You know how much I respect your skills and talents. Today, I’m asking you to share them with me and your fellow readers.

Please send me your self-reliance tips (no politics, please!)

You all know by now that I am being harried off the internet for sharing conservative viewpoints from leading writers. While I will continue to do this, I am only going to respond to the effects of the damaging progressive policies being implemented in Washington D.C. To rail against the actual policies will exhaust and frustrate us all, as well as ensure that we are kicked off this hosting platform, lose the last of our advertisers and get blocked by the big email providers.

So, I am turning to you! You homemakers, gardeners, hobbyists, hunters, survivalists, car enthusiasts, parents, fisherfolk, experts, military experts, marksmen, inventors, bakers, heritage skill experts, — all of you with cool things to share.

I would like to ask you to send me your recipes, instructions, guides, photos, step-by-step instructions, and videos*. Please email them to me at [email protected] . Remember NO POLITICS. This is my desperate attempt to get us back to our self-reliant roots and swamp the site with preparedness and quality of life improvements. Please know that I am the only person involved at SRC and I can’t pay but I would truly love to share your passions. (Please send only your original material. Copyright and intellectual property lawyers trawl these sites to sue people who use other people’s work.)

*If you make a video, I suggest you post it direct to rather than on this site, as you can get paid when people view them. Let me know what you have posted and if I share it with my readers and viewers that means more eyeballs and more money earned for you!

Terrible jokes for 4th of July!

Here you go – some terrible riddles for you to ask the kids!

What’s red, white, blue, and green?
A patriotic turtle!

What did one flag say to the other flag?
Nothing. It just waved!

Why did Paul Revere ride his horse from Boston to Lexington?
Because the horse was too heavy to carry!

How is a healthy person like the United States?
They both have good constitutions!

What dance was very popular in 1776?

What would you get if you crossed George Washington with cattle feed?
The Fodder of Our Country!

Teacher: “Where was the Declaration of Independence signed?”
Student: “At the bottom!”

Did you hear the one about the Liberty Bell?
Yeah, it cracked me up!

What did King George think of the American colonists?
He thought they were revolting!

What was the craziest battle of the Revolutionary War?
The Battle of Bonkers Hill.

What do you eat on the 5th of July?
Independence Day-old pizza.

 What kind of tea did the American colonists thirst for?

What’s the difference between a duck and George Washington?
One has a bill on their face and the other has their face on a bill.

What quacks, has webbed feet, and betrays his country?
Beneduck Arnold.

Why are there no knock knock jokes about America?
Because freedom rings.

Where did George Washington buy his hatchet?
At the chopping mall.

Who was the biggest joker in George Washington’s army?

3 Reasons America Is Great

Independence Day in 2022 will have great meaning to many Americans.

Jarrett Stepman is a columnist for The Daily Signal. Reproduced with permission.

As we’ve seen many symbols of America’s past get literally smashed by mobs, it’s important for those who still love their country to reflect on why it is exceptional and worth fighting for.

America has always been great and can be greater still.

This is certainly not an exhaustive list of why America is great, of which there are almost countless examples big and small.

But these examples are more unique to America, unique to why America rose from nothing to become the world’s preeminent superpower in such a short amount of time.

1. A Culture of Self-Government

Americans, even before the birth of the United States in 1776, have always been a self-governing people. One of the first orders of business for the Pilgrim settlers when they arrived on the shores of Massachusetts was to create the Mayflower Compact, a basic statement of self-government and loyalty to the British crown.

The Jamestown colony in Virginia set up the House of Burgesses in 1619, the first legislative assembly in the New World.

Following their heritage, the British colonies in America almost immediately established institutions of self-government where community participation in the creation and upholding of laws was extensive.

But in the almost two centuries between the arrival of British colonists in America and the American Revolution, the colonists’ attachment to self-government deepened in comparison to their cousins back in England, where representation was often more symbolic rather than actual.

Amid Parliament’s ultimately foolish attempts to ham-handedly rein in the colonies at the end of the French and Indian War, it was the Crown that triggered the separation, the drive for total independence.

The thought of losing their grip on self-government made the colonists believe that they would soon end up in the vice of absolute tyranny. After years of discontent and pleading with British authorities to loosen their grip of control, the colonies rebelled.

The Declaration of Independence, a remarkable and timeless document, did not just lay out the essential God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in its most famous lines.

It also lays out the blow by blow steps of the British government and the colonies to establish that it was not just the rights of the colonists that had been violated, but that the very tools of self-government that could have rectified the situation had been arbitrarily stripped from them.

Americans were a people fitted for liberty and would tolerate no less.

2. The Constitution and the Rule of Law

When the Founding Fathers set about creating our own system of government, they codified the principles of self-government to serve countless generations unborn.

After the false start, so to speak, of the Articles of Confederation, the Framers wrote, and the American people ratified, the Constitution of the United States.

This remarkable document created a framework of America’s federal system that lasts still today despite the countless societal changes that have occurred in the last two centuries.

And while, in many ways, that constitutional and federal system has been eroded over time, Americans have remained committed to the idea of the Constitution as the glue that defines our government and binds Americans under a single system with many parts.

This is the cornerstone of liberty and order that defines our republic, ensures that we have an energetic but ultimately limited government.

Certainly, other nations have codified their laws and created founding documents of many stripes, but none matches the enduring legacy of the Constitution of the United States.

The American civilization may be young, but our system of government is quite old, and has excelled through the test of time.

3. The American Dream

Self-government and the Constitution have made America strong and adaptable to changing circumstances. Just as importantly, they’ve created a system whereby the average person can thrive and prosper.

The country’s strength lies in the millions of free-born, self-governing, and self-sufficient people who have taken the protections our unique government provides and created the most wealthy and prosperous nation in human history.

Americans are, and have always been, an enterprising people. But more than just create wealth, we have used our wealth and prosperity.

America’s attachment to the rule of law and defense of private property has allowed the growth of an expansive middle-class.

Yes, America has produced many titans of industry, but the real source of our strength is the fact that the average American has had opportunities to generate wealth and prosperity and create a vibrant civil society.

Many homesteaders went West to get rich, but many more went West to build families and ensure that their children would have a better life than they had.

That’s the spirit of America.

We have used our tremendous resources not only to improve our own lives but the lives of others.

And because of our enormous prosperity Americans remain, by far, the most generous people on Earth.

This Fourth of July, as with every Independence Day, we should be thankful and grateful to be Americans, we should be proud of what our country—though imperfect as all of mankind is imperfect—has accomplished.

It is important and essential that at this time we remember, defend, and pass on what has made this country great.

This time they’re serious

This is a spoof site but it truly can’t be long before they police us with robots.

Think it can’t happen here?

And they’ll try and make it look cool like this Spot – who is headed to Mars. Other Spot versions implement social distancing in Singapore, collecting data at the Chernobyl nuclear plant, and assist doctors treating COVID-19 and other infectious patients.

Google vs GOP Fight Escalates

According to the GOP when they send email on most days as many as 90-100% of RNC emails hit the main inbox of the intended recipient. On critical fundraising dates however, the emails are all but assured to be hidden away as spam, reaching as few as zero percent of Gmail inboxes.

The Republican National Committee is pissed off. Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has claimed in a statement to Axios that Google has “systematically attacked” its digital program. The RNC claims Google’s Gmail, the nation’s top email client, has been suppressing fundraising emails during strategically critical periods this year.

So, Google and GOP are at odds. According to Axios

Google told Axios its spam filter is thoroughly apolitical, and that it’s taking steps to ensure political messages aren’t inadvertently flagged.

The details: The RNC shared internal data showing regular and dramatic increases in the number of its fundraising and voter-activation emails being sent to Gmail recipients’ spam folder.

  • Ordinarily, the committee said, Gmail flags up to 10% of its emails as spam.
  • But it says during the final four days of every month since December 2021 — a crucial period for digital fundraising operations — that number has skyrocketed to 100% or close to it, even as the rate of emails marked as spam by recipients remains steady.
  • “These are emails that go to our most engaged, opt-in supporters without any increase in user complaints, changes to the content, email frequency or target audiences that could account for the suppression,” McDaniel said.
  • The RNC said it’s flagged the issue for Google, but that the company has not provided a plausible explanation. 

More here.

SCOTUS term ends with a BOOM! Crushes power of bureaucrats

By Robert Romano

The Supreme Court has concluded its 2021 term with another blockbuster ruling, this time in West Virginia v. EPA, that struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2015 Clean Power Plan under the Obama administration that sought to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act even though the law never contemplated doing so.

