdowns were imposed across the country.

When lockdowns due to the pandemic caused by the virus were in effect, Gibson’s church in Kentucky ran a drive-thru Easter egg giveaway for kids. The Health Department told the pastor that his church would be shut down if he continued to pass out eggs.

There were “less than 10 people working, gloved and masked, giving an egg to a kid in the name of Jesus,” Gibson said, yet the health department had concerns about it.

“They’re letting the liquor stores do drive-thru sales. They’re letting the fast food places do that. The Lowe’s is full of people, Home Depot’s full of people, all the big box stores right?” he said.

“It blew a fuse in me. I called all the local media [and] told them: ‘I’m going to defy the governor’s orders. Here’s when I want to do it, here’s how I’m going to do it. Have them come arrest me.’ And I was looking to get arrested for Jesus.”

He then started Peaceably Gather and rallied pastors. “I think the hand of God was guiding me. God called me for that time. And over the course of the next three weeks, 5,000 churches opened up with us.”

Capitol Protest

On Jan. 5, the day before the U.S. Capitol breach, Gibson gave a speech at Freedom Plaza in Washington.

“The only thing I did on the fifth is, I preached the gospel of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in Freedom Plaza, telling people about his death, burial, resurrection, telling people they could be forgiven of their sins, and also standing up and speaking for the First Amendment,” he said.

About six months earlier when speaking out in Arizona, Gibson had taken a selfie with a man who stood out in the crowd because he was wearing a large, horned fur hat.

“I take a pic with him, post it up on my Instagram, [saying], ‘This guy’s got the craziest outfit in Arizona today,’” he said.

It turned out that the man in the picture became one of the people who entered the Capitol building during the breach on Jan. 6 and was later arrested.

Media used the picture to try to frame the pastor, saying that he was “one of the masterminds of the Capitol siege,” according to Gibson.

“I wasn’t in the Capitol, but I think what they do when they create these hit pieces, they’re trying to build a narrative against you, build a case against you: No. 1, with the public, and No. 2, they want a legal case against you,” he said.

“The mainstream media works to try to spin the narrative, and to spin public opinion before they’ll ever file charges on somebody.”

Do Not Be Afraid

“In America, especially in the West, a lot of the churches bought into that the blessing of God will make sure there’s no problems in your life,” Gibson said. “I preach that [God will bless you]—I believe that 100 percent—but he also promised people persecution.

“In America, we’ve become so comfortable. We don’t want to give up any of our comforts for real truth and real conviction anymore. And that’s why the church remained silent during the lockdowns. So that’s why so many pastors didn’t speak up and push back.”

People don’t want to speak up against critical race theory or on other issues because they don’t want to be labeled a racist, Gibson said.

“Stand up for what you believe in. Don’t be afraid. Continue to love your enemies, but stand your ground. I think that’s really what we need in America,” he said.

Gibson advises people, especially Christians, to look at the current situation and issues such as cancel culture from a broader perspective.

“Stop being afraid of what somebody might do to you. … The high cost of living is potentially dying,” Gibson said. “I don’t want to die. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a martyr’s complex, I want to live a long life, be an old man, see all of my kids’ kids.

“But if someone has such a grip of fear around you, [that] you can’t live or be who you are, what good is living anyway? So I really think it’s time for people to not be afraid.”

Pope John Paul II, during his inauguration ceremony in 1978, said, “Do not be afraid.”

Historians agree that the pope’s words informed by his faith uplifted people’s spirits and inspired people to stand up to communist oppression leading to the fall of communism in Eastern Europe


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


Tuesday, July 13, 2021

A group of scientists have argued for the 'racist' term 'caucasian' to be banned

The term is obsolete but it has come to be used as a euphemism for "European" so, as long as that is understood, I doubt that it does much harm

The word 'caucasian' should be banned because it is 'associated with a racist classification of humans', according to five Cambridge and UCL scientists.

Researchers said scientists should only use the term when absolutely unavoidable but refrain from 'usage where possible'.

Authors of the article titled 'The language of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in human genetic research' said the term Caucasian was an 'old term associated with racist and pseudo-scientific classifications of humans'.

