Thursday, June 30, 2022

Skyrocketing Chicago crime has small businesses, corporations pack their bags: 'Enough is enough'

A business owner in Chicago, Illinois tells Fox News Digital that skyrocketing crime in the city forced him to quit doing business in town adding to the list of individuals and businesses that have fled Illinois over the past couple of years amid surging crime.

Gary Rabine, founder of the Rabine Group and owner of 13 businesses, told Fox News Digital this week that surging crime in Chicago was a driving factor in his decision to pull his road paving company out of the city after his crews were repeatedly robbed, sometimes in broad daylight, even after adding security to the jobs.

"We would do thousands of jobs a year in the city, but as we got robbed more, my people operating rollers and pavers we got robbed, our equipment would get stolen in broad daylight and there would usually be a gun involved, and it got expensive and it got dangerous," Rabine told Fox News Digital.

Rabine said that the additional cost of security and insurance for the "thousands" of jobs in the city each year eventually caused jobs to cost "twice as much as they should be". Rabine explained that the higher costs ultimately hurt the ratepayers, many of them with modest financial means, who ended up paying more for utility services.

"What happened eventually is we said enough is enough," Rabine said. "We stopped doing work down there, we stopped doing work for the gas company, the electric company, the south side, the west side and eventually all over Chicago. Those companies now work in other places. They work over the border in Wisconsin, the outer suburbs of Chicago, where they feel safer."

Last week, billionaire Ken Griffin announced he is moving his hedge-fund firm Citadel out of Chicago after citing crime as a major concern over the past few months.

"If people aren’t safe here, they’re not going to live here," Griffin told the Wall Street Journal in April. "I’ve had multiple colleagues mugged at gunpoint. I’ve had a colleague stabbed on the way to work. Countless issues of burglary. I mean, that’s a really difficult backdrop with which to draw talent to your city from."

Rabine told Fox News Digital that Citadel’s downtown location, and the crime that has become prevalent there, was most likely causing Citadel to have trouble hiring and keeping talent.

"I’m confident that Citadel was losing people," Rabine said. "And I'm guessing that 50, 60% of those people, maybe more, were raising their hands and saying get me out of here."

Rabine added, "If you want a great culture in your company you have to have people that love being on the team and they don't want to live in a violent area. They don't want to live in a place where their kids can't walk to school safely and their wives and kids can't go shopping in a beautiful environment like Michigan Avenue which was once the safest place you could ever go shopping."

Along with Rabine and Griffin, other companies have made the decision to pull out of Chicago amid the skyrocketing crime in the city.

Construction and mining equipment giant Caterpillar announced this month it is moving its headquarters from Deerfield, Illinois, a north shore suburb of Chicago, to Irving, Texas just outside of Dallas.

"Illinois has faced a recent one-two punch of Caterpillar and Citadel uprooting for Red States," Alfredo Ortiz, President and CEO of the Job Creators Network, told Fox News Digital. "To stop the outflow and protect their economies, Blue States should copy the good policies of Red States and make their states safer and more economically friendly."

Global aerospace company Boeing also announced in May it is moving its headquarters out of the Chicago area to Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C.

In addition to companies leaving the state, Illinois lost a higher percentage of residents than any other state in 2021, according to a survey by Allied moving company.

Illinois Policy Institute, a libertarian non-profit think tank, published in a study in December that "more Illinoisans fled for other states from July 2020-July 2021 than during any other year in recorded history."

While many factors including taxes, coronavirus lockdowns and cost of living have contributed to the population decrease, Rabine tells Fox News Digital that crime is a major driving force and places blame at the feet of Chicago’s Democratic Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

"Lightfoot is a lousy leader," Rabine, who ran for governor as a Republican in Illinois’ recent gubernatorial primary, said. "She doesn’t stand up for the community at all."

Rabine also pointed to damage he says Pritzker has done by signing a controversial criminal justice reform bill that ended cash bail and has been condemned by a variety of law enforcement officials.

"We have to get this governor out," Rabine said. "He's a socialist Democrat, a lousy leader, and a terrible American."


The Push For Permanent Vote-By-Mail

Leftists fell in love with all-mail elections in 2020. Now they want to make vote-by-mail permanent.

Transforming our country’s elections into a mail-in fiasco is a big step toward handing power over elections from the states to the federal government, empowering professional activists, inviting fraud, and damaging America’s constitutional system. It places the integrity of the republic in the hands of the U.S. Postal Service, the government agency that routinely delivers your neighbor’s mail to your house. And it promises to undermine public trust in electoral outcomes from now until doomsday, which could make the problems of the 2020 election routine.

I’ve documented progressives’ relentless effort to federalize elections, from the $400-million flood of private cash Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg sent to elections officials in 2020 to the $80 million “dark money” campaign for permanent vote-by-mail ahead of the 2022 and 2024 elections. That reporting builds on Capital Research Center’s year-and-a-half long investigation into the role of “Zuck bucks” in battleground states and our discovery that they targeted areas rich with Democratic votes, like Philadelphia and Atlanta.

At the heart of that misadventure are the Center for Tech and Civic Life, Arabella Advisors’ $1.7 billion activist empire, and the National Vote at Home Institute. But Americans should be familiar with the true face of vote-by-mail: Amber McReynolds.

She’s often labeled a reform-minded “independent” and is listed on the website of the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers and in Governing Magazine’s 2018 Top Public Officials of the Year. In interview after gushing interview with left-leaning outlets, she’s touted as a good-government advocate uninterested in petty partisan goals.

But make no mistake: Amber McReynolds is a product of Activism, Inc.

McReynolds started her career registering voters in Iowa—a key primary state—in the 2004 election with the New Voters Project, part of a multi-million-dollar activist nexus called the Public Interest Network, whose oldest elements—the Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs)—started in the 1970s under legendary community organizer Ralph Nader.

If you’ve ever been solicited on the street for a donation to the American Civil Liberties Union or Sierra Club by a “clipboard kid,” you’ve probably had a run-in with these guys, who are famous for generating new liberal activists—and a president. As Barack Obama put it in 2004, “I used to be a PIRG guy. You guys trained me well.”

Revealingly, the network lauds McReynolds alongside two other notable progressive alumni: Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and eco-activist-turned-Colorado State Sen. Faith Winter.

In 2005, McReynolds was hired by the Denver Elections Commission. In 2011, she became the agency’s director. A year later, the city’s Democratic mayor awarded her with the “rising star” award for overseeing the creation of Denver’s ballot-tracking and electronic petition-gathering software (Ballot TRACE). A year after that, in 2013, McReynolds successfully pushed for Colorado’s adoption of all-mail voting and election-day registration, reportedly downplaying the threat of voter fraud in her testimony before the state legislature by claiming ignorance of the concept: “I’m not sure, to be honest, what is an illegal vote…. What does that mean?”

McReynolds was key to many of the last-minute voting-law changes in Pennsylvania ahead of the 2020 election, which conservatives criticized as unconstitutional and vulnerable to fraud. She’s cited extensively in an amicus briefing filed by the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, Common Cause Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia-based Black Political Empowerment Project, and the Latino-focused Make the Road PA—all left-wing get-out-the-vote groups—supporting the Pennsylvania Democratic Party’s lawsuit against Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, demanding the state adopt drop boxes and “alternatives to in-person voting.”

McReynolds’ sworn testimony (paid for at a rate of $225 per hour) notes that “ballot drop-boxes can be an important component of implementing expanded mail-in voting,” “do not create an increased opportunity for fraud,” and “are generally more secure than…post office boxes.” She also supports the adoption of “text-to-cure,” a system adopted in 2020 in Colorado wherein voters are invited to email, fax, or send a text message to “cure” mistakes in their ballots (e.g., a missing signature) instead of sending an affidavit.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately ruled in the Democratic Party’s favor, determining that county elections boards may accept mail-in ballots in “unmanned drop-boxes” and extending the deadline for mail-in and absentee ballots by three days—even for ballots missing a postmark.

All of these controversial factors later featured prominently in the 2020 election in Pennsylvania and other battleground states, thanks to funding from Mark Zuckerberg and the Center for Tech and Civic Life.

Pennsylvania’s Republican-controlled state Senate banned both private funding for elections and drop-boxes in April 2022; the bill is expected to be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, and drop boxes were still in place for the state’s June primary. In Wisconsin, the state supreme court ruled drop boxes were illegal in February 2022 after 570 were used in 66 of the state’s 72 counties between 2020 and early 2021.

Interestingly, McReynolds also oversaw Denver’s adoption of the now-controversial Dominion Voting Systems in May 2015, lauding the system in a presentation before election officials (only a grainy image of her presentation exists). The liberal Brennan Center for Justice profiled Denver’s adoption of Dominion in a 2015 case study, noting that it was designed to promote vote-by-mail given that 95 percent of Denver voters cast their ballot by mail under the state’s all-mail system. McReynolds later defended Dominion against claims of ballot fraud days after the 2020 election, tweeting:

No, Dominion voting machines did not cause widespread voting problems. Don’t be fooled by conspiracies & disinformation. Instead rely on trusted sources of information like election officials.

In a Denver Post op-ed in 2017, McReynolds in her capacity as Denver’s director of elections accused President Donald Trump’s new Commission on Election Integrity of “frightening away Denver voters” and leading voters to withdraw their registration due to its supposed partisanship (it was bipartisan) and unclear mission. The commission was formed to investigate “improper voter registrations,” “voter suppression,” and fraud. In late 2017, the left-wing group United to Protect Democracy sued the commission for attempting to gather voter information from the states. McReynolds provided sworn testimony alleging that the commission had caused Denver voter registration withdrawals to surge.