The Roberts Court, April 23, 2021 Seated from left to right: Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor Standing from left to right: Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. Photograph by Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

In doing so, the Court has restored Congress’ lawmaking power under Article I of the Constitution away from unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. agencies, eviscerating the administrative state.

The ruling struck down the EPA’s attempt “to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme” in regulating carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act without Congressional authorization: “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day.’… But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

It also appeared the case overturned the Court’s 2007 decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, a narrow 5-4 ruling by then-Justice Anthony Kennedy that had opened the door for federal regulation of carbon emissions.

The Kennedy ruling set the stage for the 2009 carbon endangerment finding by the EPA during the Obama administration, and the Clean Power Plan’s rules on new and existing power plants that defined carbon dioxide as a harmful pollutant under the terms of the Clean Air Act.

The goal was to incentivize coal plants to either be retrofitted to be natural gas plants or else be shut down. But, as Roberts ultimately ruled, Congress never authorized the EPA to pursue such a goal, writing, “our precedent counsels skepticism toward EPA’s claim that Section 111 empowers it to devise carbon emissions caps based on a generation shifting approach. To overcome that skepticism, the Government must—under the major questions doctrine—point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ to regulate in that manner.”

But because there was no such Congressional authorization, the regulatory scheme was legally baseless — nothing more than a green house of cards that fell when put under judicial scrutiny of a Court finally composed with a solid constitutionalist majority.

To be sure, the Clean Power Plan gutted the American coal industry, wrecking particularly the economy of the state of West Virginia. In 2007, coal-generated electricity made up 49 percent of the total U.S. grid, while natural gas was just 21 percent, according to the Energy Information Administration. In 2021, natural gas now makes up 38.3 percent of the grid, and coal is down to 21 percent.

In the meantime, we have rising demand for electricity, and yet the U.S. is not producing a single kilowatt hour (kWh) more than it was 15 years ago. Despite the U.S. population growing by 30 million to more than 331 million from 2007 to 2021, overall electricity generation in the U.S. has dropped from 4.005 trillion kWh in 2007 to 3.96 trillion kWh in 2021.

As a result, the Consumer Price Index for electricity has increased by 29 percent since 2007, according to data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

We have a self-imposed national electricity shortage, in large part caused by the Supreme Court, and now thankfully, the Supreme Court has finally undone it.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government Foundation. Reproduced with permission. Original here.

Supreme Court Justice Breyer Gives One Day’s Notice, New Justice Immediately Sworn-In

In a letter to President Joe Biden, Breyer said his retirement will be effective as of Thursday June 30 at noon Eastern time, after the court issues its last two opinions of the term on Thursday at 10 a.m.

Jackson was sworn in at noon, immediately after Breyer’s retirement, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Breyer administering the two oaths Jackson will take in order to officially take the bench.

Beyer was not happy about the recent decisions for SCOTUS, driven by constitutionalists.

Biden Forgets He’s not a Senator

Biden called for a defense of abortion law by the Senate and squawked – sorry, tweeted – about ending the filibuster. His Veep, former Senator Kamala Harris, has also called for an end to the filibuster.

I wonder if he’s spoken to Senators Manchin and Sinema, recently?

Also Joe Biden…

“Are you pleased to see me or is that a gun in your pocket?” aka ‘My Everyday Carry Gear and Why It’s “Wrong”‘

LOL, I couldn’t resist that headline. But let’s look in this guy’s pockets and learn a thing or two.

H/t Rob, a regular reader.

What have I got in my pockets? After numerous requests, we’re taking a look at Luck Gunner’s personal everyday carry gear. Then, he goes beyond the gear to look at the reasoning behind my approach to concealed carry and other carry gear, why it’s probably different from yours, and some tips for finding the best carry hardware for you.

Gun: Smith & Wesson 332 Ti
Holster: PHLster City
Special knife: Spyderco Cat
Light: Streamlight Protac 1L-1AA
Watch: Citizen Eco-Drive Garrison
Pepper spray/OC: POM
Wallet: Alpine Swiss Minimalist

SCOTUS Rules on EPA Setting Carbon Emissions

The Supreme Court sharply curtails the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sides with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act. This ruling will significantly limit the EPA’s powers when it comes to regulating power plants’ carbon emissions and declares that unelected bureaucrats at the EPA had no business making laws through regulation.

“Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” SCOTUS wrote in the ruling.

Gorsuch concurred…

…lawmaking under our Constitution can be difficult. But that is nothing particular to our time nor any accident. The framers believed that the power to make new laws regulating private conduct was a grave one that could, if not properly checked, pose a serious threat to individual liberty. 

When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives. In our Republic, “[i]t is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the govern- ment of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810). Because today’s decision helps safeguard that foundational constitutional promise, I am pleased to concur.

SCOTUS Rules on Biden Border Change

BREAKING: The Supreme Court rules to end former Pres. Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy that requires U.S. asylum-seekers at the southern border to wait in Mexico while their applications are processed.

President Trump implemented the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), more commonly known as “Remain in Mexico,” in 2019. The policy required asylum seekers to wait on the other side of the border while U.S. authorities process their applications. Mexico accepted the policy’s expansion to expedite deportations during the pandemic. President Biden ended it on his first day in office.

The 5-4 ruling found that the administration did not violate federal immigration law when it sought to rescind the policy. The justices returned the case to lower courts for additional proceedings.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opin- ion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined as to all but the first sentence.

Grim Fiscal Outlook for City That Never Sleeps

Back in 2020, I warned that then-Mayor Bill de Blasio was setting the stage for fiscal crisis.

During his eight years in office, he violated fiscal policy’s golden rule by increasing the burden of government spending at three times the rate of inflation.

And all that spending requires lots of taxes, which helps to explain why residents were escaping New York City even before the pandemic.

But the pandemic accelerated the exodus, and that is turning a bad fiscal situation into a terrible fiscal situation for the new Mayor, Eric Adams.

Reporting for the New York Times, Nicole Hong and Matthew Haag write about how rich people (and their tax revenue) have been escaping New York City.

…roughly 300,000 New York City residents left during the early part of the pandemic… Now, new data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that the residents who moved to other states by the time they filed their 2019 taxes collectively reported $21 billion in total income, substantially more than those who departed in any prior year on record. …a potential loss that could have long-term effects on a city that relies heavily on its wealthiest residents to support schools, law enforcement and other public services. …The top 1 percent of earners, who make more than $804,000 a year, contributed 41 percent of the city’s personal income taxes in 2019. …The exodus to Florida was especially robust, and not just for the retiree crowd. …The pandemic accelerated the relocation of several New York-based financial firms to new offices or headquarters in Florida. …The Manhattan residents who moved to Palm Beach County had an average income of $728,351, IRS data showed.

So why are people leaving the City?

Some of it was temporary, caused by the pandemic.

But it’s very likely that most high-income emigrants won’t return. Why? Because New York City has bad governance. Everything from big problems like crummy schools to small problems like regulatory overkill.

So why pay lots of taxes when you get very little in return?

In a column last year for the New York Post, Nicole Gelinas warned about job losses in the financial industry.

…the city’s financial-industry jobs (not including real estate) were down 5 percent, to 338,800, compared with pre-COVID August 2019. Commercial-banking jobs are down 7 percent, to 67,300. Investment-related jobs are also down 7 percent, to 177,600. If we weren’t distracted by huge, double-digit percentage losses in other parts of the city’s economy, like arts and entertainment, these would be big numbers. …Some of this job destruction is a gain for other states. In Florida, financial jobs…are up 6 percent since August 2019, to 422,000. …yet another small investment firm, ARK, said it would close its New York headquarters and move…, with most of its dozens of workers going. …We used to fret about what happened when Wall Street crashed; now, we should fret that we have these woes when Wall Street hasn’t crashed.

When jobs are lost, that’s bad news for politicians because they miss out on tax revenue. And that’s true if jobs simply disappear and it’s true if the jobs move to low-tax states like Florida.

And it’s a big problem because Mayor Adams inherited a big mess. Simply stated, revenues are running away at the same time that spending is going up.

Emma Fitzsimmons wrote for the New York Times that the former Mayor’s legacy is a bloated city budget, which is connected to an ever-expanding bureaucracy.

Bill de Blasio will be remembered for many things…But one central element of his administration has received less attention: his passion for spending money. Under Mr. de Blasio, the city’s budget has soared to a record $102.8 billion, and the city work force rose to more than 325,000 employees, its highest level ever. His final budget, more than $25 billion higher than his first budget in 2014… Mr. de Blasio’s spending spree could create problems for Mr. Adams… The city work force…quickly began to rise…after Mr. de Blasio took office — pleasing the city’s municipal unions, some of which were major donors to the mayor’s political endeavors. …The increases to the city work force will create long-term costs for the city for health care, pensions and retiree benefits.