Caucasian, they wrote, is 'an 18th-century term invented to denote pale-skinned northern and western Europeans, or in other archaic connotations a wider range of people based on skull measurements, including west Asians, south Asians, north Africans and Europeans.'

The paper, published on the pre-print sever arxiv, added: 'The language commonly used in human genetics can inadvertently pose problems for multiple reasons.

'Terms like 'ancestry', 'ethnicity', and other ways of grouping people can have complex, often poorly understood, or multiple meanings within the various fields of genetics between different domains of biological sciences and medicine, and between scientists and the general public.

The paper said scientists should add quotation marks around the word when used in research, the Telegraph reported.

Authors Dr Ewan Birney, Michael Inouye, Dr Jennifer Raff, Dr Adam Rutherford, and Aylwyn Scally said their is intended 'to stimulate a much-needed discussion about the language of genetics'.

Adding they hoped it would help 'begin a process to clarify existing terminology, and in some cases adopt a new lexicon that both serves scientific insight, and cuts us loose from various aspects of a pernicious past.'

Dr Ewan Birney, deputy director of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory at the Wellcome Genome Campus in Cambridgeshire, has added terms such as 'Native American', 'Hispanic', 'White Irish', and 'European', should also be avoided.

Instead, he says, researchers should use more scientific language derived from a two-step genetic analysis.

'European', for example, would instead be 'the European-associated PCA [principal component analysis] cluster, which aims to minimise variation in non-genetic factors and genetic factors'.

The suggestion, which even Dr Birney terms 'bamboozling' for non-scientists, is intended to prioritise 'technical accuracy over concision'.

The researchers said: 'Some of these suggestions may meet with disagreement; we present them partly to stimulate discussion of these and other terms, and in the hope that this will lead to better and more accurate language conventions and less misunderstanding, particularly outside of human genetics'.

Announcing the paper, honorary Senior Research Associate at UCL Dr Rutherford said: 'I have been working on this a while: sparking a conversation about the lexicon of genetics, which continues to utilise scientifically redundant, confusing and racist terminology.'

Adding in a second tweet: 'We're definitely not prescribing or policing language, but want to prompt a dialogue with colleagues in similar and adjacent fields about our terminology, datasets and tools, and move towards a lexicon that both serves the science and frees us from a racist past.'

Among his fellow contributors, who were each given equal credit, were Dr Jennifer Graff, a geneticist and Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Kansas, Michael Inouye, Principal Research Associate in Systems Genomics and Population Health, and Darwin College, Cambridge geneticist Aylwyn Scally.


Again the Supreme Court defends religious believers. Again it's unanimous

by Jeff Jacoby

WHEN THE NATION'S highest court issued a 9-0 decision last week upholding a Catholic social-service agency's right to participate in Philadelphia's foster care program, it provoked a mordant comment from Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler:

"Supreme Court rules UNANIMOUSLY against Philadelphia in Fulton religious liberty case; opinion by [Chief Justice] Roberts," Adler tweeted. "So tell me again, who are the extremists?"

It was an apt comment. Throughout this case, Catholic Social Services and its supporters had been portrayed as the aggressors, hostile to gay and lesbian equality and outrageously demanding the right to be closed-minded and intolerant. By their unanimous verdict, the justices made clear just which side they thought had behaved outrageously. It wasn't the church.

The litigation stemmed from a decision by the city of Philadelphia to ban CSS, an arm of the local archdiocese, from providing foster services for needy children. For more than 50 years, the Catholic agency had contracted with the city to provide such services. Officials had described it as "a point of light in the city's foster care system." But when a church spokesman said that, on religious grounds, it could not certify same-sex couples as foster parents, the city pulled the plug. It refused to renew the organization's contract on the grounds that it was in violation of Philadelphia's antidiscrimination rules.

CSS hadn't actually discriminated against anyone. The church spokesman had been speaking theoretically. No same-sex couple had ever asked the Catholic agency for foster care certification; faced with such a request, it would have referred the couple to one of the 27 agencies in Philadelphia that do certify same-sex couples. Nevertheless, the city barred CSS from all further foster care work. More than that: Despite an acute shortage of foster homes, the city prohibited any child from being placed with foster parents previously vetted and certified by CSS.