In 2018, McReynolds left Denver to lead the National Vote at Home Institute and Coalition, a pair of tiny nonprofits in Washington, D.C., formed the year prior to promote vote-by-mail everywhere.

Like all 501(c) nonprofits, both Vote at Home groups are officially nonpartisan, per IRS tax exempt rules. Yet they were created with start-up funding from the liberal National Association of Letter Carriers (the postal workers’ union), which hosted the group’s kick-off event at its union headquarters in Washington. The event was attended by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon (a Democrat elected in the country’s first-ever all-mail federal election), and Oregon Secretary of State Phil Keisling, who later joined the board of Vote at Home. At the event, Keisling illustrated his vision of voting, with my emphasis:

Imagine a state where voters never have to show a photo ID; wait in voting lines; leave home or work early to get to their designated polling place; or worry about bad weather, traffic jams, finding parking or public transportation, or arranging childcare.

AVR’s [automatic voter registration] underlying policy premise is identical to vote-at home’s; if the government knows you’re a citizen, you become a registered voter. [Emphasis added.]

Brian Renfroe, executive vice president of the postal workers’ union, leads Vote at Home’s board of directors. Also on the board is Emily Persaud-Zamora, director of the Nevada affiliate of the liberal get-out-the-vote group State Voices, and 2018 Democratic Maryland gubernatorial candidate and former NAACP president Ben Jealous, who now heads the far-left judicial activist group People for the American Way, infamous for the original “borking” of judge Robert Bork, and later their attempted “borkings” of President Trump’s Supreme Court appointees.

Also on Vote at Home’s board is Stephen Silberstein, one of the top 20 donors to the Hillary Clinton-aligned super PAC Priorities USA Action in 2016, a board member for the anti-electoral college group National Popular Vote, and a member of the Democracy Alliance, where the left’s most powerful donors regularly meet to discuss funding of political and get-out-the-vote groups. The Silberstein Foundation has donated at least $425,000 to the National Vote at Home Institute since 2018.

McReynolds herself spoke at the Democracy Alliance’s 2018 fall conference (on an unknown topic) alongside Black Lives Matter co-founder and “trained Marxist” Alicia Garza, then-Leadership Conference president Vanita Gupta (who’s now associate attorney general in the Biden Department of Justice), and the “civic-engagement” (read: voter-turnout) group For Freedoms.

The Vote at Home nonprofits have also received funding from eBay founder Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund Voice, various AFL-CIO unions, and the Arabella-run dark-money groups Hopewell Fund and New Venture Fund.

Under McReynolds, Vote at Home released its first national vote-by-mail proposal in mid-2020, “catapulting” this tiny organization into the center of the left’s scheme to use Covid-19 to transform the 2020 election.

As the election loomed, Vote at Home supplied secretaries of state with drop box locations—many of them paid for by CTCL’s “Zuck bucks”—and pushed for hasty adoption of mail-in ballots in at least 37 states and D.C.

California hired McReynolds to consult on its massive vote-by-mail expansion plans in mid-2020. And in the Atlanta suburb of DeKalb County, Georgia, Vote at Home published a 60-page report to help the county “create a modern, lean vote-by-mail program.” DeKalb received $9.6 million in Zuck bucks—$12.59 for every person living there—and gave Joe Biden 300,000 votes.


In Allowing Coach to Pray, Supreme Court Says First Amendment Doesn’t Contradict Itself

The First Amendment to the Constitution has two connected clauses on religion, one prohibiting an “establishment of religion” and the other protecting the “free exercise thereof.”

The case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District involved a high school football coach, Joe Kennedy, who routinely kneeled midfield after games to offer a private prayer of thanks, saying he was engaging in the free exercise of his religion.

His school district in Washington state fired Kennedy for doing so, claiming that allowing such a religious display would amount to an establishment of religion.

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court tried to untie this knot by ruling Monday that the school district violated the coach’s constitutional rights.

Since being hired in 2008, Kennedy had knelt on the field after each game to briefly express gratitude for what his players had accomplished and for the opportunity to be part of their lives. When players asked to join him, Kennedy agreed but never pressured or encouraged them to do so.

Kennedy also continued a practice, begun before his hiring, of pregame or postgame prayer in the locker room for students and coaching staff.

In September 2015, the school district warned Kennedy about making “religious references” in the presence of students at midfield and during the locker room prayer tradition.

The school district claimed a “direct tension” between the First Amendment’s two religion clauses required an employee’s right to exercise his religion to “yield so far as necessary to avoid school endorsement of religious activities.”

The district also claimed that if anyone saw Kennedy kneeling, by himself and in silence, they might assume that the district endorsed whatever he was doing. That risk was enough to prohibit him from doing so, the district said, even when, as happened one time, “everyone had left the stadium.”

The school district said it would allow Kennedy such a solitary silent prayer only if he was “not observable to students or the public.”

Attempting to comply, Kennedy ended the tradition of locker room prayers and avoided any religious references when players joined him at midfield. He drew the line, however, at his solitary, silent, brief prayer after a game.

After his dismissal, Kennedy sued, claiming that the school district had violated his First Amendment rights to exercise his religion and to speak freely.

The lower courts sided with the school district. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that anything Kennedy said on the field, at a time when he could have been talking to students, amounted to “speech as a government employee.” Allowing any religious speech, even silently, would constitute an establishment of religion, the appeals court said.

In the opinion released Monday, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to reverse the 9th Circuit. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and (except for one section) Brett Kavanaugh.

The school district’s policy was hardly neutral or “generally applicable,” the high court said, because it targeted only religious expression, a conclusion that the school district conceded.

Under the Supreme Court’s previous decisions, therefore, the school district had to show that its policy was “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” government interest, the toughest standard the high court applies. The school district failed to meet this standard, violating Kennedy’s right to freely exercise religion.

As to free speech, the court asked whether Kennedy offered his silent prayers “in his capacity as a private citizen, or did they amount to government speech attributable to the District?”

Unlike some of the court’s previous cases, Kennedy’s prayer was not “commissioned or created” by the government, or anything that the coach would be expected to say “in the course of carrying out his job.”

When Kennedy knelt for his silent prayer, others were free to engage in all manner of private speech. Kennedy was simply not acting within the scope of his employment and, therefore, his prayer was private rather than government speech.

The Supreme Court rejected the idea that the school district could avoid violating the establishment clause only by violating Kennedy’s right under the free exercise clause.

The First Amendment’s free speech and religion clauses, Gorsuch wrote, are not “warring” with each other. The lower courts treated them that way only by relying on the Supreme Court’s 1971 decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which invited judges to explore the purpose and effect of government actions, as well as make subjective judgments about “excessive entanglement” between government and religion.

The Lemon decision was so difficult to understand and apply that many courts simply opted to “purge from the public sphere” anything that anyone might think “partakes of the religious.” The lower courts in Kennedy’s case had relied on Lemon when, in fact, the Supreme Court “long ago abandoned” it, although it never has been formally overturned.

Although relying on Lemon resulted in pitting the First Amendment’s religion clauses against each other, the Supreme Court looked instead to “historical practices and understandings” to bring the clauses into harmony.

“An analysis focused on original meaning and history,” Gorsuch wrote, leads to the conclusion that a brief silent prayer, even if others might observe it or even be offended by it, does not amount to the government’s endorsing religion.

It’s important to remember the facts of this case.

A coach knelt by himself, after a game ended and everyone else was tending to their own business, to offer a silent prayer lasting less than a minute. The school district claimed that the First Amendment required it to ignore his rights and fire him because someone might have seen him kneel and might have thought the school district approved of this.

That view, Gorsuch wrote, is “a sure sign that our Establishment Clause jurisprudence has gone off the rails.”

In his 1973 dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade, then-Justice William Rehnquist wrote that “the Court’s opinion will accomplish the seemingly impossible feat of leaving this area of the law more confused than it found it.” That charge had long applied to the court’s decisions involving the religion clauses.

Once the court started ignoring what those clauses originally were intended to mean, it started inventing its own versions, with new tests or standards popping up and then fading away, and similar cases being decided with opposite results.


Financial sanctions designed to hurt Russia only hurt Western investors

The West has actually PREVENTED Russia from paying its debts!

Russia’s “default” on its foreign currency sovereign debt last weekend is one of the stranger outworkings of the web of sanctions the West has woven around Russia’s finances.

While the failure of about $US100 million ($144 million) of interest payments to reach foreign bondholders is being described as a default, and technically is one, the ratings agencies that would normally declare the default have yet to do so.

They can’t, because the sanctions prevent them from rating Russian bonds.

The bond holders who haven’t received their money could themselves declare a default but, in a practical sense, it would have no near-term impact. Russia didn’t waive its sovereign immunity in the bonds’ documentation and it is unclear who, if anyone, would have the jurisdiction to hear any claim they might have or whether Russia would observe any judgement if one were made.

Russia had gone to great lengths, until the weekend, to avoid triggering any defaults but a pathway through the sanctions net that had been deliberately left open and that allowed US bondholders to receive payments from the Russian government was closed by the US Treasury late last month.

Then the European Union sanctioned Russia’s National Settlement Depositary, completing the wall around Russia’s ability to transfer funds out of the country.

The bizarre aspect of the situation is that Russia has the funds to meet the payments and avoid default – it is still raking in billions of dollars a month from its oil sales – and is willing to pay them out. Indeed, the government transferred the funds to an agent within Russia. The problem is that the agent is unable to deposit those funds in the bondholders’ accounts because of the sanctions.

Perversely, it’s not Russia being punished by the default but the foreign bondholders who haven’t received their interest payments.