I can say “I told you so” because I warned that de Blasio was bad news when he was running for office in 2013.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

P.S. Just as many states compete to be the worst, the same is true for cities. Yes, New York City is a mess, but is it better or worse than places such as ChicagoSeattleMinneapolisDetroit, and San Francisco?

Great Cartoon from James Woods Tweet

Out in the real world, away from loony lefties, we all know that the Dobbs decision last week wasn’t really about abortion, it was about enumerated rights as set out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And with his concurring opinion Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that there are other issues that should probably go back to the states (of our republic) for reconsideration on a local scale. Just as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Other topics in the future might include, Justice Thomas argued, the Court’s past rulings codifying federal rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

But what’s truly special about this session of SCOTUS is that Justice Thomas did speak. After all, he’s the Supreme Court justice who once went ten full years without asking a single question at oral arguments. Yet in one week he has been behind three major decisions: abortion, second amendment rights, and the Fifth Amendment right to pray. 

And who knows, he may prevail today, on the last day of this term, over the West Virginia v. EPA case which could overturn the 2009 carbon endangerment finding that is strangling America’s electricity grid, and the legality of President Trump’s Title 42 “Remain in Mexico” policy.

So thank you, Justice Thomas for holding the line and protecting our Constitution. 

Fellow appreciator of the Justice, actor James Wood tweeted the great comment below and we liked it so much we asked talented cartoonist, AF Branco to immortalize it in a toon. Do you like it?

Don’t understand Dobbs? Great explanation at The Daily Signal/Heritage Foundation.

This guy turned the transformer from an old microwave into an amazing tool.

I wouldn’t do it myself and totally recommend you do not try this yourselves, but it’s cool to watch. And who knows, if the SHTF you might need this kind of heat.

Self-Reliance Central publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of SRC.  

The Lost Art of Handmade Rope

Handmade ropes and ropes. Production and braiding with vegetable fibers in 1996 

Thanks to three brothers from the Brotherhood of San Pascual Bailón de Calatayud (#Zaragoza), patron saint of the Sogueros, in 1996 we were able to learn about and recover the technique of braiding hemp or other vegetable fibers for manufacturing of rope and string of various sizes.

Is Cassidy Hutchinson lying? 

Anyone buying this?

In perhaps the most significant public hearing held so far by the House’s Jan. 6 committee, a former White House aide testified Tuesday that President Donald Trump was aware that protesters at the Capitol had weapons but briefly insisted on going there himself. 

The House select committee’s vice chair, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., also seemed to allege that Trump allies were trying to influence witnesses as the panel investigates the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

The key witness Tuesday was Cassidy Hutchinson, who had close proximity to the Oval Office as executive assistant to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows. Hutchinson told the panel that she was present during conversations involving major players. 

The hearing also featured video testimony from several other former Trump White House officials, including former press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. 

The Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol made a surprise announcement of the hearing after initially announcing that it would not resume its work until July. Cheney, one of two anti-Trump Republicans on the nine-member, Democrat-stacked panel, led the questioning. 

Here are four big takeaways. 

1. ‘Not Here to Hurt Me’

In the backstage area of the Trump rally that preceded the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, Hutchinson testified, the president was angry that the crowd wasn’t larger. 

“He wanted it to be full and for people to not feel excluded because they had come far to watch him at the rally, and he felt the mags were at fault,” Hutchinson, 26, said in a taped interview, referring to magnetometers or metal detectors. 

“I was in the vicinity of a conversation, where I heard the president say something to the effect of ‘I don’t effing care if they have weapons. They are not here to hurt me, take the effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here,’” Hutchinson said, quoting Trump. 

During live testimony, when Cheney asked whether Trump wanted to remove the metal detectors as long as no one was there to hurt him, Hutchinson responded: “That’s a fair assessment.”

Whether the Capitol rioters had weapons has been a point of contention for those assessing what happened that day. 

Although several persons were charged for having weapons on the Capitol grounds, which is prohibited by law, none was charged with having a weapon inside the building after it was breached by rioters. 

Before 10 a.m. on Jan. 6, Hutchinson testified, White House deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato told Trump about reports from law enforcement on the scene that some of those on the Ellipse were carrying weapons, including knives, spears, guns, and flag poles with spears at the top. 

She remembered that back at the White House, as the riots occurred, White House counsel Pat Cipollone told Meadows about the chants of “Hang Mike Pence” from Capitol rioters. 

“You heard it, Pat,” Meadows responded, according to Hutchinson. “He thinks Mike deserves it. He thinks they aren’t doing anything wrong.”

2. ‘Attempting to Influence Witnesses’

After the live testimony and video presentation featuring Hutchinson, Cheney raised the specter of Trump allies trying to influence witnesses’ testimony. 

“I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns,” Cheney said. 

Cheney pointed to deposition excerpts from unnamed witnesses projected on the wall. Cheney read the words of one witness, saying:

What they said to me is that as long as I continue to be a team player, they know I’m on the right team. I’m doing the right thing. I’m protecting who I need to protect. You know I’ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump world. And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts. And just keep that in mind as I proceed through my interviews with the committee.

She read a separate statement from a witness.  

“A [person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow,” she quoted the witness as saying. “He wants me to let you know he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal and you are going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.”

3. ‘Try to Grab the Steering Wheel’

The committee showed some of a recorded deposition from McEnany, who was Trump’s White House press secretary from April 2020 until the end of his presidency Jan. 20, 2021. 

“When we got back to the White House [after the rally],” McEnany said in the deposition, Trump “said he wanted to physically walk with the marchers. And according to my notes, he said he’d be fine with just riding The Beast. So, that’s my recollection. He wanted to be part of the march [to the Capitol] in some fashion.”

The Beast is the nickname for the president’s armored limousine. 

However, Hutchinson told the committee that Cipollone, the Trump White House counsel, had told her on Jan. 6, “Please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy.” 

If Trump did so, she quoted Cipollone as saying, “We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.”

Hutchinson also told a dramatic story of Trump’s trying desperately to go to the Capitol despite the Secret Service’s concerns. 

She said that Ornato told her that Secret Service agent Bobby Angle, assigned to the president, was there. When Trump got into The Beast, he insisted to Angle that he wanted to go to the Capitol himself. 

“When Bobby relayed to him, ‘You’re not, we don’t have the assets to do it, it’s not secure, we are going back to the West Wing,’ the president had a very strong, very angry response to that,” Hutchinson testified. “Tony described him as being irate.”

She continued: 

The president said something to the effect that ‘I’m the effing president. Take me up to the Capitol right now.’ To which Bobby responded, ‘Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.’

The president reached up toward the front of the vehicle to try to grab the steering wheel. Mr. Angle grabbed his arm and said, ‘Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We are going back to the West Wing. We are not going to the Capitol.’

Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge toward Bobby Angle.

He said Ornato told her that Trump had reached for the Secret Servicc agent’s neck. 

4. War Room and Pardon Interest

Hutchinson said that on the day before, Jan. 5, Meadows talked to former Trump campaign operative Roger Stone and Flynn, who served briefly as national security adviser. 

Both men were part of a “war room” at the Willard Hotel, less than a mile from the White House, to try to save Trump’s presidency. 

“I wasn’t sure everything that was going on at the Willard Hotel, although I knew enough about what Mr. Giuliani and his associates were pushing during this period,” Hutchinson said, adding: “I didn’t think that it was something appropriate for the White House chief of staff to attend.”

Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York, is a close Trump adviser who has served as his personal lawyer. Giuliani was among speakers at the rally preceding the riot.

During the hearing, the committee showed edited footage of Flynn’s deposition in which the retired Army lieutenant general repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. 

In the edited video clips, Cheney unsuccessfully asked Flynn whether the Capitol riot was moral. She also asked him whether he believed in the peaceful transfer of power. 

Hutchinson told the committee that Meadows and Giuliani both wanted presidential pardons from Trump after the riot. 

“Ms. Hutchinson, did Rudy Giuliani ever suggest he was looking for a pardon related to Jan. 6?” Cheney asked. 

“He did,” Hutchinson said. 

Cheney then asked: “Ms. Hutchinson, did White House chief of staff Mark Meadows ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a presidential pardon related to Jan. 6?”

Hutchinson replied: “Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon, yes, ma’am.”