In essence, officials ordered Catholic Social Services to disavow its religious beliefs or to end its exemplary foster care services. They refused to make any accommodation that would allow CSS to continue caring for children in need without violating church teaching. They insisted on rigid adherence to the law, even if that meant fewer caring homes for those children.

Progressive voices defended the city's hard line. The Philadelphia Inquirer denounced Catholic Social Services for clinging to "a bigoted view that should not be rewarded with public funds." The ACLU accused CSS of demanding "a license to discriminate against LGBTQ families" and derided its plea for an exemption as "legally baseless."

To which a unanimous Supreme Court said: Wrong.

There are many issues on which the justices disagree. Yet time and again, they have put ideological differences aside to enforce the First Amendment's command: Government may not impede the free exercise of religion absent a truly imperative reason to do so.

Philadelphia officials described Catholic Social Services as "a point of light in the city's foster care system."

The modern court is a civil rights bulwark, and its support for LGBTQ equality has been cemented in such landmark decisions as Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges, and, most recently, Bostock v. Clayton County. But the court has been equally clear that religious liberty is a paramount value under the Constitution. It is not subordinate to the state's interest in upholding same-sex marriage. It may not be bulldozed aside when it's at odds with a nondiscrimination policy. When such a conflict exists, government must seek a way to accommodate religion. The issue in Philadelphia, wrote the chief justice, "is not whether the City has a compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS."

This is not the first time religious believers have been told that their views must bow to other government interests.

In the Hosanna-Tabor Church case in 2012, the interest in question was employment rights under the Americans with Disablities Act. In McCullen v. Coakley, it was the Massachusetts law mandating a "buffer zone" around abortion clinics. In Holt v. Hobbs, it was Arkansas's interest in maintaining a strict dress code in prisons. In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Azar, it was the government's requirement that employers subsidize contraception through employees' health plans.

In each of these recent cases, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the officials who refused to adapt their policy to make room for First Amendment liberties. Now, in Fulton v. Philadelphia, it has done so once more.

On today's culture-war battlefields, religious views that contradict prevailing secular dogma are often reviled as unenlightened fanaticism unworthy of legal protection. But on the Supreme Court, liberals and conservatives alike have a different view. The free exercise of religion goes to the bedrock of America's constitutional system. The justices have been saying so with increasing frequency, and they don't seem inclined to let up.


Some Facebook users have recently reported being sent warning messages from the social media giant relating to “extremists” or “extremist content.”

“Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?” one message reads. “We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your situation have received confidential support.”

The message also provides a button to “Get Support,” which leads to another Facebook page about extremism.

Redstate editor Kira Davis, who said was sent a screenshot of the message from a friend, wrote: “Hey has anyone had this message pop up on their FB? My friend (who is not an ideologue but hosts lots of competing chatter) got this message twice. He’s very disturbed.”

And others reported getting a warning that they may have been “exposed to harmful extremist content recently.” The message then states that “violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment,” similarly offering a “Get Support” option.

“Facebook randomly sent me this notice about extremism when I clicked over to the app. Pretty weird. … The Get Support button just goes to a short article asking people not to be hateful,” another user on Twitter wrote.

A Facebook spokesperson confirmed to The Epoch Times on July 1 that the company is currently running the warnings as a test to some users.

“This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content, or may know someone who is at risk. We are partnering with NGOs and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future,” the spokesperson said, without elaborating.

The messages come after lawmakers have repeatedly targeted and pressured CEOs of big tech firms such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft, essentially accusing them of allowing “extremism,” misinformation, and cyberbullying on their platforms. Such social media companies have faced criticism from Republicans who have accused them of censoring conservative voices and limiting the reach—or outright blocking—content that portrays Democrat political figures in a negative light.

Conservatives, including former President Donald Trump, have argued for the revocation of Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which serves as a liability shield for online publishers. However, the movement to rein in Big Tech was dealt a blow earlier this week when a federal judge tossed a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit against Facebook that had accused the firm of engaging in anti-competitive practices.