The default is being widely described as “symbolic,” which was perhaps the point of the decisions by the US and EU to act to ensure Russia couldn’t complete the payments and therefore to force it into its first default on foreign debt in more than a century. (The Bolsheviks repudiated Russia’s foreign debt obligations in 1918 while Boris Yeltsin’s government defaulted on $US40 billion of purely domestic debt).

Russia’s finance minister, Anton Siluanov, said of the failure to get the funds into bondholders’ accounts that anyone could declare whatever they wanted to but “anyone who understands what’s going on knows that this is in no way a default.” At the fundamental rather than technical level, it’s hard to argue against that.

The bid by the US and EU to choke Russia’s energy revenues is much more devastating for Moscow than falling into a default.
The bid by the US and EU to choke Russia’s energy revenues is much more devastating for Moscow than falling into a default. CREDIT:AP

The US and Europe presumably wanted to attach the odious label of defaulters to the Russians, as well as signalling that the net of financial sanctions had been completed and that Russia is now largely, albeit not entirely given its relationships with China and India and a handful of others, cut off from the core of the global financial system.

It was a manufactured default that will inevitably be followed by others as interest and principal payments on other issues of the $US20 billion of debt owed to foreigners fall due.

It is a messy situation, although Russian bonds have traded at fractions of their face value ever since the first round of sanctions were announced and therefore the bondholders were well aware of the prospect of default.

Theoretically, the bondholders could try to sue for payment although, as noted, that’s not straightforward.

They could also try to convince a court to allow them to seize assets, including the central bank reserves that have been frozen in offshore jurisdictions, or Russian government properties offshore. Sovereign and diplomatic immunities would complicate those efforts.

Alternatively, they could simply wait for the eventual resolution of the war in Ukraine and hope that the sanctions will eventually be lifted and Russia allowed to re-engage with the global financial system and bond markets and be able to repay their debt.

As Argentina has demonstrated – even after defaulting eight times on its sovereign debt – for investors, time and attractive yields heal most wounds.

Apart from Russia’s demonstrated willingness to pay, there’s no doubt about its capacity to pay.

After sanctions were imposed after its invasion of Crimea in 2014, Russia went to great lengths to build up its foreign exchange reserves (half of which are now frozen by the Ukraine-related sanctions) and reduce its overall debt and its foreign liabilities.

It has a debt-to-GDP ratio of only about 17 per cent and, with higher oil prices offsetting the limited markets into which it can now sell its oil and the big discounts it has to offer to attract those buyers (primarily China and India), it is estimated to have generated roughly $US100 billion in oil revenues since the start of the invasion.

The US and Europe presumably wanted to attach the odious label of defaulters to the Russians.

The US and EU are now trying to choke those revenues by imposing price caps on Russian oil, using the dominance of UK, EU and US insurers and reinsurers and the threat of uninsured ships and cargoes to enforce them.

That is of more consequence for Russia and its economy than any default.

It already has economic issues, given it is experiencing an inflation rate of more than 17 per cent and is economy is tracking towards a double-digit contraction. The World Bank has said it expects Russia’s GDP (which includes a first quarter largely unaffected by the sanctions) to shrink 8.9 per cent this year. The oil revenues are its economic lifeline.

The default that has captured so much attention this week is unusual, indeed unprecedented, but in contrast to the more serious threats to Russia’s finances will eventually be an historical curiosity as the first sovereign debt default triggered, not by the inability or unwillingness to pay by the debtor nation, but by the active efforts of its creditor nations to prevent it from paying.




Wednesday, June 29, 2022

I’m a proud stay-at-home girlfriend: Here are my rules

I think I can trump the story below. When I met my third wife in 1983 she was separated, had three young kids and worked as a shop assistant. She was however very bright, very good-hearted and looked good in jeans, so I married her.

I had made some good investment decisions early on in life so I was able to release her from having to work. She became a full-time housewife. And she was a good cook.

To top it off however I also did not work and stayed home most of the day. So I was always available to mind her three bright and lively children while she went out shopping and socializing. Her time was as free as if she had been single and without children.

We split up after 10 years together but have remained good friends. Nearly 40 years after I met her, I still have dinners with her every week

A stay-at-home girlfriend has laid down the law with a stern set of rules that her man abides by – and what he agrees to may surprise you.

Leaha Ureel, a 22-year-old from Michigan, US, wears her stay-at-home girlfriend crown with pride.

She never pays for meals, pulls out her own chair or pours her own wine.

And, of course, she doesn’t have a job and she sure as heck doesn’t want one, either.

Leaha said she used to avoid men she dated in her single days when they didn’t dress sharp enough.

She even broke up with her boyfriend, Alan, after having the epiphany she needed to live a life of being waited on hand and foot.

“I wanted time for myself and to have someone to provide for me,” Leaha said. “Alan wasn’t able to provide for me at that point so we broke up.”

After a few months though, Alan, a 23-year-old contractor, got the message and proposed to Leaha — once he “stepped up to her standards”.

Alan met the criteria after setting up a home-renovation business in the interest of supporting his other half. He even carves out time from work to get coffee with Leaha now the pair are married.

“He stepped up — now he arranges and takes me for dates at least twice a week. I like him to take initiative and book a restaurant for a meal or choose what we are doing,” she said.

Meanwhile Leaha, who has a university degree and used to wait tables, gets to spend her days as she wishes.

“Now I go for walks with the dogs and spend lots of my time cooking,” she said.

“I love being a housewife, and I want others to know that it is OK to aspire to have this lifestyle.”

Leaha also took the time to pass along some red flags to spot in providers for anyone else who wants to live her lifestyle.

If they’re commenting on prices, not tipping at restaurants, making comments about underdressing or rescheduling things last minute – then it’s time to find someone else she said.

“I’m not ashamed to be a stay-at-home wife … I don’t think there should be shame over wanting to be a stay-at-home girlfriend or wife,” she said.

“It’s your life, so you choose how you would like to live it.”


Racist Attacks on Clarence Thomas from the Left

Clarence Thomas does not respond to criticism that he fails to hew the liberal line because he is black, according to a friend. The Supreme Court justice instead prefers to ignore it.

There’s a lot to ignore in the aftermath of the ruling Friday by Thomas and others on the court overturning Roe v. Wade.

Actor Samuel Jackson called the justice “Uncle Clarence” on Twitter, an apparent play on the “Uncle Tom” insult. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot shouted “F*** Clarence Thomas!” on stage at an LGBT “pride” event. Many on social media called him the N-word and other racial slurs.

Mark Paoletta, a former White House lawyer and “close friend” of Thomas, according to Fox News, said the conservative justice is not affected by racist attacks.

“The left is racist, Tucker,” Paoletta said Monday in an interview on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

“They expect Clarence Thomas to think the way a black man should, based on the color of his skin,” he said. “And Clarence Thomas for 30 years, 40 years has refused to do that, and they want to destroy him. And that’s what they’ve been doing in coming after him.

“The bottom line is, Clarence Thomas doesn’t care at all what they think.”

Paoletta added, “They will go after him, but it is a great day for the Constitution, you know, with Roe being overturned, with the Second Amendment being strengthened consistent with the Constitution, with religious liberties coming down consistent with the Constitution, and it is all aligning with where Clarence Thomas has been for the past 30 years.”

During a speech in Utah this spring, Thomas mocked those who criticize his views, according to the Deseret News.

The justice noted that his law clerks complained to him recently that he espoused “conservative white ideas.”

“That’s really interesting,” the 74-year-old Thomas said. “I didn’t know that there were these particular ideas that were off-limits — you get like white-only water fountains, now you get white-only ideas.

“The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

Thomas noted in a May speech that his difficulties are not with fellow black people, according to The Washington Post.

“People assume that I’ve had difficulties when I’ve been around members of my race,” he said.

“It’s just the opposite. The only people with whom I’ve had difficulties are white, liberal elites who consider themselves the anointed and us the benighted. … I have never had issues with members of my race.”


Calling Justice Thomas ‘Uncle Clarence’ exposes the rotten sham that is the progressive movement

A festering rot of racial animosity exists in our society that we willfully ignore socially and politically. It is a rot that eats away at the flesh of our civil society and spoils the greatness of our multicultural nation.

Progressives continually tell us we have blinders on when it comes to racism in American society. They’ve shoved their ideological solution of anti-racism to force us to “deconstruct” what they believe is an inherently deep-seated racist nation. I, as a black American, am supposed to rejoice in the presence of our self-appointed saviors, but I peeked behind the veil and saw who they really are.

Understandably, detractors of the decision have found themselves angry and anguished at last week’s Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade. Six judges found it necessary to overturn, but just one has been elected the face of all political animus: Clarence Thomas, who didn’t even write the court’s opinion.

They say that in times of stress, anger and anguish, you see who people really are. These moments are rare but special because you get to see how much of their rhetoric manifests in action and how much is lip service.

With overwhelming anger seeping through their pores, Democrats saw only one viable target who would satisfy their rage. There was only one person for whom they felt comfortable exposing themselves by lifting the veil of their true hatred and indifference for black people.

In a matter of hours, “Uncle Clarence” was trending on Twitter, a reference to the racist pejorative “Uncle Tom.” I witnessed multiple conversations between white progressives questioning if Clarence knows he’s black, chastising him for being married to a white woman and even going so far as to feel completely comfortable calling him a n–ger.

Don’t believe me? Do a Twitter search yourself.

Just one example: Left-wing Canadian pollster John Corbett tweeted, “Clarence Thomas: Just another dumb field n–ger.”

Even more disappointing, many black progressive Democrats stood by and said nothing. I listened to a Twitter Spaces discussion in which a white man said, verbatim, “Clarence Thomas is a n–ger” on a mostly black panel, and no one said a thing. Why would they allow this without pushback? Because they aren’t principled either.