At a previous hearing, the committee noted that another Trump lawyer, John Eastman, sought a pardon for his role surrounding the events of Jan. 6.  During a prime-time hearing June 9, Cheney said some Republican members of Congress also sought pardons from Trump after the riot.

By Fred Lucas, Daily Signal. Original here.

Thomas Fires Warning Shot at Media, Organizations That Lie About Conservatives

President Joe Biden and his liberal compatriots in politics, the media, and social media constantly are crowing about “misinformation.” Although the type of censorship they seem to support is not the answer, reconsideration of the legal standard governing defamation, as Justice Clarence Thomas has urged, might be.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari Monday in the case of Coral Ridge Ministries Media v. Southern Poverty Law Center. In his dissent from the high court’s refusal to accept the appeal, Thomas once again urges fellow justices to reconsider the double standard for defamation that the court established in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964. Thomas first did so in a longer dissent in 2021 in another case the court refused to hear, Berisha v. Lawson.

Coral Ridge Ministries, as Thomas explains, is a “Christian nonprofit dedicated to spreading the ‘Gospel of Jesus Christ’ and ‘a biblically informed view of the world.’”  In 2017, Amazon told Coral Ridge Ministries that it was ineligible for Amazon’s nonprofit donation program because it had been labeled as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The ministry sued the Southern Poverty Law Center for defaming the organization, saying that although Coral Ridge “opposed homosexual conduct” due to its Christian beliefs, it is not a “hate group.” The ministry said it “has nothing but love for people who engage in homosexual conduct” and “has never attacked or maligned anyone on the basis of engaging in homosexual conduct.”

The defamation case was dismissed by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because Coral Ridge Ministries is considered a “public figure” and could not prove that the Southern Poverty Law Center had acted with “actual malice” under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard when it made the “hate crime” claim about the ministry.

The “actual malice” standard is the issue that Thomas is complaining about.

In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court suddenly created a new legal standard that never existed before in defamation law, which had been governed by state law since our founding, claiming this new standard was required by the Constitution.

Does this sound familiar? According to the court, two legal standards govern defamation lawsuits: one for those considered “private” figures or individuals and another, stricter standard for so-called public figures.

If you are a private figure and The New York Times or the Southern Poverty Law Center publishes a lie about you, you simply have to prove that the statement was false and harmed your reputation. The fact that the publisher didn’t know or care that the statement was false is irrelevant. 

But if you are a “public figure,” you not only have to prove that the statement was false and harmed your reputation, but that the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” 

And the definition of who is a public figure constantly has expanded since 1964.

As Justice Neal Gorsuch explained in his own dissent from the denial of a writ of certiorari in the Berisha case, in which he joined Thomas in urging the court to reconsider the legal standard in libel and defamation cases, at first “public figures” meant only government officials. 

Then, the definition was expanded to “public figures” outside government, then to those who have achieved “pervasive fame or notoriety,” and then to “limited” public figures “who voluntarily inject” themselves or are “drawn into a particular public controversy.”

Today, this definition of “public figure” is so expansive that the only issue is who it doesn’t cover.

As Thomas correctly observes in his most recent dissent, this double standard has no basis in “the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.” The decision in New York Times v. Sullivan “and the court’s [other] decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.” 

And what has been the result? According to Thomas, and to anyone who has been paying attention to the outrageous lies and misrepresentations—especially about conservatives—that we see regularly on CNN, MSNBC, and other far-left media organizations, some persons and media outlets can “cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.”

In the case of Coral Ridge Ministries, the Southern Poverty Law Center “lumped” in the Christian organization with real hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis, Thomas writes. SPLC put the ministry on “an interactive, online ‘Hate Map’ and caused Coral Ridge concrete financial injury by excluding them from the AmazonSmile donation program.”  

Under the actual malice standard “this court has imposed,” Thomas writes, “Coral Ridge could not hold SPLC to account for what it maintains is a blatant falsehood.”

Even the supposed logic behind the Supreme Court’s creation of this standard fails. As Thomas explains, the court “provides scant explanation for the decision to erect a new hurdle for public-figure plaintiffs so long after the First Amendment’s ratification.”

One explanation was that false claims against private individuals are more serious than those against public figures, who are fair targets because they “invite attention and comment.” But as Thomas says, the “common law deemed libels against public figures to be … more serious and injurious than ordinary libels.”

Also, Thomas writes, it “is unclear why exposing oneself to an increased risk of becoming a victim [as a public figure] necessarily means forfeiting the remedies legislatures put in place for such victims.”

Thomas and Gorsuch make strong argument about the fundamental unfairness of the “actual malice” standard and the fact that there is no basis for it in the Constitution or our legal history. As Gorsuch wrote in his Berisha dissent:

[O]ver time the actual malice standard has evolved from a high bar to recovery into an effective immunity from liability. … The bottom line? It seems that publishing without investigation, fact-checking, or editing has become the optimal legal strategy. Under the actual malice regime as it has evolved, ‘ignorance is bliss.’

No wonder so many Americans distrust what they hear in the “news.” The public knows that the media can get away with printing or saying just about anything they want, no matter how false or malicious.

Hans von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, and former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice. He is a member of the board of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. Reproduced with permission. Original here.

New York Gun Case Kickstarts New Battle for Gun Rights

Last week’s Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen was a historic moment for gun rights in America. Lest 2nd Amendment advocates engage in a lengthy celebration, however, they had best prepare for more pitched battles at the state and local levels, where firearms opponents will fiercely defend their turf.

An individual right to possess a firearm was – finally – recognized by the Supreme Court in its 2008 Heller decision, and extended to all the states two years later in McDonald. Extending that fundamental natural right to self-preservation outside one’s home, which is the essence of last week’s ruling, serves also as a welcome update to the Court’s almost plodding effort to reclaim gun rights from decades of liberal encroachment. 

Nevertheless, the decision, important as it is, merely shifts the theater of operations from the national to the state and local levels where Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion in Bruen, excellent in form and substance, in effect ushers in a new phase of Leftist scheming on gun control.

Like HellerBruen is pivotal in impact, but limited in scope. In a concurring opinion supplementing Thomas’ six-member majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh (joined by Chief Justice Roberts), stressed that the ruling would not necessarily limit the ability of states to establish requirements for concealed carry – only that they cannot arbitrarily deny the right to carry. As with Heller, in the uncertainty created by Kavanaugh’s opinion, we now will be forced to contend with myriad regulatory tricks by local and state governments to undermine this latest ruling.

Immediately after Heller, for example, District of Columbia officials went to work finding loopholes around the “individual right” to keep and bear arms affirmed by the Supreme Court.

As documented by journalist Emily Miller, D.C. enacted a costly 17-step process for gun permits, including “five hours of mandatory training that had to be completed outside the District, and multiple trips to D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) headquarters during business hours.” This was in addition to the city’s ban on semiautomatic firearms, a requirement that gun owners re-register firearms every three years, a limit of registering only one handgun every 30 days, and a ban on both open and concealed carry, all of which deeply undermined, the High Court’s ruling.

It took multiple court challenges and nearly a decade to undo post-Heller gun control measures concocted by D.C. officials, costing taxpayers a fortune to partially restore constitutional rights thought to have been “guaranteed” by the 2008 decision.

Even today, D.C. regulators continue to make it nearly impossible for commercial firearm stores to operate within the city. Aside from the police department itself, which for a time was the only federally licensed dealer in the jurisdiction, there are currently only two active FFLs for citizens to use to take possession of firearms lawfully purchased online.

D.C.’s persistent gaming of Supreme Court rulings is not an outlier example of what anti-gun bureaucrats will do to obstruct what they see as a hostile legal landscape. It is the new playbook.

Extreme laws like New York’s have now been deemed unconstitutional by the highest court in the land, but the Left is not going to suddenly surrender and accept the constitutionality of the Second Amendment. In states like New York, Washington, California, and Connecticut, led by politicians who see banning firearms as a moral imperative and a response to a “national emergency” of gun violence, the strategy remains one of pushing the limits of Supreme Court rulings and forcing citizens to challenge them in expensive, years-long court battles.

The gun control movement considers it has nothing to lose, and even if they find themselves about to lose in court and facing yet another national precedent for gun rights, they can always do as New York City did in 2020, and change the law right before a judicial decision is rendered.

In a very practical sense, the Bruen decision is not the end of the fight for the primacy of the Second Amendment. It is just beginning, and every election at every level and for every position on the ballot, from sheriff to district attorney, and from judge to governor, will play a role.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Could SCOTUS hit 4 for 4 with Carbon Ruling?