These warning messages, however, are sure to trigger even more negative feedback against Facebook and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, over fears that the company is attempting to stifle free speech. On Twitter, as screenshots of the warning messages were being shared en masse on July 1, many users expressed concern over the direction Facebook is taking.


An imported woke leftist culture is 'racialising' France, causing splits in society and holding back ethnic minorities, President Emmanuel Macron has claimed

Macron said the political left's insistence on defining their countrymen by their ethnicity and depicting them as victims is causing rifts, and blamed social science ideas that have come from the United States.

'I see that our society is becoming progressively racialised,' Macron told Elle magazine in an interview published this week, going on to say that he believed ethnic minorities have been placed 'under house arrest' by left-wing ideology.

He also pointed blame at feminists and black rights activists for seeking to define people according to their gender and their skin colour, arguing that such views cause rifts in French society and limit social mobility among ethnic minorities.

A new generation of younger French activists are increasingly vocal in denouncing the problem of racism in France and the legacy of the country's colonial past in Africa and the Middle East.

But their opponents see the focus on race and the past as opening up unnecessary divisions and encouraging a culture in which minorities and women see themselves as constantly oppressed and discriminated against.

Movements against racism over the last year such as Black Lives Matter, which resonated in France after arriving from the US, have led to fears among some critics that the country is importing American racial and identity politics sometimes labelled as 'woke culture.'

Macron took aim in particular at the idea of 'intersectionality' - popular among left-leaning U.S. academics - that seeks to explain discrimination and poverty by examining the role played by race and gender in affecting an individual's life chances.

'The logic of intersectionality fractures everything,' he said. 'I stand for universalism. I don't agree with a fight that reduces everyone to their identity or their particularity.

'Social difficulties are not only explained by gender and the colour of your skin, but also by social inequalities,' he insisted.

'We had freed ourselves from this approach and now we are once more categorising people according to their race and by doing that we are totally placing them under house arrest,' the head of state added.

The 43-year-old added that he could think of young white men in his hometown of Amiens or nearby Saint-Quentin in northern France 'who also have immense difficulties, for different reasons, in finding a job'.

'Social difficulties are not only structured by gender and by skin colour, but also by social inequality,' he said.

Macron's comments have been interpreted as an attempt to appeal to mainstream voters and regain ground in the centre of France's politics ahead of presidential elections in April.

People have also seen it as an attempt by Macron to paint himself as the defender of a French social model against ideas perceived as left-leaning that have gained ground in U.K. and U.S. universities, according to The Times.

The President also defended his decision to appoint Gérald Darmanin as France's Interior Minister. Darmanin is a hard-line right-winger facing an inquiry into allegations that he raped a woman in 2009, which he denies.

'I am not going to give in to the ambient madness, which consists in saying that anyone who faces an accusation is necessarily guilty,' Macron said.

'I defend the presumption of innocence. For years, we dealt badly with the victims of violence. The risk now is to enter into a society of absolute victimisation. If the voice of the victim covers all the others, you are no longer in a society of justice but of vengeance.'

Macron attempted to win over French feminist groups by saying he had been the first mainstream leader to put domestic violence on the country's political agenda.

He also promised to improve protection available to women with violent partners and husbands.

However, Macron said he rejected extending the time limit for abortions in France from 12 to 14 weeks, saying the 'trauma' for women was increased after this period.

In the interview timed for the start of a UN-sponsored summit on gender inequality in Paris, Macron also promised to do more to combat domestic violence and women's health problems such as endometriosis.

He also backed his education minister, Jean-Michel Blanquer, who has spoken out against girls wearing crop-tops in schools.

'I'm in favour of "dressing properly" at school, for girls as well as boys,' Macron said. 'Everything that is a marker of identity, or a desire to shock or stand out, shouldn't be at school.'

Blanquer demanded that French pupils, who do not wear uniforms, come to school in 'republican dress' last September amid protests over bans on crop-tops or mini skirts at some establishments.

'School is not a place like any other,' the minister said. 'You don't go to school as if you're going to the beach or to a nightclub.'