White progressives feel emboldened to use racially inflammatory language like “Uncle Tom” and “coon” directed at black people who don’t behave the way they feel is acceptably black because black progressives allow it to happen.

Samuel L. Jackson, for example, gave the racist bat signal to all his white elitist progressive allies when he tweeted, “How’s Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v Virginia??!!” Today, it’s Uncle Clarence, but tomorrow it can be Uncle Samuel, and that’s the point he’s missing.

You cannot claim to be pro-black while selectively caring about which black person takes racial abuse. You cannot claim to be “anti-racist” if some racism is OK with you. You do not have to support Clarence Thomas’ political positions to find something highly unconscionable about how the man has been treated based simply on his race.

The veil has been lifted, and this is who they are. The progressive movement is a sham along with its boutique anti-racism ideology. The deep-seated hatred that progressives claim exists among the American public actually rots inside them, not us.

While everyone else has had their fingers clamped firmly on their noses to avoid the stench, I’ve been smelling this rot spread throughout my old political party for years. I used to believe Democrats were the party of fairness, liberal values and rationality, but they’ve allowed the rot to spread to all their messaging and have willfully leaned into the stench.

Instead of being repelled by the putrid smell of superficial identity politics, they’ve convinced themselves it’s a perfume-like fragrance everyone should enjoy. They’ve allowed racist leftist ideologues to smell up the joint, forcing many black Americans like me to choose political homelessness over a home that reeks of immorality.

This isn’t about Clarence Thomas; it is about addressing what is right and what is moral. Thomas doesn’t need my defense; he’s a grown man and can handle himself when labeled a misbehaving Negro.

If you are OK with white people calling any black person a n–ger, you are part of the rot. If you are OK with white people calling black people they disagree with politically “Uncle Toms,” you are part of the rot. If you cannot smell the rot, it is because you are it.

The veil has been lifted; this is who they are. Believe them.


Hannity: Dems have descended into full-blown lying, hysteria yet again

SEAN HANNITY: We begin with the left's weekend of rage and despair and lying and fundraising emails even. Roe v Wade is no more. Democrats have descended into a state of full-blown lying, hysteria yet again. Now, keep in mind, this decision did not outlaw abortion in America. Instead, they decided who will decide. They return the issue to the states to decide.

Your elected officials. So ultimately, the American people will decide allowing voters to debate, decide the rules and regulations surrounding abortion in their respective states. But Democrats are not interested in honest debate.

So over the weekend, they took to the streets as some proudly display very graphic, vulgar signs like this one here calling Justice Amy Coney Barrett a well, I can't even say it. Another sign telling the justices to burn in hell. Others evoking coat hangers displayed cartoon genitalia and stated that God was pro-killing babies. One common theme at all the demonstrations in America that we are doomed and the Supreme Court needs to go. In other words, they are calling for an insurrection against a co-equal branch of government.

Now, The New York Times even detailed what they call a step-by-step plan to discipline the U.S. Supreme Court by impeaching justices and packing the court. And according to top Democrats, well, one way or the other, the U.S. Supreme Court must be punished.




Tuesday, June 28, 2022

Black women could see a 33% increase in pregnancy-related deaths post-Roe. Why?

The article below is one-sided. In fact abortion bans are unlikely to affect most black women. In States where blacks are most numerous, their votes normally ensure that they are governed by Democrats -- who generally allow abortion.

So blacks are in fact LEAST LIKELY to be affected by the recent ruling in SCOTUS. Only the minority of blacks in conservative states will be affected.

And, like Americans generally, they will often be able to cross State borders to access abortions. Interstate variety makes the present uproar rather pointless. Americans move about a lot in general. Travelling to a State that allows abortion does not seem a great burden to me

Now that Roe v Wade has been overturned, the legal status of abortion is back in the hands of state lawmakers. And this will have especially damaging consequences for Black women.

It’s no news that being forced to carry a baby to term can be a death sentence. From ectopic pregnancies to other life-threatening complications, pregnant people in these situations are often faced with a choice between their own lives and that of their unborn baby.

In the case of African Americans, that risk of death is much higher. According to the CDC, Black women are over three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related complication than white women are. And in some parts of the country, this disparity is frighteningly worse. A report by the District of Columbia’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee, for instance, found that Black people accounted for 90% of pregnancy-related deaths in DC, despite constituting only half of all births there. On top of this, Black women are also at a higher risk for pregnancy complications and postpartum issues, such as pre-eclampsia and eclampsia.

A report found that Black people accounted for 90% of
The historical racism embedded within the American healthcare system accounts in large part for why birthing is so much deadlier for Black Americans. They are routinely dismissed, ignored and have their concerns denied while seeking medical care and intervention.

Black women also fall behind in other social determinants of health including housing, employment and socioeconomic status, all of which can affect their capacity to have safe, healthy pregnancies and care for a child.


Christian Business Under Assault For It’s Public Faith

A Christian-owned business is being viciously attacked for plans to hold an event about Christian engagement in politics.

For the past several days, there has been a social media firestorm over a Christian-owned restaurant and brewery in Ephrata, Pennsylvania planning to host lectures on the founding of Pennsylvania as an explicitly Christian state and what that fact means for contemporary politics.

The business’s social media erupted with a torrent of left-wing outrage. Other businesses have begun to refuse to serve the brewery’s popular beer. And local politicians are eager to do whatever they can to take this business down.

This controversy is the most important story in Christendom right now because the question of whether small, Christian-owned businesses can exist and operate as Christian in public in America is being answered.

That attention was being called to the undeniable Christian heritage of one of America’s earliest colonies is unacceptable to masses animated by a demonic ideology. In the local liberal rag, the repugnant journalist is forced to admit that, yes, indeed, Pennsylvania required its public officials to be Christians and to profess the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. But, he notes, clauses like that in State Constitutions were struck down by the United States Supreme Court “almost 50 years ago” and the Pennsylvania State Constitution was amended to remove it in 1968. Weird! What a coincidence that you can almost trace the decline of the country to that very period!

The local, anti-Christian, globalist rag, as it attempts to gin up even more left-wing outrage, even brought in notorious liberal Baptist leader Amanda Tyler, a favorite of the occupational D.C. regime, to comment on the very dangerous threat of Christian Nationalism. Tyler predictably brought up ridiculous secularist canards like the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of religious tests for Federal office asserting that its existence requires the kind of apostate Christian pluralism that began to take hold in the post-WWII period that liberals who hate Jesus love. What is the problem with this assertion? The story had already admitted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s religious test antedated the U.S. Constitution and remained in place for over 150 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified!

What does this mean? Right up until 1968 Pennsylvania was an explicitly Christian state. How many people were even aware of this!? This is what the demonic, antiChristian ideology requires: total historical ignorance. They want everyone to believe the way things are are the way they have always been. Their ideology cannot hold power unless the entire populace believes we have always been in the atheistic, materialist, secularist “utopia” and that any suggestion that this might not be the best way to live (much less a revolution against the way our ancestors have always lived for millennia!) is extremely dangerous Christian Nationalism.

But the irony, as you look at the summary of the whole controversy by the anti-Christian press, is that they have to admit that the “dangerous Christian Nationalism” espoused by the speakers of the event is what pretty much everyone believed right up until 1968. There are people still alive who were well into adulthood and who still remember life before this!

What this controversy shows is that the battle over the soul of our nation is not over. The anti-Christian left believes that they have totally and conclusively won. They believe Godless Globalism has defeated Christian Nationalism. And when a restaurant & craft brewery announces they are going to host an event that questions the dominance of Godless Globalism and asks “maybe it might be good to go back to the way it was before our country was a disgusting trash heap?” just to ask the question is a signal that demonic, secular left-wing ideology is not as all-powerful as they think. If to ask the question if maybe it would be better to have an explicitly Christian country causes such outrage, the lady doth protest too much. They have to react this way to a challenge to their power or else the entire house of cards is exposed.


The globalist agenda

We are definitely living in interesting times. I’d have preferred the 1770s, but I’m here now. For decades we at American Policy Center have been arousing people to see what is actually going on in the world rather than being duped by the globalists’ propaganda arms, the

MSM and the education system. Many people are opening their eyes, but that fact has been hidden by the press. Now, the Globalists, with their Cancel Culture, are opening more eyes than imaginable thanks to their hubris. They began to believe their propaganda – gotta love it! – and thought they had ‘turned’ enough of us into gullible fools or useful idiots.

They, the Globalists, are telling us meat, milk, tuna fish (and anything else natural, except centipedes) are killing us. So, we need to eat bugs to be healthy. Uh huh. I laughed. Even many deeply duped Leftists are gagging on that. How many cockroaches does it take to supply one gram of protein? And will they expect us to eat termites? Probably, because that would be one thing that would help reduce our carbon footprints – termites are more destructive to ozone than cow farts! Bon Appetit, Leftists. I will stick with red meat; I like to have a functioning brain.

Seriously, though, those wishing to take control of the world will help us bring themselves down like all previous wannabe masters of the universe. Yes, they have seduced a sizable portion of the population, but it is not as sizable as they would have us believe. The Globalists have studied, plotted, planned, and tested their hypotheses ad nauseum, but just like Communism, they cannot factor in, let alone control, all the variables needed. Maybe they expect to metamorphose themselves into God via Transhumanism. Good luck!

That doesn’t mean we aren’t in for, probably, the most horrendous times this Earth has ever seen. Noah and Lot were witnesses to cataclysmic events but, because the world now has billions of people, and because the Globalists are ‘all in’ for “whatever it takes”, we will be subject to a truly dystopian world.