West Virginia v. EPA could overturn 2009 carbon endangerment finding that is strangling America’s electricity grid

By Robert Romano

One more Supreme Court case to keep your eye on this session — especially since the Court now appears willing to strike down prior precedents — is the imminent ruling on West Virginia v. EPA that, if successful, would overturn federal regulations on carbon emissions by power plants.

It also stands to potentially overturn the Court’s 2007 decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, a narrow 5-4 ruling by then-Justice Anthony Kennedy that had opened the door for federal regulation in this area in the first place by stating carbon dioxide could be regulated under the terms of the Clean Air Act even though the law never contemplated doing so.

This is what enabled the 2009 carbon endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Obama administration, and the EPA rules on new and existing power plants, defining carbon dioxide as a harmful pollutant under the terms of the Clean Air Act, and setting forth a framework to incentivize coal plants to either be retrofitted to be natural gas plants or else be shut down.

In terms of moving the needle, the policy was a “success” in reducing coal-based electricity. In 2007, coal-generated electricity made up 49 percent of the total U.S. grid, while natural gas was just 21 percent, according to the Energy Information Administration. In 2021, natural gas now makes up 38.3 percent of the grid, and coal is down to 21 percent.

In the meantime, we have rising demand for electricity, and yet the U.S. is not producing a single kilowatt hour (kWh) more than it was 15 years ago. Despite the U.S. population growing by 30 million to more than 331 million from 2007 to 2021, overall electricity generation in the U.S. has dropped from 4.005 trillion kWh in 2007 to 3.96 trillion kWh in 2021.

As a result, the Consumer Price Index for electricity has increased by 29 percent since 2007, according to data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In short, we have a self-imposed national electricity shortage, in large part caused by the Supreme Court — and they might be about to undo it.

On the other hand, the Court could always go the other way on the issue. After all, in 1983, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual that in rescinding a regulation under the Administrative Procedures Act, an agency must provide a reasoned analysis, “for the change beyond that which may be required when an agency does not act in the first instance.”

This leaves every rescission subject to judicial review, where you have to prove not only that rescinding the regulation in question is rational based on the statutory scheme, but prove that enacting it was irrational to begin with. That appears to be one reason why the Trump administration EPA did not go further than it did in watering down the Obama Clean Power Plan regulations.

That is how a ruling allowing carbon emissions to be regulated eventually becomes a precedent requiring carbon emissions to be regulated.

Again, it’s a situation where because of Supreme Court precedents, Congress and presidential administrations appear to be hampered from responding effectively to national crises like energy shortages. It is therefore undemocratic and ultimately prevents political questions from being answered by the elected branches the way their supposed to.

The worst possible outcome would be if the Court once again accepts the central premise that carbon dioxide is a harmful pollutant that must be addressed under the Clean Air Act. At that point, there might not be an easy way to stop something like the Green New Deal’s goals of imposing net zero carbon emissions within 10 years on the U.S. economy.

But we’ll see what happens. This could be another big one. Stay tuned.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government Foundation. Original here. Reproduced with permission.

Touchdown! Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Football Coach’s Right to Prayer

All football coach Joe Kennedy said he wanted from the Supreme Court was a ruling that allows him “to be a coach” and “thank God afterwards.” The Supreme Court gave him that ruling on Monday. 

It’s the end of the fourth quarter. There’s no time remaining on the clock. The final score: 6-3. Coach Joe Kennedy has won.   

After a seven-year legal battle, the Supreme Court on Monday affirmed Kennedy’s right to take a knee in silent prayer in view of the public after high school football games.  

“The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the 6-3 majority opinion, adding that the Constitution “neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.” 

The landmark decision affirms that “[n]o American should have to choose between their faith and their job,” Sarah Parshall Perry, a senior legal fellow for The Heritage Foundation, said in a statement after the court’s ruling Monday morning. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)  

“Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a long-standing principle, correctly ruling that teachers and other school employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate,” Perry said of the 75-page opinion, adding that Kennedy’s prayers did not violate the Constitution’s establishment clause:

Coach Joe Kennedy’s quiet prayers after school football games—though visible to students—in no way represented a government establishment or endorsement of religion, contrary to the erroneous ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.  

After a seven-year battle to protect his right to religious expression, we’re pleased that coach Kennedy’s story has a happy ending—one that will set a precedent protecting the right of all Americans to practice their faith in the public square. 

In 2015, Kennedy lost his job as an assistant football coach at Bremerton High School, about 30 miles west of Seattle, after taking a knee in prayer at the 50-yard line after games.  

From the time he began coaching in 2008, Kennedy said, he made a covenantwith God that he would thank him in prayer at the 50-yard line at the end of every game. No student or parent filed a formal complaint about the practice. 

“The prayers, how long they were, I would say probably [they] averaged eight to 12 seconds,” Kennedy told The Daily Signal during a documentary interview. 

“I mean, I’m not a great prayer of a guy,” Kennedy said. “It was really, ‘Thank you, God, for what these young men just did on the field, and thank you for letting me be a part of it.’”  

When the Bremerton School District learned of Kennedy’s prayer routine, it told him he could no longer pray after games, even by himself, but Kennedy determined to keep the covenant he made with God.  

The decision to continue after the school district told him to stop ultimately cost Kennedy his job. The football coach decided to fight back and filed a lawsuit. The Supreme Court heard arguments in Kennedy’s case April 25.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan, who make up the court’s liberal bloc, dissented from the majority opinion. 

“This case is about whether a public school must permit a school official to kneel, bow his head, and say a prayer at the center of a school event,” Sotomayor wrote in the dissent. “The Constitution does not authorize, let alone require, public schools to embrace this conduct.” 

But the court’s constitutionalist majority ruled that Kennedy had the right to practice his faith and pray on the field at the end of games.  

This is just so awesome,” Kennedy said in a written statement after the Supreme Court released its ruling, adding:

All I’ve ever wanted was to be back on the field with my guys. I am incredibly grateful to the Supreme Court, my fantastic legal team, and everyone who has supported us. I thank God for answering our prayers and sustaining my family through this long battle.

Kennedy previously told The Daily Signal that he would like to return to coaching at Bremerton High School if the Supreme Court ruled in his favor.  

This is a tremendous victory for coach Kennedy and religious liberty for all Americans,” said Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty, the nonprofit legal organization that represented Kennedy.  

We are grateful that the Supreme Court recognized what the Constitution and law have always said: Americans are free to live out their faith in public,” Shackelford said.  

From the very beginning of Kennedy’s legal fight, he said, all he wanted from the Supreme Court was a ruling that allows him “to be a coach” and “thank God afterwards.” 

The justices gave Kennedy the ruling he prayed for.  

By Virginia Allen. Reproduced with permission from The Daily Signal. Original here.

VIDEO: 4 of the Best Root Vegetables You Can Grow at Home


Learn the best root vegetables you can grow at home even if you don’t have a lot of gardening space.

This video will show you the skills necessary to successfully cultivate root vegetables on your own.

Want to Take Control of Your Life? 4 Simple and Empowering Life Lessons from a Navy SEAL

A few years ago, my cousin sent me a video clip that inspired me to do something my mom had been telling me to do for as long as I can remember: make my bed. It was entitled “If you want to change the world, start off by making your bed.” The clip was part of a commencement address by Admiral William McRaven. “If you make your bed every morning, you will have accomplished the first task of the day,” he said. “It will give you a small sense of pride and it will encourage you to do another task and another and another. By the end of the day, one task completed will have turned into many tasks completed.”

Admiral McRaven has since come out with a book called Make Your Bed: Little Things that can Change your Life . . . And Maybe the WorldIn it, he describes ten life lessons he learned as a Navy Seal. Here are four of them:

1. Make your bed

For a Navy SEAL, making one’s bed is not just expected, it is required, and there are no gold stars for the completion of this basic task. For McRaven, making his bed is the first task he accomplishes every day, providing a sense of structure and accomplishment. And even if nothing in his day goes as planned, he knows that when he turns in that night, he will be reminded of his first accomplishment of the day: making his bed. He writes: “Sometimes the simple act of making your bed can give you the lift you need to start your day and provide you the satisfaction to end it right.”

2. Get over being a sugar cookie and keep moving forward

One morning in his SEAL training, McRaven was ordered to make himself a sugar cookie, that is, to roll himself in sand after taking a dip in the ocean, ensuring that he would spend the remainder of the day covered in sand. Coming to attention covered in sand, McRaven was asked “Do you know why you are a sugar cookie this morning?” “No, Instructor Martin,” he responded. “Because life isn’t fair,” his instructor said, “and the sooner you learn that, the better off you will be.” 