Macron's interview has been published in the wake of his party LREM (The Republic on the Move) experiencing a wipe-out in local elections on Sunday, as it failed to win a single one of the country's key mainland regions.

Despite an appalling turn-out of around a third of the country in the second round of the regional elections – the first took place a week earlier – the results are seen as key indicator of how both Mr Macron and Marine Le Pen's far-Right National Rally might do in presidential elections next year.

The principal winners on Sunday were the mainstream conservative right, in the form of the opposition Republicans party.

Nationally, Mr Macron's LREM (The Republic on the Move) won less than 10 percent of the vote. Sunday's nationwide poll was also a disaster for Le Pen, whose party also failed to make any breakthroughs.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


Friday, July 02, 2021

Democrats discover that 'defund the police' is political poison

by Jeff Jacoby

AS NEW YORK headed into the home stretch of last week's mayoral primary campaign, progressive New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg considered the prospect of a victory by Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president running as the most unabashedly pro-police, anti-crime candidate in the race.

"For New York Democrats to choose a law-and-order mayor now," Goldberg wrote in the New York Times, "would be seen as a rebuke to progressives all over the country."

Four days later, it appeared that Adams had come in first in the June 22 primary. The final tally hasn't been released, but it seems more likely than not that the next mayor will be an outspoken Black former cop who for months has rained contempt on progressive demands to "slash the Police Department budget and shrink the police force." Such asinine proposals, he says, threaten the lives of "Black and brown babies" and are promoted primarily by "a lot of young, white, affluent people."

It was indeed a rebuke to the nation's progressive elites and woke activists. And not a moment too soon.

All decent Americans were horrified last year by the pitiless murder of George Floyd, and hundreds of thousands were roused to march and cry out against racial injustice and police brutality. But on the hard left, that reaction soon morphed into something more destructive: relentless demonizing of law enforcement, political pressure to defund police departments, and disdain for any reminder that "blue lives matter" too as racist, cynical, or antisocial. As cities across the country erupted in riots, theft, and arson, progressives sang the praises of "unrest in the streets," defended looting as "reparations," and insisted again and again that the upheaval — which caused dozens of deaths and at least $1 billion in damage — was "mostly peaceful."

Unlike other countries, where the COVID-19 pandemic led to less serious crime, violence in US cities has soared. The murder rate in New York exploded by 45 percent in 2020 and another 17 percent so far this year. Homicides increased sharply in Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Miami. In Portland, Ore., which slashed its police budget and shut down three law enforcement units, murders skyrocketed by 255 percent. Oakland police chief LeRonne Armstrong, speaking to reporters Monday about the loss of $17 million in funding, was reduced almost to tears as he described his city's devastating rise in murder, robbery, shootings, and carjackings.

America has been living through its deadliest crime wave in more than a generation. Yet for much of the past year, honest discussion of violent crime was so taboo on the left that it went unmentioned at the Democratic convention. In the meantime, police morale has plummeted and cops have quit in droves.

Now the political chickens have come home to roost. Murders have spiked in US cities from coast to coast. The victims have included dozens of children.

Democrats are realizing that the progressive message on crime and policing is electoral poison. The "defund the police" movement is "nuts," former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis recently told The Hill. "My God, what the hell is going on here?... You have folks screaming and yelling about getting rid of policing, which makes no sense at all." As crime reaches levels not seen in decades, trust in Black Lives Matter has been sinking in the polls, while support for police has been gaining.

Progressives' anti-police rhetoric didn't help Democrats among minority voters, it hurt. Data analyst David Shor told New York magazine that the "defund the police" campaign drove Hispanic voters away from Democratic candidates last fall. "We raised the salience of an ideologically charged issue that millions of nonwhite voters disagreed with us on," he said. he said. Polling by the Manhattan Institute finds that among Black New Yorkers, only 17 percent want to decrease the number of police officers in their neighborhoods, while 62 percent would like to see stepped-up policing of quality-of-life issues, such as graffiti and public urination.