While WW I was the “war to end all wars” but didn’t put off a worse war for much more than 20 years, we have been living in WWIII for decades. We didn’t notice because very few guns and no tanks or rockets have been used – yet. This is a war using the asymmetrical weapons of dumbing down, brainwashing, programing, psychological warfare, gaslighting, promoting fear and paranoia, fake pandemics, weaponized “medications”, destroying small businesses through shut-downs, allowing rioting by paid radicals, plus cancelling our culture and replacing it with fake and corrupting values, attitudes, and beliefs. Oh, and there are many, many more weapons being used against us. Obviously, the Globalists figure if we are aware of and fight off 500 of them, one of the other 9,000 should get us, amongst which are:

ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing which, according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, means:

ESG practices can include but are not limited to, strategies that select companies based on their stated commitment to one or more ESG factors —for example, companies with policies aimed at minimizing their negative impact on the environment or companies that focus on governance principles and transparency. ESG practices may also entail screening out companies in certain sectors or that, in the view of the fund manager, have shown poor performance with regard to management of ESG risks and opportunities. Furthermore, some fund managers may focus on companies that they view as having room for improvement on ESG matters, with a view to helping those companies improve through actively engaging with the companies.[1]

In simple English, that means if your company doesn’t toe the Marxist, Agenda 21/2030, Sustainable, anti-freedom line, you will be cancelled (or just ignored, shunned, and ridiculed until you learn to follow Big Brother or fail).

This, now, is combined with modern monetary theory (MMT), which only a person educated in our institutes of higher learning now can possibly comprehend. MMT contends that government can create more money – without any backing – just because it needs the money to support the federal spending on ESG issues (along with providing billions for war materials to Ukraine) and and and. Through these weapons, the Globalists are making our money worthless in order to continue wiping out the Middle Class. The COVID lockdowns made major inroads on that goal; this is to finish us off.

Add technocracy to the cache of arms, and they now have a mega-weapon in economics. While technocracy, like MMT and ESG, is made out of whole economic cloth, it, too, is an “invented and unnatural form of economics that expresses itself as totalitarianism and requires social engineering to work. Technocrats in the past defined technocracy as the science of social engineering; controlling the populace is crucial for the system to function.” [2]

Their plan is to not only change governance, but to physically change us humans, to “computerize” us. Then they can not only know everything we do when we do it, they can design us to do what they want us to do – even to die if we are useless eaters (or considered such by the global elite like Gates, Schwab, and their useful idiots – too many to list (starting with Fauci).

And don’t overlook PSYOPs, designed by the military for psychological warfare. Who knew they would use it on their own people (snark)? As Wikipedia states:

Psychological operations are operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

Television and movies were major tools in the PSYOPS bag, then they discovered they could use the make-believe of those media and feed it to the people as news. Why were so many so easily fooled? I would guess that one of the reasons is because just about every outlet in print and video was coopted. So-called journalists are now just talking heads, parroting what they are fed. And few notice or care. GIGO should be the buzzword of the day. A perfect example: many people believe the puppet regime in Ukraine is poor, picked on, and pure as the driven snow. They have no idea what is going on in that part of the world, the maneuvering vis a vis NATO, the oil issue, the displaced Russian population of Ukraine. If MSM’s greenscreen slips and shows the 2x4s holding up the screen, they don’t notice. The woke are not awake, they are hypnotized.

And pseudo Climate Change, the raison d’être. The Globalists, along with their cohorts, the Deep State, are pushing electric cars when they know that 1. they cannot produce enough batteries to supply the world with electric cars, 2. there are gross human rights violations occurring in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 3. power to charge the batteries comes from electric power plants, and 4, last but certainly not least, these batteries are very damaging to the environment. But most of us realize that the issue isn’t the issue. It isn’t about developing sustainably, it is about bankrupting the middle class (who can afford these cars?) and driving people into Stack n’ Pack housing so they are easier to control.

Add to the list the sequestration of carbon, solar and wind power, “brownfielding” minority neighborhoods to drive the people out of their homes and businesses; there are dozens, if not thousands, of other weapons being used against us.

I was listening to a novel based in Shaker Heights, Ohio, the first planned community established in 1912. It was scary. The designers, the Van Sweringen brothers, were Shakers and railroad mogels (think James Hill, Jay and George Gould, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Edward Harriman, and Collis P. Huntington). The scary part is that, even then, people wanted to plan how everyone lived – and now, where and if they work, where they recreate, and if they are allowed to procreate.

We are being programmed to want to conform, not to stand out. When I was growing up, it was expected that we try to excel, stand out above the crowd. Now, we are to be a crowd – and if we are really good, we will be an unruly, angry, vengeance-seeking crowd (seeking vengeance for unknown atrocities committed in someone’s imagination.

If we truly want to fit in now, we must be indistinguishable from everyone else – Mao jackets, e-cigs instead of joints, tats instead of love beads, and multi or asexuality instead of sex, drugs, and rock n’ roll. But those were the start.

The scariest part for me is the fusion centers. We are being inundated with propaganda promoting the support of locking those up who disagree with the Sustainable Development lines promoted by the Globalists – and even those who want to own their own home on their own property un-supervised by a homeowners association. MSM watchers are becoming inured to hordes of rioters, a police state, and even their fellow citizens being locked-up for daring to speak out against Newspeak.

As I noted earlier, it is quite unlikely that the Globalist plan will pan out as they have so meticulously and duplicitously scripted. But dystopian will be descriptive of our everyday world, not a scene from a sci-fi novel.


South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem on fighting woke politics over July 4th fireworks at Mt. Rushmore

Gov. Noem

In December 2018, shortly after I was elected governor, President Trump invited several governors-elect to Washington to talk about our priorities and see where he might be able to help. Knowing the president’s bias for action, I understood that bringing up matters we could tackle right off the bat would increase the chances of getting them done. They would also be far more likely to warrant the president’s personal involvement.

"Mr. President, I need a farm bill and trade agreements done. Our farmers and ranchers need access to new markets to level out the playing field to continue to grow our nation’s food supply." The president nodded.

"I’d also like to have your help with moving some opportunity zones," I went on. More nodding.

"And lastly, Mr. President," I said, "I’d like your help getting fireworks back to Mount Rushmore." He immediately perked up. "Fireworks? What do you mean?"

I told him that South Dakota had a long tradition of a fireworks celebration on top of Mount Rushmore every Fourth of July eve. But for ten years, I explained, the display had been canceled — ever since the Obama administration had barred them, claiming that the fireworks might trigger "environmental concerns."

"Mr. President, this is South Dakota’s one opportunity to really become the focus of the nation for one night each year." Bringing fireworks back to Mount Rushmore would be an incredible tribute to freedom in our country — a western sky lit with red, white, and blue fireworks illuminating some of our nation’s greatest leaders. Beyond that, tourism is South Dakota’s second-largest industry. Marketing our state on national television on America’s birthday had always been incredibly beneficial for us.

It made sense to President Trump. And from that moment on, he was fixated on getting us our fireworks back.

My team and I worked diligently with the Department of Interior and the White House for almost two years straight on logistics and planning. Every time I saw President Trump in that time, without fail, he would ask, "Kristi, how are we coming along on our fireworks?"

"We are working it, Mr. President," I assured him.

The truth was that bureaucrats within his own administration were trying to stop it. For starters, the National Park Service (NPS) did not want to facilitate the event. NPS staff brought up fire concerns, water-quality concerns, cultural concerns, and, once the pandemic hit, health concerns. At one point, a staffer even asked, "How could this event offend people on Twitter?"

I kid you not.

My office made repeated requests to meet with Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt to get an agreement signed, permits obtained, and the planning process underway. When Secretary Bernhardt was slated to speak at the Western Governors Association in Vail, Colorado, in June 2019, I finally had an opportunity to speak with him directly.

It was months after my June meeting with Secretary Bernhardt before we heard anything from the federal government. Stop and think about that for a minute. The president of the United States — the "leader of the free world" — was in favor of returning fireworks to Mount Rushmore. The secretary of interior — who was appointed by the president — was in favor of returning fireworks to Mount Rushmore. And — not for nothing — the governor of the state in which Mount Rushmore exists was in favor of returning fireworks to Mount Rushmore.

And yet, it was nearly impossible to get this event through a massive, unelected federal bureaucracy that didn’t want it.

It is never just a simple yes with the federal government. Everything is always draped in miles and miles of red tape. For us to have fireworks at Mount Rushmore, the federal government insisted on elaborate requirements. It was absurd.

Environmental studies needed to be conducted. Federal permits needed to be obtained. Extensive back-burning had to occur on all the surrounding Forest Service land. We needed numerous sign-offs and agreements between all the key players. And then — because President Trump had expressed interest in showing up — all those agencies had to reach agreements with the United States Secret Service. After all, there might be protests. Then came the engineers who had to determine exactly where we would set up the fireworks display.

Over the course of this planning period, three different people came into the position of superintendent of Mount Rushmore. Each new person brought new concerns and a fresh face to make us worry about the viability of the event.

Worst of all was the organized, nationwide campaign in the spring and summer of 2020 to rip down references to our nation’s founding and other points in history. From coast to coast, this was a movement that intentionally focused exclusively on our forefathers’ flaws, and that purposefully ignored their virtues. I believed then and believe now that this was done deliberately to discredit America’s principles to remake our country into a different political image. The attempt to "cancel" the founding generation was an attempt to cancel our freedoms.

One day, early in the summer of 2020, as the whole nation convulsed with fights over identity politics and extreme levels of political correctness, I came across a segment on cable news that remains one of the most mind-boggling displays of ignorance I’ve ever seen on television — and that’s saying something.