“It is easy to blame your lot in life on some outside force, to stop trying because you believe fate is against you,” writes McRaven. “It is easy to think that where you were raised, how your parents treated you, or what school you went to is all that determines your future. Nothing could be further from the truth. The common people and the great men and women are all defined by how they deal with life’s unfairness.”

3. Failure can make you stronger

During their SEAL training, McRaven and his swim buddy struggled to keep up with the rest of the class. When they finished the morning swim well after everyone else, they were both assigned to The Circus, an additional two hours of punishing training. The Circus was known for leaving trainees so exhausted that they generally failed at least one task the next day, getting them sent to The Circus again. Eventually, their time in The Circus made them stronger, and in the final open ocean swim, they finished well ahead of the rest of the class. 

Looking back on his experience in The Circus, McRaven reflects, “I realized that the past failures had strengthened me, taught me that no one is immune from mistakes. True leaders must learn from their failures, use their lessons to motivate themselves, and not be afraid to try again or make the next tough decision. You can’t avoid The Circus. At some point, we all make the list. Don’t be afraid of The Circus.”


4. Sing when you’re up to your neck in mud 

The first week of SEAL training kicks off with what is known as “Hell Week,” six days designed to eliminate those who are not up to the challenge of becoming a SEAL. Wednesday of Hell Week sent McRaven and his fellow trainees to the mudflats south of San Diego. By evening, the recruits had been in the clay-like mud all day. Freezing and exhausted, the recruits were told they could get out, warm up by the fire, and have a meal of chicken soup. The one condition: five of them had to quit. As a young man next to McRaven moved to climb out, someone began to sing. As the rest of the recruits joined in, the ones who were about to quit changed their minds. “Once again, we learned an important lesson: the power of one person to unite the group, the power of one person to inspire those around them, to give them hope. If that one person could sing while neck-deep in mud, then so could we. If that one person could endure the freezing cold, then so could we. If that one person could hang on, then so could we.”

[Image Credit: Pexels]

This post Want to Take Control of Your Life? 4 Simple and Empowering Life Lessons from a Navy SEAL was originally published on Intellectual Takeout by Patience Griswold.

VIDEO: How to Shoot Accurately When Speed Counts

This week’s video is about how to use the sight picture you HAVE to get the hits you NEED.

Shooters waste time searching for the perfect sight picture…you only need an “Acceptable” sight picture to get “Adequate” hits on target. The Two A’s. We live in an imperfect world…and our handgun sights live in that world too! And, when you need them the most…they might just let you down!

In the sort of situations where you need hits sooner rather than later, there are some simple solutions and some simple drills that you can use to put rounds on target with the sight picture you have. While you are doing that, you can work on getting a better picture sight and/or correcting the improper grip that caused it to start with.



Toilet That Analyzes Human Waste

The next step in the “internet of things” may be a toilet that analyzes your waste and sends you notifications on the state of your health.

Geometry Healthtech recently announced the development of a toilet that can reportedly monitor for heart disease and detect symptoms of cancer and diabetes from urine samples.

Michael Lindenmayer, U.S.-based smart sanitation and digital health adviser at Toilet Board Coalition, a business group committed to provide sanitation facilities in the world, told the Nikkei Asian Review such toilets can indeed help to provide health information.

Unlike wearable devices, smart toilets can gather and monitor data without changing users’ habits. They can also read data accurately as they come into contact with human skin.

So called “smart toilets” are under development by companies like Kohler and Google but these are just more advanced versions of their popular (but privacy-destroying) home electronic aids.

Some are looking at this toilet revolution in terms of large scale public health:

Davide Coppola, a project manager at the European Space Agency, or ESA, has an even  bigger vision for the smart toilet. He said that if a region has 1,000 smart toilets capable of collecting human body data, it will become possible to monitor the region’s diseases using spatial data and calculate the possibility of diseases spreading.

Through the combination of toilet sensor data and satellite observation data, it will eventually become possible to establish a health information system for the prevention of diseases.

“Medicine is going toward precision medicine and precision health,” said Sanjay Mehrotra, Chief Executive of Memory Chipmaker Micron Technology.

“Imagine smart toilets in the future that will be analyzing human waste in real-time every day. You don’t need to be going to visit a physician every six months. If any sign of disease starts showing up, you’ll be able to catch it much faster because of urine analysis and stool analysis.” he added.

The smart toilet is able to perform, fecal analysis and urine analysis. These are two of the most commonly-used conventional tests to determine the well-being of a patient.

The fecal analysis help diagnose certain conditions affecting the digestive tract and the urine analysis is one major way to find certain illnesses in their earlier stages like Kidney disease, Liver disease, Diabetes.

How long will it be before you are regularly receiving push notifications from your toilet telling you about your diet and your current state of blood pressure or body mass index? Are you ready for such advances?

If Never Trump had had its way, Roe v. Wade would have never been overturned

“This was not an easy thing to do, but I am very proud to have done it. Likewise, few would have had the courage to write about it.”

That was former President Donald Trump, responding on Truth Social to a piece by’s John Nolte entitled, “Only the MAGA movement could have ended the atrocity of Roe v. Wade,” wherein Nolte makes the case that but for the election of Trump in 2016, and the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision Roe v. Wade would have never been overturned by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24.

In it, Nolte bluntly put it: “If you consider yourself a pro-life Republican and weren’t on the Trump Train in 2016, sit your pansy-ass down. Had you and your precious ‘principles’ won the day, Hillary Clinton would have appointed those three Supreme Court justices instead of Donald Trump, and the moral atrocity known as Roe v. Wade would still be a ‘constitutional right.’”

Nolte is right. If former President Trump had never been elected — particularly, if the Never Trump movement in the Republican Party had had its way as it sought to ensure Hillary Clinton would be elected — and this day would have never come.

Never forget.

Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were all appointed by Trump as Justices to the Supreme Court in 2017, 2018, and 2020, respectively, replacing Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginbsurg, reshaping the nation’s highest court and setting the stage for it to now, in the words of Marbury v. Madison, “to say what the law is.

For that is all the philosophy of a judicial constitutionalist, either textualists or originalists, essentially entails. The Constitution enumerates certain powers to the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and protects other specifically enumerated rights, like the freedom of speech and of the press and of the right to peaceably assemble, the right to bear arms, the right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property in a criminal or civil context without due process of law, the right against cruel and inhumane punishment and others.

Abortion on the other hand was never an enumerated right in the Constitution. It was read into it as an implicit right by the Court in Roe and a string of decisions such as Griswold v. Connecticut overturning a state law banning contraceptives — the so-called right to privacy cases — that created a jenga tower of precedents, all depending on a majority of liberal, activist judges to preserve, and beginning to fall as soon there wasn’t.

Griswold and Roe gave birth to the modern constitutionalist movement, a countervailing force that Ronald Reagan arguably institutionalized when he won the presidential election in 1980.

In a 1985 speech to U.S. Attorneys at the White House, Reagan again articulated that prerogative, announcing he would appoint more judges who believed in “judicial restraint”, stating, “The independence of the courts from improper political influence is a sacred principle. It must always be guarded… [T]he Founding Fathers knew that, like any other part of the Government, the power of the judiciary could be abused. They never intended, for example, that the courts preempt legislative prerogatives or become vehicles for political action or social experimentation or for coercing the populace into adopting anyone’s personal view of utopia. So, to make sure the courts weren’t misused in this way and did not set themselves up as an institution entirely removed from the society they’re intended to serve, the Founding Fathers provided for checks and balances, one of which was to place the appointive power for the judiciary in the hands of those who are in office as a result of popular election.

Reagan added, “I intend to go right on appointing highly qualified individuals of the highest personal integrity to the bench, individuals who understand the danger of short-circuiting the electoral process and disenfranchising the people through judicial activism. I want judges of the highest intellectual standing who harbor the deepest regard for the Constitution and its traditions, one of which is judicial restraint.”

And that is exactly what Reagan and his successors did. Since Reagan, Republican presidents have all contributed to the current majority on the Court that ruled to overturn Roe.

George H.W. Bush gave us Clarence Thomas. George W. Bush gave us John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the latter of whom penned the majority opinion in Dobbs. And Trump, with the leadership of then-Judiciary Committee Chairmen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) first kept the Antonin Scalia seat vacant throughout 2016, and then brought on Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, who now combine for the current, solid 6-3 constitutionalist majority that overturned Roe.

That makes 2016 the critical moment. The tipping point where the work Reagan began was completed by Trump. And yet, in 2016, there was a political movement in the GOP that sought to ensure that former President Trump would never get the Republican Party nomination, and if he did, that he would never be elected.