"Large numbers of Black and Latino voters," reports the New York Times, reject the left's approach to "the very issues — race and criminal justice — that progressives assumed would rally voters of color to their side."

At least some progressives are getting the message. Consider crime-weary Cleveland, a minority-majority city where former mayor and congressman Dennis Kucinich, a lifelong Democrat from the leftmost wing of his party, is running to once again lead the city he presided over in the 1970s. His signature issue: Hiring 400 new police officers. Kucinich says he wants to "send a message loud and clear to violent felons: A strengthened Cleveland police force will pursue you. You cannot escape. You will be caught."

A year ago, few Democrats — and no progressives — would have dared speak that way. But a wave of devastating riots and the largest murder spike in more than 60 years have a way of clarifying the political stakes. Which is why a law-and-order hardliner is in the lead to be New York's next mayor, and why the "defund the police" movement is about to expire.


Supreme Court Upholds donation confidentiality

What would it take for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Independent Women’s Law Center, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Gun Owners of America, and the Human Rights Campaign and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund to be found in the same trench fighting the same opponent? Nothing less than the right to the freedom of association, which the Supreme Court has held is implicit in the First Amendment.

In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Supreme Court on Thursday held by a 6-3 majority that California violated that right by demanding that charitable organizations disclose their major donors as a condition of fundraising in the state.

Charitable organizations in California that solicit contributions are required by state law to register with the state and provide reports that include their federal IRS Form 990. While most Form 990 information is public, federal law requires that “Schedule B,” which lists an organization’s “substantial donors,” be kept confidential.

Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas More Law Center refused to provide their Schedule B’s to the state, and instead sued California. The risk of public disclosure of this sensitive information, they argued, violates the right of association, especially when California does not actually use it to investigate charitable misconduct.

In a 1958 landmark decision titled NAACP v. Alabama, the Supreme Court unanimously held that requiring disclosure of a group’s members “may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as [other] forms of government action.” Not surprisingly, the NAACP joined an amicus brief defending the same principle in today’s case.

An important issue in the case was the legal standard that should be applied in such compelled disclosure cases. The tougher the standard, the closer the connection must be between what the government wants to do and its reason for doing it.

The district court applied a standard called “exacting scrutiny,” which requires that government action be “substantially related to a sufficiently important governmental interest.” This standard, according to the district court, further requires that the action be “narrowly tailored” for the government’s purpose.

This is a rigorous standard, meant to minimize the possibility that government actions deter people from exercising their First Amendment freedom of association.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the district after applying a more lenient version of the “exacting scrutiny” standard that did not require this “narrowly tailored” connection. The Supreme Court agreed with the district court that the state’s action must “be narrowly tailored to the government’s asserted interest.”

The Supreme Court found a “dramatic mismatch” rather than a close connection between California’s “dragnet for sensitive donor information” and its claimed objective of preventing charitable fraud. California had not only previously failed to enforce its Schedule B disclosure requirement, but did not actually use that information when it investigated charities.

Instead, the Supreme Court found that California’s real reason for demanding this information was convenience, to simply have the information “close at hand, just in case” it might be useful. That was not nearly enough to justify the risk that the donor information might be disclosed.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, wrote in dissent that the majority had actually abandoned, rather than applied, the court’s precedents. She argued that, under those previous decisions, “reporting and disclosure requirements do not directly burden associational rights.”

Rather than the majority’s holding that an up-front disclosure requirement automatically violated the First Amendment, the dissenters would look at whether particular plaintiffs’ freedom of association had actually been affected.

The majority took note of the hundreds of organizations, “span[ning] the ideological spectrum,” that had filed briefs supporting the plaintiff groups in this case. They emphasized the “gravity of the privacy concerns” that any advocacy group would face from disclosure of donors.

“The deterrent effect feared by these organizations,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “is real and pervasive.” The district court had cited evidence of “pervasive” Schedule B disclosures by the state as well as “ample evidence” that these particular organizations, their employees, and supporters could face hostility, intimidation, or harassment upon such disclosure. California’s “assurances of confidentiality,” the Supreme Court said, “are not worth much.”

Roberts concluded the court’s opinion with this important admonition: “When it comes to the freedom of association, the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough.”