Standing in the Black Hills, with the iconic chiseled images of four US presidents behind her, CNN correspondent Leyla Santiago described the impending visit of the president of the United States to one of America’s most popular tourist attractions this way:

"President Trump will be at Mount Rushmore, where he’ll be standing in front of a monument of two slave owners and on land wrestled away from Native Americans. I’m told that… he’ll be focusing on the effort to 'tear down our country’s history.'"

It’s worth noting that if it were not for the four men carved into the stone behind her, Leyla would be living a very different life in a very different country. The very rights she mindlessly enjoys today — such as getting to say whatever careless thing she wants — would not exist if not for the men who set the foundation for freedom as we know it. What’s more, President Obama had visited Rushmore only a few years before — without any such criticism from the media. It was just more hypocrisy and total loss of objectivity from the media.

The reporter had no idea that she was proving the point about the need to protect our treasured history from ignorant vandals. She was standing there on national television attacking our history to smear Republicans and patriotic Americans as racist, uncaring, and generally supportive of slavery and genocide.

Her report was more than just an attack on the Founders, it was an assault on every American who cherishes our history. Sitting there watching her babble on, I could not help but take it personally. This was, after all, my home state. And, as South Dakota’s governor, preserving this revered national landmark was part of my responsibility. If the Left wants to come after Mount Rushmore, they’re going to have to go through me.

We decided to offer 7,500 tickets to the public — to be distributed via a lottery system. More than 125,000 people signed up in three days.

On July 3, 2020, President Trump and his family arrived at Ellsworth Air Force Base, just east of Rapid City. I welcomed the president and First Lady on the runway at Ellsworth. From there we would ride on Marine One to Mount Rushmore and land at the park’s helipad.

For all the times I have gazed at the faces of Mount Rush-more, I have never seen them quite like I did that day from the inside of Marine One. The skill of the Marine pilots was incredible; they got us close. I remember being eye-to-eye with the spectacles of our nation’s twenty-sixth president — the conservationist, naturalist, historian, and "Rough Rider" Theodore Roosevelt.

Teddy would have loved this, I thought.

Adding to the drama, the production team was playing the radio communications of the helicopter pilots over the loudspeakers so the crowd could hear their commands and approach. As we flew past, the crowd below began cheering. Looking down, I saw people dancing.

People needed this, I realized. We all did. After months of a global pandemic, this was the first time for so many that they had done anything that felt normal — human. We were Americans, together again.

My mother was in the audience that day. Later, she told me that looking around the crowd, she saw tears streaming down the faces of the people around her. No masks. No fear. Just profound gratitude for the gift of living in this country.

The fireworks that night were something out of this world. The sound echoed off the Black Hills like endless rolls of thunder. In the flashes of their dazzling light, I could see thousands of people, from all across America, watching in wonder.

This was a defiant celebration of life — the life of a nation, born from desperate beginnings — and a celebration of the lives of everyone continuing that story now despite a global pandemic — those gathered in the canyon below and those all across the country.

Further, in the months leading up to the Fourth of July, the country had seen so many angry people tearing down monuments from our past, believing they could only be sources of pain and division. Here at Mount Rushmore, we had the opposite. The isolation and fear of the pandemic had been heavy on us all. Here, for the first time in so long, people had come together. We want to be united as much as we want to be free, I remember thinking to myself.

In that moment, I knew in my heart: our country will survive.

Whatever comes, whatever trials from within or without, we can rest assured that the human heart never stops yearning for true freedom, and it never stops yearning for true community. That freedom is not a license to act on whatever whim, but the ability to serve, honor, and love the good things, the true things, the beautiful things. And that community is not something that can be forced on us by official authority, but something that must be freely chosen. Something given.




Monday, June 27, 2022

The unemployment figures are meaningless

They ignore the low participation rate

Low labor force participation rate for less-educated Americans
Washington, D.C. (June 23, 2022) – A new Center for Immigration Studies analysis of employment shows that while the overall unemployment rate for immigrants and the U.S.-born has returned to pre-pandemic levels, this obscures the low labor force participation rate of the U.S.-born, particularly those without a bachelor’s degree.

The "unemployed" includes only those who have actively looked for a job in the prior four weeks, while labor force participation measures the share of all working-age people holding a job or actively looking for one. If the labor force participation rate for these less-educated Americans were the same in 2022 as it was 2000, seven million more people would be in the labor force.

“The low unemployment rate is largely meaningless because it does not include all the people on the sidelines,” said Steven Camarota, the Center’s director of research and co-author of the analysis. “With more than 54 million working-age people not in the labor force, we need to adopt policies that get more people back into jobs — not perpetuate the situation by bringing in ever more foreign workers.”

Among the findings:

The unemployment rate of about 4 percent for both the U.S.-born and immigrants (ages 16-plus) in the first quarter of 2022 is similar to what it was before Covid-19, as is the total number (6.7 million) unemployed.

Perhaps more important than the 6.7 million unemployed are the 54.5 million working-wage (16-64) U.S. residents not in the labor force — neither working nor looking for work

Of all 61.2 million not working in the first quarter, 35.3 million (58 percent) were U.S.-born adults (18-64) without a bachelor’s degree.

Among the U.S.-born, labor force participation is lowest and has tended to decline the most among the least-educated — dropouts and those with only a high school education, though it has also declined among those adults with some college.

Prime-age (25-54):

Focusing only on “prime-age” (25-54) men, who traditionally have the highest labor force participation, shows a large decline for the U.S.-born, but not so much for immigrants.
Of U.S.-born men of prime working age without a bachelor’s degree, only 84 percent were in the labor force in the first quarter of 2022, compared to 89 percent in 2000. In contrast, 91 percent of less-educated prime-age immigrant men were in the labor force in 2022, compared to 92 percent in 2000.
Like their male counterparts, the labor force participation rate of less-educated U.S.-born women of prime age has declined — from 77 percent in 2000 to 72 percent in 2022. At 62 percent, the labor force participation rate for immigrant women is lower than their U.S.-born counterparts, but has not changed much since 2000


While less-educated U.S.-born blacks tend to have lower rates of labor force participation than U.S.-born whites and Hispanics, all three groups show a decline over the last two decades.

Among prime working-age U.S.-born Americans (25-54) without a bachelor’s degree, labor force participation between 2000 and 2022 declined for whites from 84 percent to 79 percent; for blacks it declined from 79 percent to 75 percent; and for Hispanics it declined from 81 percent to 78 percent.


Russia is sidestepping American oil sanctions

When the European Union finally made the decision to ban 90 percent of Russia’s crude oil imports by the end of the year, the bureaucrats in Brussels were jubilant. The EU’s adoption of oil sanctions was thought be a big blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who depends on the revenue generated by his country’s oil exports to fund his war in Ukraine.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why European officials were so thrilled. The EU imported 2.2 million barrels per day of Russian crude last year, amounting to tens of billions of dollars in profits for the Kremlin every month. Prohibiting 90 percent of that supply, with the exception of Hungary (the country received a waiver after its prime minister, Viktor Orbán, held up a deal for about a month), would be a gargantuan loss for the Russians at a time when its troops are engaged in their largest war since the ten-year occupation of Afghanistan four decades earlier. That was the theory, anyway.

The global oil market, however, isn’t exactly cooperating. Far from celebrating, the EU today is scratching its head over the amount of money the Russians continue to scoop up as a result of high oil prices and Moscow’s ability to counteract the West’s sanctions regime. Indeed, Moscow is earning more money from oil exports than it was before the war in Ukraine began. The Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, an organization in Finland, calculates that Russia’s export prices for fossil fuels in general are about 60 percent higher than they were last year. Asked by lawmakers whether Moscow was raking in more money from oil sales now than in the months before the war, Amos Hochstein, the Biden administration’s envoy for energy affairs, wasn’t cute with his answer: “I can’t deny that.”

What’s going on here? There are two factors to consider.

The first and most obvious is the extremely high price of crude oil. On June 21, Brent Crude opened at $114 a barrel, approximately 55 percent higher than this time last year. For major petro-states like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia, these are the good old days, when high demand and tight global supply produces record profits. Naturally, the more profits Russia earns, the more resources Putin will have available to finance his war of aggression and ensure discontent on the Russian street doesn’t get out of hand.

Current prices are so sky-high, in fact, that Russia continues to make hefty earnings even after offering significant discounts to buyers. At spot rates of about $73 a barrel, and based on current market prices, customers are saving about 51 percent if they go with Russian Urals crude instead of Brent (how long the current supply-demand dynamics will hold is another question entirely).

This leads to the second reason why the EU’s oil sanctions aren’t having an immediate effect: Russia is reworking its entire oil distribution network. The Russians aren’t standing around; they’re creating new opportunities. Before the war, about 60 percent of Russia’s oil exports went to Europe, with the rest going to China. Now, the Russians are redirecting previously Europe-bound oil cargoes to countries in Asia, which are looking for the cheap and most reliable energy supply they can get. In May, Russian crude exports to China increased by 28 percent from the previous month, replacing Saudi Arabia as Beijing’s biggest source of the black stuff. India is receiving 760,000 Russian barrels a day, an exponential jump compared to previous levels, which were near zero.

The Biden administration is obviously disappointed that partner nations are prioritizing their economies over their morals. Biden urged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a virtual summit in April to lay off buying more Russian crude and offered help in acquiring different energy sources. Some lawmakers, like Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez, have called India out for giving Putin a financial lifeline; others have hinted at possible US sanctions against the Indians. But would Washington really go as far as undermine a strategic partnership that successive presidents have cultivated since the dawn of the century (and one, it must be stressed, that the administration is hoping to enlist in a balancing coalition against China)? More importantly, should it?