They knew what they were doing, and what it would mean for the Supreme Court, and particularly any rulings on abortion, the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, etc. if Clinton had won. Judicial activism would have reigned supreme.

Republican members of Congress who secretly voted for Hillary Clinton should look themselves in the mirror. They were wrong, and when it mattered the most, they were nowhere to be found.

Eventually Republicans in Congress figured out they needed to overcome their misgivings around Trump and get to work. That’s exactly what the GOP Senate did with regards to judicial appointments. That’s credit where credit is due. But Trump was the critical factor, the one who was able to unite the GOP and beat Clinton even while his own party’s entrenched establishment was trying to sabotage him. Only the President can make appointments.

Now, in order for these historic rulings to have lasting impact, the work of restoring constitutional, limited government — which limits powers by defining and enumerating them — including the proper role of courts must continue. There still need to be future majorities on the Court to uphold the law.

After the 2022 midterms, Republicans will begin the process of selecting their next nominee for president who will challenge President Joe Biden or his successor in 2024. Whoever unites the party and wins the GOP nomination will need the full support of his or her party to prevail — or else all of the gains that have been made in the judiciary by conservatives that took 42 years to bear fruit will be lost, perhaps forever.

Never Trump? Never again.

By Robert Romano

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government. Reproduced with permission. Original here.

The Astonishing Implications of Schedule F 

Two weeks before the 2020 general election, on October 21, 2020, Donald Trump issued an executive order (E.O. 13957) on “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service.” 

It sounds boring. Actually, it would have fundamentally changed, in the best possible way, the entire functioning of the administrative bureaucracy that rules this country in a way that bypasses both the legislative and judicial process, and has ruined the checks and balances inherent in the US Constitution. 

The administrative state for the better part of a century, and really dating back to the Pendleton Act of 1883, has designed policy, made policy, structured policy, implemented policy, and interpreted policy while operating outside the control of Congress, the president, and the judiciary. 

The gradual rise of this 4th branch of government – which is very much the most powerful branch – has reduced the American political process to mere theater as compared with the real activity of government, which rests with the permanent bureaucracy. 

Any new president can hire the heads of agencies and they can hire staff, which are known as political appointees. These 4,000 political appointees ostensibly rule 432 agencies (as listed by the Federal Register) as well as some 2.9 million employees (aside from the military and postal service) that effectively inhibit permanent jobs. This permanent state – sometimes called the deep state – knows the ropes and the processes of government far better than any temporary political appointee, thus reducing the appointed jobs to cosmetic positions for the press to hound while the real actions of government take place behind the scenes. 

From 2020 and onward, the American people got to know this administrative state well. They ordered us to wear masks. They deployed their influence to close small businesses and churches. They limited how many people we could have in our homes. They festooned our businesses with plexiglass and told everyone to stay six-feet apart. They demanded two weeks of quarantine when crossing state borders. They decided which medical procedures were elective and non-elective. And they finally demanded compliance with vaccine mandates at the penalty of job loss. 

None of this was ordered by legislation. It was all invented on the spot by the permanent staff of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We had no idea they had such power. But they do. And that same power which allowed those egregious attacks on rights and liberties also belongs to the Federal Drug Administration, the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Homeland Security, and all the rest. 

Donald Trump came into office with the promise of draining the swamp, without understanding entirely what that meant. He gradually came to realize that he had no control over most of the affairs of government, not because he had no patience for the legislative process but because he had no ability to terminate the employment of most of the civilian bureaucracy. Nor could his political appointees control it. The media, he gradually came to realize, echoed the priorities and concerns of this administrative state due to long-established relationships that led to nonstop leaks that spread false information. 

In May of 2018, he took his first steps to gain some modicum of control over this deep state. He issued three executive orders (E.O. 13837, E.O. 13836, and E.O.13839) that would have diminished their access to labor-union protection when being pressed on the terms of their employment. Those three orders were litigation by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and sixteen other federal labor unions. 

All three were struck down with a decision by a DC District Court. The presiding judge was Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was later rewarded for her decision with a nomination to the Supreme Court, which was affirmed by the US Senate. The prevailing and openly stated reason for her nomination was said to be mostly demographic: she would be the first black woman on the Court. The deeper reason was more likely traceable to her role in thwarting actions by Trump which had begun the process of upending the administrative state. Jackson’s judgment was later reversed but Trump’s actions were embroiled in a juridical tangle that rendered them moot. 

Following the lockdowns of mid-March 2020, Trump became increasingly frustrated with the CDC and Anthony Fauci in particular. Trump was profoundly aware that he had no power to fire the man, despite his epicly terrible role in prolonging Covid lockdowns long after Trump wanted to open up to save the American economy and society. 

Trump’s next step was radical and brilliant: the creation of a new category of federal employment. It was called Schedule F. 

Employees of the federal government classified as Schedule F would have been subject to control by the elected president and other representatives. Who are they? They are those who met the following criteria:

Positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition shall be listed in Schedule F. In appointing an individual to a position in Schedule F, each agency shall follow the principle of veteran preference as far as administratively feasible.

Schedule F employees would be fired. “You’re fired” was the slogan that made Trump TV famous. With this order, he would be in a position to do the same to the federal bureaucracy. The order further demanded a thorough review throughout the government. 

Each head of an executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but excluding the Government Accountability Office) shall conduct, within 90 days of the date of this order, a preliminary review of agency positions covered by subchapter II of chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, and shall conduct a complete review of such positions within 210 days of the date of this order.

The Washington Post in an editorial expressed absolute shock and alarm at the implications:

The directive from the White House, issued late Wednesday, sounds technical: creating a new “Schedule F” within the “excepted service” of the federal government for employees in policymaking roles, and directing agencies to determine who qualifies. Its implications, however, are profound and alarming. It gives those in power the authority to fire more or less at will as many as tens of thousands of workers currently in the competitive civil service, from managers to lawyers to economists to, yes, scientists. This week’s order is a major salvo in the president’s onslaught against the cadre of dedicated civil servants whom he calls the “deep state” — and who are really the greatest strength of the U.S. government.

Ninety days after October 21, 2020 would have been January 19, 2021, the day before the new president was to be inaugurated. The Washington Post commented ominously: “Mr. Trump will try to realize his sad vision in his second term, unless voters are wise enough to stop him.”

Biden was declared the winner due mostly to mail-in ballots. 

On January 21, 2021, the day after inauguration, Biden reversed the order. It was one of his first actions as president. No wonder, because, as The Hill reported, this executive order would have been “the biggest change to federal workforce protections in a century, converting many federal workers to ‘at will’ employment.” 

How many federal workers in agencies would have been newly classified at Schedule F? We do not know because only one completed the review before their jobs were saved by the election result. The one that did was the Congressional Budget Office. Its conclusion: fully 88% of employees would have been newly classified as Schedule F, thus allowing the president to terminate their employment. 

This would have been a revolutionary change, a complete remake of Washington, DC, and all politics as usual. 

Trump’s EO 13957 was a dagger aimed directly at the heart of the beast. It might have worked. 

It would have gotten us closer to the restoration of a Constitutional system of government in which we have 3 – not 4 – branches of government that are wholly controlled by the people’s representatives. It would have gone a long way toward gutting the administrative state of its power and returning the affairs of state to the people’s control. 

The action was stopped dead due to the election results. 

Whatever one’s view of Trump, one has to admire the brilliance of this executive order. It shows that Trump had come to understand the problem and actually innovate a fundamental solution, or at least the beginnings of one. The “deep state” as we’ve come to know it would have been curbed, and we would have taken a step toward recreating the system that existed before the Pendleton Act of 1883. 

Many efforts have been deployed through the years to regain constitutional control over the permanent bureaucracy. An example is the Hatch Act of 1939 which forbids employees of the government to work for political campaigns. That act turned out to be toothless – one does not need to work for a campaign in order to skew one’s labor in the direction of always granting the federal government more power and control – and largely made irrelevant in the succeeding decades. 

Trump came to office promising to drain the swamp but it was very late in his term before he figured out the means at his disposal to do just that. His final effort took place merely two weeks before the election that was decided in favor of his opponent Biden, who quickly reversed this action just two days following the deadline of an ordered review that would have reclassified, and thus gained control over, a sizable portion of the administrative state. 

With Executive Order 12003 (“Protecting the Federal Workforce”), Biden saved the deep state’s bacon, leaving the efforts finally to drain the swamp to another day and another president. 