That’s a freedom we all can share.


‘You Should Be in Prison’: Critics Slam Washington Post Article Encouraging ‘Kink Culture’ for Children

A Washington Post op-ed published Tuesday celebrates and encourages exposing children to “kink culture,” such as explicit performances at pride parades.

“Yes, kink belongs at Pride,” reads the headline of writer Lauren Rowello’s Washington Post piece. “And I want my kids to see it.”

Rowello, a “gendervague” person who is married to a transgender woman, described how the couple attended a pride parade where their children were confused to see “a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes.”

The term gendervague appears to refer to a person whose gender identity is “inextricably related” to being autistic.

“The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog,” Rowello wrote. “‘What are they doing?’ my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on.”

The Washington Post writer said that though the children “were too young to understand the nuance of the situation,” Rowello told them that “these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do.”

“Children who witness kink culture are reassured that alternative experiences of sexuality and expression are valid—no matter who they become as they mature, helping them recognize that their personal experiences aren’t bad or wrong, and that they aren’t alone in their experiences,” Rowello wrote.

“Kink visibility is a reminder that any person can and should shamelessly explore what brings joy and excitement,” the writer added. “We don’t talk to our children enough about pursuing sex to fulfill carnal needs that delight and captivate us in the moment.”

“Sharing the language of kink culture with young people provides them with valuable information about safe sex practices—such as the importance of establishing boundaries, safe words and signals, affirming the importance of planning and research and the need to seek and give enthusiastic consent,” Rowello wrote.

The post quickly drew fire from commentators on social media.

“If your ‘principles’ prevent you from running this sickness out of your country, your principles are garbage,” tweeted “I’m Right” host Jesse Kelly. “Nations do not remain stable, healthy nations with this behavior becoming acceptable.”

“In a sane society, CPS would already be on the way,” The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro tweeted.


California Boycotts America

It doesn’t take much for California to boycott you.

75 years ago, Winston Churchill warned that an iron curtain had descended over Europe. But a silicon curtain has been descending over California which is boycotting 100 million Americans.

The state lost a House seat for the first time while Florida gained a seat. California Democrats responded by adding Florida to a list of states that their army of government employees may not visit on government business. It’s not an honor unique to Florida. These days the People’s Republic of California is boycotting 17 states and keeps banning more states every year.

Californians can still go see Oklahoma, the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, but the state is on the banned list. (The musical, which has been accused of “unbearable whiteness” and (violent, homophobic racism” will probably soon be on the banned list.) Dorothy could travel from Kansas to Oz, but Hotel California’s government employees are banned from Kansas.

After 5 years, California is boycotting 103 million Americans across 1.2 million square miles.

Beyond Florida, California is boycotting Texas, the second largest state in the country, and which picked up two House seats. That’s because while California Democrats may be boycotting Texas, the state’s residents and some of its biggest companies are fleeing there.

Along with Texas, Florida, Kansas, and Oklahoma, Democrats are also boycotting Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, both Carolinas and Dakotas, Tennessee, and West Virginia. American children may memorize lists of states while California State University students have a list of “banned states” to memorize that Democrats believe they shouldn’t visit.

In a touch of East Germany in the West, traveling can require filing a "Request for Approval of Travel to Prohibited States". California State University notes the “restrictions apply to all CSU employees, officers, or members, as well as non-employee travelers, including students.”

Escape From California is now a documentary.

California’s boycott of America began with Assembly Bill No. 1887 which was supposed to protect gay rights and the sacred right of grown men to shower with young girls. But, like most government legislation it quickly went off the rails. And considering that it started out more off the rails than California’s mostly imaginary but hideously expensive high-speed rail, that’s an accomplishment. Like most of the state’s current accomplishments, from bringing back typhus to spending tens of thousands of dollars per homeless tent, it’s of the horribly bad kind.

The People’s Republic of California just added Florida and three other states to its hit list for protecting women’s sports. It’s a strange world in which California is going after West Virginia to stop teenage girls from having their own sports teams, but that’s only the start of the madness.