American and European policymakers evidently fooled themselves into believing that cutting off Russian oil would be the beginning of the end for Putin’s war machine — or at least force the Kremlin to deplete whatever reserve funds they have left on the war. But the market has something else in mind.


Leftism triumphant in Philadelphia

There’s “No Price to Pay” for Crime in Philadelphia, Says Mayor and Victim’s Families

Another week in Philadelphia and another major real estate deal—with developers announcing yesterday a $22 million sale for business space and 73 residential units in the Spring Garden neighborhood. Recently redone with the kind of luxury finishes that have become standard on new development projects, the building offers high-end accommodations and nearby amenities like newly opened microbreweries and the city’s peaceful elevated rail park.

Days earlier, eight stops north of Spring Garden on the Broad Street subway line, a young woman named Alyssa Morales was attacked by a group of men in Hunting Park. Beaten and set on fire, she was discovered by others who came to the park assuming there was a trash fire. Because Morales was unable to speak her name at the ICU, it took two days before the staff learned who she was while they attended to the second- and third-degree burns that cover more than half her body.

Before and since the attack on Morales, a cruel, menacing wave of violence has washed over Philadelphia. Blocks from that same park, Loi Nguyen was out on his Monday morning walk, as had been the 76-year-old’s routine for years, when a man shot him dead with a bullet to the skull and ran off, leaving Nguyen’s family bereft and mystified about the cause of the violence. Days before, a man named Malcom White was arrested on charges of one rape and three separate assaults against women, including two attacks in the city’s bustling South Passyunk neighborhood. White had brutally beaten three women walking together, leaving one with a bloody nose, before coming upon another woman, Noelle Liquori, who was waiting on the sidewalk as her boyfriend finished his afternoon shift at work nearby. “The first hit came from behind. He hit me in the ear, put me down, and punched me in the face a couple of times,” Liquori said. “The last thing I remember, I was being dragged on my back. He had my feet, dragging me down the pavement. I kept kicking him and screaming to get someone’s attention.”

Two dozen people traveled to the capital city of Harrisburg on Monday because they, too, are asking for someone to help them. They were at the capitol building to bring attention to an effort to impeach Larry Krasner, the district attorney in Philadelphia serving his second term. Taking turns at the podium in the rotunda, family members of those who’ve been killed in the city described feeling that the crime in Philadelphia is ceaseless, with no one able to stop it. Since the start of this year, 830 people have been injured in shootings in Philadelphia, with another 200 killed in gun homicides.

“At what point do we hold those responsible to accountability? How many sons and daughters do we have to lose?” said Nakisha Billa, who’s son was murdered last spring while buying clothes for an upcoming job interview. Billa stood beside other parents who held up photos of their children, portraits from graduation days and school sports. The men who killed her son had several previous convictions between them. “The lawlessness that is going on in Philadelphia is beyond control.”

The attempt to impeach Krasner was initiated this week by three Republican members of the Pennsylvania House. Citing the state’s constitutional provision that allows lawmakers to impeach a public official if that person has committed a serious crime or a “misbehavior,” the lawmakers argue that Krasner falls afoul of the latter clause, in breach of his prosecutorial oath and derelict in his duties to protect the residents of the city. It’s unlikely the impeachment will garner the two-thirds majority support it would need in the state’s upper chamber, where at least five Democrats would have to join the Republican-led campaign.

It’s uncertain whether impeaching Krasner would make an immediate or significant dent in what’s happening in Philadelphia. The DA is not wrong when he speaks of systemic, institutional failures that have plagued the city for decades, as developers and city council members have poured money into some neighborhoods while the schools, community programs, and public parks in the less desirable zip codes were left to rot. It’s what has allowed Kensington, the nation’s largest open-air drug market, to flourish into a massive bazaar where the guns trade just as freely as the fentanyl kills scores of people in Philadelphia. On the other hand, the DA’s job is not to cure the root causes of every social ill but to uphold the law and help maintain public order, and while Philadelphia’s problems may not all be of Krasner’s making, the district attorney hasn’t exactly made much of an effort to combat them.

Facing criticism in January for the record number of homicides in Philadelphia in 2021, Krasner brushed off the complaints that there was a problem. “We don’t have a crisis of lawlessness, we don’t have a crisis of crime, we don’t have a crisis of violence,” he said. Since he was elected in 2018, Krasner, following the same agenda as other prominent progressive DAs, has pushed for shorter sentences and for forgoing charges against defendants arrested by police for illegal firearms. “We do not believe that arresting people and convicting them for illegal gun possession is a viable strategy to reduce shootings,” a representative from Krasner’s office said in January, which, when you think about it for a moment, is absolutely fucking insane for the prosecutor’s office to believe, let alone to say out loud. On the district attorney’s website, Krasner keeps a running tally of how many fewer years served convicts have received since he began his tenure: 28,100 years in total.

Krasner’s approach has also led to a startling exodus of prosecutors from his office—including those he’s hired himself. After Krasner took over the office in 2018, at least 70 of the prosecutors Krasner recruited to join the office have since left, adding to the total of some 261 attorneys who’ve departed the office under Krasner’s leadership. “I joined this office for a reason. I came to Philly to work for Krasner because I believed in what he was trying to do,” one member of his staff told a reporter. “I feel betrayed a lot by this office and the promises of what I thought this job was going to be.” The high turnover rate has burdened those who stay with unsustainable caseloads and forced Krasner last month to seek more money from the city so he could entice new hires with higher salaries. One council member said they were reluctant to give more money to the office because of how many complaints they receive from residents who feel they suffer from the “revolving door” of crime committed by the same offenders in their neighborhood.

Following the mass shooting on Philadelphia’s South Street that left three dead and 11 wounded earlier this month, Philadelphia’s mayor, Jim Kenney, expressed dismay at the city’s atmosphere of lawlessness. “It’s gotten to the point where there’s no price to pay for carrying illegal guns, so people carry them because they don’t think anything is going to happen,” said Kenney. Of 303 arrested in 2019 and 2020 for illegal firearms in the city’s 18th police district, two went to prison.

The feeling of being unprotected in Philadelphia has swiftly driven up firearm purchases, with almost 50,000 guns bought in the city across 2020 and 2021, more than doubling the 22,000 guns that had been bought during the two-year period prior. The uptick in people arming themselves for protection has also led to an escalation of justified homicides, aka people using guns to kill people attacking them. In 2018, just six people had been found to be justified in killing someone with a gun in self-defense. Last year, the city’s police department saw justified homicides rise 67% to 20 killings, with six more awaiting approval by the district attorney’s office.

In March, Junwan Perkins-Owens, a 22-year-old assistant manager of a Philadelphia Dollar General, shot and killed a gunman wearing a ski mask and threatening to shoot his cashier as he demanded the money from the store’s register. Perkins-Owens’ store had recently been robbed by a man who held off employees by threatening to stick them with a hypodermic needle. But that wasn’t why Perkins-Owens bought the gun he later used in self-defense. He bought the gun when he suffered a gunshot wound to the leg in a separate incident.

“It’s unfortunate that it happened, but victims are tired of being victims,” said Perkins-Owens. “People are actually standing up for themselves.”


Biden slams SCOTUS vote to overturn 108-year-old NY gun law requiring 'proper cause' to carry concealed weapon

The Supreme Court has struck down a New York law that severely restricted licenses to carry a concealed weapon, in the high court's biggest Second Amendment ruling in more than a decade.

President Joe Biden said he was 'deeply disappointed' in the ruling, saying in a statement that it 'contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.'

The 6-3 ruling on Thursday reversed a lower court's opinion, which had upheld the 108-year-old New York law restricting licenses to carry concealed weapons in public only to those demonstrating 'proper cause'.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion, writing that the New York law prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

New York is not alone in severely limiting who can get a license to carry concealed in public, and the new ruling will likely make it easier to legally carry a gun in major cities including Los Angeles, Boston and Baltimore.

The court decision comes as the Senate was poised on Thursday for a vote to advance a bipartisan gun-control bill, in what could be the first new federal gun legislation in decades.




Sunday, June 26, 2022

Liberals slam late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for not retiring

The commenters are right. Conservatives THANK Ginsburg for the same reason. Despite her great age and failing health, she hung on and hung on to her job in the certain belief that the next president would be Hillary. But she got Trump instead. She gambled and lost. She was actually a victim of Leftist hubris and their certainty that they were right

Some liberals are blaming the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after the court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade case that federally protected a woman’s right to an abortion in the United States on Friday.

Ginsburg notoriously decided to not retire during the Obama administration when she could have been replaced with a liberal justice, only to die at the age of 87 in September 2020 during the Trump administration.

She was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was one of three conservative justices appointed by former President Donald Trump — all three of whom were among the six justices who voted in favour of overturning the half-century-old decision.

If she had retired and been replaced by a liberal justice, the decision to overturn Roe would likely still have passed in a 5-4 vote.

Although Ginsburg was a staunch advocate for women’s constitutional right to an abortion, she was critical of how Roe v. Wade established that right.

Outraged, many liberals took to social media to point their fingers at her for Friday’s decision.

“RBG was a hero for many reasons. But the terrible irony is that her decision to stay too long at the party helped lead to the destruction of one of the things she cared about the most,” Hollywood Reporter columnist Scott Feinberg tweeted.


Tucker Carlson brands original Roe v Wade decision 'poison' that 'degraded the legitimacy of Supreme Court'

Tucker Carlson hailed the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v Wade on Friday as a win for Americans and an end to a 'political document' that was 'poison.'

The Fox News host said the landmark 1973 case that secured women's federal right to abortions should have never gone through as it undermined the high court and was merely 'political.'

'Roe was a political document,' Carlson said. 'It was not a legal opinion.

'And for that reason, it degraded and undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, one of our country's central institutions. It was poison.'

He also condemned the protests going on in the Capitol and around the country following the ruling as states scrambled to pass abortion restrictions or expand abortion rights for residents.

Carlson said he was confused by the pro-choice protestors, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision was simply democracy at play.

'This particular ruling dramatically reduces the power of unelected judges to dictate the details of the lives of millions of Americans and returns that power to voters,' Carlson said. 'Voters get to decide how they want to live.

'That's an extreme ideology that upsets the balance of power somehow? We thought that was the whole premise of our system. We thought that was democracy.'

He continued to scoff at the protesters and said that if they didn't like the ruling, they should simply vote for representatives that would pass pro-abortion laws.

The Fox host also drew parallels between the outrage from the abortion ruling to that of the deadly January 6 Capitol riots, mocking liberals who claimed democracy was in danger who are now condeming one of the three branches of government.

'The very people who have been lecturing us for years about democracy – 'It's the end of democracy' – are horrified by the return of democracy,' Carlson said.

'They're telling us the legitimacy of our institutions is at risk. And yet they cannot allow voters to have a say in how they live.'

He specifically called our U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, of California, who called on Americans to defy the Supreme Court and fight the ruling.

'Women are going to control their bodies no matter how they try and stop us,' Waters said as she joined protesters outside the Supreme Court. The hell with the Supreme Court.

'We will defy them. Women will be in control of their bodies. And if they think Black women are intimidated or afraid, they got another thought coming.'

Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with Samuel Alito to end women's federal right to abortions.

Abortion was automatically outlawed in 18 US states as soon as Roe v. Wade was overturned, thanks to specially-devised 'trigger laws' and historic bans that were automatically reenacted after Friday's ruling.

Thirteen states prepared trigger laws which would automatically outlaw terminations in the event of a ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, which was widely-anticipated.

They are: Arkansas; Idaho; Kentucky; Louisiana; Mississippi; Missouri; North Dakota; Oklahoma; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah and Wyoming.

Abortion bans in those states will now become law within 30 days.

Five other states have also now banned terminations, after historic laws superseded by the 1973 Roe ruling automatically came back into place. Among those five are two Democrat-governed states - Michigan and Wisconsin.

Eight other states are also set to enact new anti-abortion laws. Georgia, Iowa and South Carolina all attempted to ban abortion after the six week mark.

Those laws were branded unconstitutional, but will likely be revisited now Roe has ended. And Florida, Indiana, Montana as well as Nebraska are all working on plans to ban or restrict terminations.


Destruction and Vandalism by Pro-Abortion Extremists Sweeps America

Shadowy pro-abortion group Jane’s Revenge has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of destruction and vandalism against pro-life groups for which police have yet to make an arrest.

The group’s attacks began on May 8 in Madison, Wisconsin, where Jane’s Revenge members torched the headquarters of pro-life group Wisconsin Family Action.

“They had Molotov cocktails. They threw one against the window, and the window didn’t break. So then they broke a window and threw a Molotov cocktail into my office,” said Julaine Appling, Wisconsin Family Action’s president.

When the Molotov didn’t destroy the office enough, the attackers started a fire in Appling’s office using her books.

“The thing that I am missing the most is all the books they burned,” Appling said. “Some of those might at this point be irreplaceable.”

The same day, Jane’s Revenge announced its existence, claimed responsibility for the attack, and promised more nationwide.

“We are forced to adopt the minimum military requirement for a political struggle,” its anonymous writer said in an online manifesto.

Since then, attacks on pro-life organizations have only escalated. As of today, at least 28 pro-life groups from Anchorage, Alaska to Hollywood, Florida have been attacked.

The attacks were prompted by the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, a decades-old decision that prohibited states from imposing restrictions on abortion.

Who Is Jane’s Revenge?

The attack on Wisconsin Family Action’s office was the first one claimed by Jane’s Revenge.

The only public channel of communication from Jane’s Revenge is a page on NoBlogs, an anarchist blogging site.

In its first post on Sunday, May 8, the group announced a “declaration of war” against pro-life groups. It demanded the disbandment of all American pro-life groups in the next 30 days.

“As you continue to bomb clinics and assassinate doctors with impunity, so too shall we adopt increasingly extreme tactics to maintain freedom over our own bodies,” the group wrote.

This “First Communiqué” also announced that Jane’s Revenge had “not one group, but many” in “every city.”

A second manifesto on May 30 called for a “Night of Rage” on the night the Supreme Court releases the Dobbs v. Jackson verdict. It asked for “courageous hearts to come out after dark.”

It also claimed that Jane’s Revenge had a “few hundred people” but needed more members.

It’s unclear whether Jane’s Revenge has a centralized leadership, cells across the country, or is simply a slogan that unconnected pro-abortion radicals use when attacking pro-life clinics. The group’s true size is also unclear.

Many attacks against pro-life groups nationwide have used graffiti tags connected to Jane’s Revenge.

Jane’s Revenge attacks tend to have cursive graffiti reading, “Jane Was Here,” “Jane’s Revenge,” anarchist symbols, the number “1312,” or some version of the phrase “If abortions aren’t safe then neither are you.”

Federal and local police have yet to arrest anyone for attacking a pro-life clinic since the first attack on May 8.

Attackers on the Loose

The Epoch Times has interviewed seven of the 28 pro-life organizations attacked since the Dobbs v. Jackson leak. Several attacked organizations refused to be interviewed because they feared a higher profile would bring more attacks.

But all organizations that spoke with the Epoch Times said they wouldn’t quit because of the attacks.

“We’re not going to go away. We’re not going to be quiet. We are going to continue to be bold and strong. Because we are on the right side of this issue,” Appling with Wisconsin Family Action said.

The vast majority of groups contacted by the Epoch Times said they had video of their attackers and were working with the police. Several clinics that received threats from Jane’s Revenge have also passed on information to the FBI.

In Long Beach, California, a woman entered His Nesting Place, a church and maternity care home, according to senior pastor Al Howard. The woman screamed obscenities, tore up a Bible, and threw a vase belonging to the church.

While congregants moved her out of the church, the woman attempted to open her backpack, Howard said. “It dawned on us later that she possibly might have had a weapon,” he said.

Both security and phone cameras caught the attack, Howard said. While she was in the church, the attacker said she was local. Later, she shouted and threatened outside the church again. But police still haven’t caught her, he said.

“She said, ‘I’m not finished with you. I’ll be back and I’m going to burn this place to the ground and all of you in it,’” Howard said.

Police didn’t set up a guard on the church while the attacker remained at large, he said.

Compass Care Pregnancy Services in Buffalo, New York suffered the worst attack so far from Jane’s Revenge, according to its director Jim Harden.

The attacker threw Molotovs at the clinic, resulting in “catastrophic” fire damage, Harden said.

The damage will require a full rebuild, he said. But due to the high number of donations the clinic has received, he plans to make a new and expanded building.

“Let’s not only rebuild, let’s build it bigger,” Harden said.

Police and the FBI have told Harden that they have leads on multiple perpetrators, but have yet to arrest a suspect, he said.

“Government failure to act is conspicuous,” Harden said. “Their job is to protect all citizens equally, not just the ones that agree with them.”


The newest Dark age

A dark age is not so much an age in which the level of technology degenerates as one in which the level of civilization degenerates. We are walking into the newest dark age with eyes open.

No barbarians are sacking our cities (we only praise urban riots). Nobody is burning the great libraries (we are only banning books). Nobody is tearing down churches (we just close them in the name of public hygiene).

Nobody is liquidating teachers or closing schools (the teachers themselves are destroying them). Nobody is seizing the universities to force them to stop teaching great literature (universities are doing that to themselves). Nobody is enforcing an official religion (you can hold any view of God you wish, so long as you agree that He couldn’t possibly matter to anything).

Nobody is forbidding teaching students to read (they just don’t, and we don’t expect them to). Nobody is forbidding teaching students to do arithmetic (except now they use calculators, and wrong answers are affirmed for the sake of self-esteem). We do know lots of facts (we are merely contemptuous of understanding).

We aren’t ignorant of basic right and wrong (we just pretend to be). No one has abolished the administration of justice (it has only been perverted for political ends). No one has prohibited elections (we have only manipulated the polls). We don’t so far practice much assassination (except career and character assassination).

Persons with disabilities are encouraged to seek help (and to consider themselves disabled even if they aren’t). In fact we help people a lot (especially in ways that infantilize them and make them permanently dependent). We no longer approve of victimizing people (we just encourage them to make permanent victims of themselves).

No one is tearing apart families (we break up our homes on our own). No one so far is taking children away from fit parents (parents merely hand them over to be raised by social media). We no longer allow the young to cheer the spilling of blood in the arena (instead we let them spill it themselves in virtual entertainments).

No one has prohibited the free press (journalists has chosen spin over honest reportage entirely on their own). We no longer approve of police brutality (in fact we no longer approve of police). We no longer have illegal drugs (they are all becoming legal).

We no longer prohibit the publication of filth (we only condemn calling it filth). We don’t say that debasement is wholesome (we merely make pop heroes of debased persons). We no longer have prostitution (those ladies are all sex workers now).

We no longer practice compulsory racial segregation, which is degrading (instead we applaud voluntary racial segregation, which is affirming). We no longer approve of racial discrimination (except against Asians and white males). No babies are born into slavery (we just kill them before they are born).

Women can pursue any jobs or professions they want (so long as they put motherhood in second place). In fact, biological women are now entirely equal (since as we now know, there are no biological women).

Yes, we are bringing this on ourselves. We will get exactly what we want. We may not be pleased when we have it.