Governor Doug Burgum in North Dakota had panicked and vetoed a bill protecting girls by preventing men from competing on female teams. But that wasn't good enough because he didn't also veto a campus free speech bill which banned schools from disciplining students for their personal opinions and abusing security fees to bar conservative speakers.

The North Dakota free speech bill also stated that student organizations could limit membership to those who share their beliefs. The Human Rights Campaign, Harvey Weinstein's favorite civil rights charity, claimed that this "law is nothing more than a harmful attempt by Gov. Doug Burgum and North Dakota legislators to discriminate against LGBTQ".

And despite Burgum's defenses of gay rights, California decided to ban North Dakota.

It’s not enough to refuse to protect women if you don’t also go ahead and also punish, censor, and suppress anyone who disagrees with the official dogma of the Democrats.

Other states have also ended up on California’s hit list for allowing religious freedom in schools.

Kentucky’s 4.5 million people and 40,000 square miles are off limits because of Charlie Brown.

W.R. Castle Elementary School in Johnson County, Kentucky struck out Linus reading passages from the New Testament in A Charlie Brown Christmas. The Charlie Brown Bill was introduced and signed to protect the religious freedom of students in Kentucky schools.

California's Attorney General Xavier Becerra, now Biden's HHS secretary, claimed that the bill "could allow student-run organizations in colleges and K-12 schools to discriminate against classmates based on their sexual orientation or gender identity."

“I’m highly disappointed that the man would be so stupid,” a Kentucky state senator said of Becerra. “He can read it and he can see there’s absolutely no discrimination in that bill.”

California Dems are in favor of limiting the right to work, conduct investigative journalism, or post opinions on the internet to those who share their beliefs. That’s why they oppose religious freedom, not because they oppose discrimination, but because they impose discrimination.

Attorney General Rob Bonta is now carrying on California’s sacred anti-religious crusade.

As Charlie Brown can tell you, it’s easy for states to fall afoul of California. Iowa was added to the list because it wouldn’t cover transgender surgery under Medicaid. North Carolina banned men from using the ladies room in 2016, but then Governor Roy Cooper, a Democrat who ran on the right of men to urinate where they want to appease the NCAA, repealed the bill in 2017.

Governor Roy Cooper just celebrated Pride Month, but California still refuses to relent and North Carolina remains on the list of “banned states” usually maintained by Communist dictatorships.

California is boycotting a state that celebrates Pride Month for gay rights.

But once a state is added to the list of the enemies of the People’s Republic and the Human Rights Campaign, it must stay there until Google, Amazon, and Facebook officially annex it.

South Carolina was banned by California because a 500-page appropriations bill briefly protected the religious freedom of adoption agencies to “decline to provide any service that conflicts with, or provide any service under circumstances that conflict with, a sincerely-held religious belief or moral conviction of the faith-based child placing agency.”

“The State of California strongly stands against any form of discrimination,” Attorney General Xavier Becerra declared, while discriminating against his tenth state.

The Supreme Court just issued a ruling essentially saying the same thing as South Carolina and protecting the right of a Catholic adoption agency to follow the values of its own faith.

If California were consistent, it would immediately ban all travel to the United States.

But if California Democrats were consistent, they wouldn’t be trying to eliminate all sources of reliable power while insisting that everyone drive an electric car, or refusing to arrest criminals and then condemning the muggings of elderly Asian people by those very same criminals.

While California claims to be fighting discrimination in every other state, the Supreme Court repeatedly slammed it for discriminating against Christians and other religious believers.

And while California State University employees are warned against traveling to banned states on the money stolen by state Democrats from taxpayers, CSU's new College of Ethnic Studies appointed a dean who supports Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, and hates Jews.

As more states move to protect women’s sports, religious freedom, and Charlie Brown, California might soon end up boycotting every state except New York and Oregon.

While California Democrats add millions more Americans to their list of 100 million banned, millions of their own people are fleeing the state to some of these same banned states. Like East Germany, the People’s Republic of California is watching in dismay as millions flee California for Florida and Texas despite their support for women’s sports and religious freedom.

If only there were some sort of wall to stop them.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)