Still, Executive Order 13957 exists in the archives as a possible path forward to restore checks and balances in the US system of government. A new Congress can also take such steps at least symbolically. 

Until something takes place to restore the people’s control of the administrative state, a sword of Damocles will continue to hang over the entire country and we will never be safe from another round of lockdowns and mandates. 

Should a genuinely reformist president ever take office, this executive order must be issued on the very first day. Trump waited too long but that mistake need not be repeated. 

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He writes a daily column on economics at The Epoch Times, and speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture. reproduced with permission. Original here.

A Reader Writes: Every Day Tactical (Situational) Awareness

By Mike McMaken

My wife and I are ex-cops. She and I have both worked for the Federal Protective Service stationed in Kansas City and I have worked for several upscale suburbs north of Kansas City, MO. We’re retired now, but we still watch for bad guys, everywhere we go.

Before we go into a convenience store or gas station, we take a quick look to observe the body language of the people already in there. If anyone is crouching and hiding we back off and call 911. After that, we get the cell phones on camera mode and get ready to photograph anyone coming out, and any vehicles leaving. This can help the police a great deal as any one of these cars might be a suspect or a get away car. Be careful don’t let anyone know you’re filming. Sometimes there are people in these stores acting strangely, maybe high, or drunk or with mental issues. If you see them, wait a while or keep going. No one wants their day ruined with an interaction like that. If you must enter the building, have your phone in your pocket all set to hit 911 and be prepared with the names and address of your location. Store windows that are covered with so many ads you can hardly see in there, we find worrisome. They call for extra caution.

When we go to the movies, we keep a close eye on the exits. In Aurora, CO recently, a man gained entry to a theater via an exit door that had been propped open and started shooting, killing several and wounding even more. It was another “Gun Free Zone” i.e. low-hanging fruit for a bad guy. I contend that if anyone had opposed him with a single shot he would have dropped his gun and fled. If anything happens, I draw and cover the 180 degrees in front of us, my wife draws and covers the 180 behind us for additional threats.

Rolling up to an ATM, we always look for people standing around or sitting in a nearby car. We will wait for a bit, to see how they react to us watching them. When doing this, we must be ready to engage them quickly. If in doubt, and if you’re not armed, give the place a miss and come back later. Always go somewhere well lit and know your number by heart. Don’t use machines that are remote or hidden such as being located behind buildings, behind pillars, under tress, behind walls, or away from public view. If you use bank drive-thru ATM machine the same rules apply. Make sure there are no obvious hiding places or suspicious persons loitering in the area. If there are, listen to your gut instinct and drive away. Keep your doors locked and the car in gear, with your foot firmly on the brake, while using the ATM machine. Keep a close eye on your rear and side-view mirrors during the transaction. In every case, put your money somewhere safe immediately.

When we go to a restaurant, whether its fast food or a nice place, we sit where at least one of us can face the door to see who comes in. We glance at everyone to ascertain their demeanor. There are fewer places to rob in these lockdown days so everything that is open is a target as are the people sitting in or around it. We check to see if someone is armed and trying to rob the place and patrons or even if they might want to kill everyone in there. It’s a split second thing, but our lizard brain tells us when things are just “wrong” and you should trust it. Mass murders can happen in restaurants.

If I’m with someone other than my wife, I ask the person(s) I’m with if they are packing heat. I never assume they are. Recently, I was with a guy who always packs, however, on that day, he wasn’t, because he knew I always did. Never assume, always ask.

Before you go home, keep an eye out to the traffic behind you. See if anyone is following you. If you suspect they are, make a series of turns. All rights or all lefts. If they stay with you, do not go home. You don’t want them finding out where you live. Drive to the nearest police station and start honking your horn outside. Of course, you should get the tag and vehicle the and color as they will high tail it when they see where you’re headed. A photo is good if you have a passenger who can take it.

If you have an expertise you’d like to share I am turning to you! You homemakers, gardeners, hobbyists, hunters, survivalists, car enthusiasts, parents, fisherfolk, experts, military experts, marksmen, inventors, bakers, heritage skill experts — all of you with cool things you’re willing to share, please email me at [email protected] . Remember NO POLITICS. This is my desperate attempt to get us back to our self-reliant roots and swamp the site with preparedness and quality of life improvements. Please know that I am the only person involved at SRC and I can’t pay but I would truly love to share your passions. (Please send only your original material. Copyright and intellectual property lawyers trawl these sites to sue people who use other people’s work.)

How does THIS add up to an 8.6% inflation rate

One of the comments says, “The true inflation rate seems to be around 30% because things like gas are weighted so heavily in that every single business needs it.”

Take our survey

Why It Matters That Fauci Got Covid

In the end Dr. Fauci was no more successful in avoiding the virus than Prince Prospero, the villain from Poe’s imagination who believed his castle could protect him from the plague.

I recently returned from a week-long vacation in the north woods of Wisconsin. We played beach volleyball, went fishing and boating, had a lively game of Wiffle Ball with the kids, and swam until our skin was prune-like.

Even without a cell phone, I managed to stumble on a bit of breaking news from an unusual source: television. (It was virtually the only media I had up there.) Naturally, I had to share this bit of news.

“Fauci has Covid,” I told some of my companions, stuffing beer into coolers.

A discussion quickly broke out over whether the news was relevant.

“So what?” a friend responded. “I accepted a long time ago that everyone is going to get this thing.”

I partly agreed with my friend. Even during the early stages of the pandemic, I harbored suspicions that the virus was going to spread regardless of any interventions politicians or bureaucrats enacted—and those interventions could prove to be destructive, perhaps more destructive than the virus itself.

But I told him not to underestimate the importance of Fauci contracting Covid.

It’s important to understand that Fauci isn’t just the president’s top medical advisor. Fauci, whose official title is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is “America’s Doctor,” as The New Yorker described him in April 2020.

More importantly, for better or worse, Fauci became the architect of the US Covid response.

It was Fauci who, early in the pandemic, proposed a Covid strategy that was simultaneously radical and simple: keep Americans apart from one another, using state force, if necessary.

In March 2020, Fauci told “Face the Nation” that the strategy was working.

“The kinds of mitigation issues that are going on right now, the things that we’re seeing in this country, this physical separation at the same time as we’re preventing an influx of cases coming in, I think that’s going to go a long way to preventing us from becoming an Italy,” Fauci said.

The “mitigations” Fauci was referring to were lockdowns. Schools closed. Parks closed. Businesses closed. Any enterprise or activity not deemed “essential” by state authorities was illegal.

Americans were told these efforts were only temporary. “Fifteen days to slow the spread,” became a national mantra.

Six months later, however, nothing had changed. In fact, Fauci was now saying it would have to continue until 2022.

The idea that humans could hide indefinitely from an airborne pathogen if government bureaucrats turned the dial just right has more than a touch of madness to it, but what few seem to realize is that for Fauci, this was just the first step in a larger revolution.

Writing at the Brownstone Institute, Jeffrey Tucker points to an August 2020 Cell article written by Fauci wherein the doctor explains his ideological vision, which rings of Rousseauian idealism.

“Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues.

In such a transformation we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases. Chief among them are reducing crowding at home, work, and in public places as well as minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization, and intensive animal farming.”

The article, Tucker points out, makes it clear Fauci’s pandemic response was not just about Covid, but a larger technocratic revolution that was hard to define—and one Americans had not signed up for.

“It’s not socialism or capitalism. It’s something else entirely, something very strange,” Tucker writes. “No one has voted for such a thing. It is something Fauci and his friends dreamed up on their own and deployed all their enormous power to enact just as a test, until it fell apart.”

And this is what makes Fauci’s infection—which comes more than two years after the first lockdowns were imposed—so important.

“It’s a sign and symbol that [Fauci’s] entire theory of virus control was wrong,” Tucker writes. “He got his way with policy and it did not work. The virus finally landed on him, as if to reenact Edgar Allan Poe’s fictional story of Prince Prospero in his castle that he believed would protect him.”

In his 1974 Nobel Prize acceptance speech, the economist F.A. Hayek concluded with a warning: he urged humans to act humbly with the immense power of modern science.

“There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered,” Hayek said, “and which tempts man to try, ‘dizzy with success,’ to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will.”

He continued:

“The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”

A careful look at Dr. Fauci reveals that humility is not one of his stronger attributes, and his actions show the fatal conceit that Hayek warned against infects public health officials as well as economic planners.

Despite all his efforts, Fauci was no more successful in avoiding the plague than Prince Prospero. But his mad, arrogant effort to extinguish the virus through force is a tale worthy of its own parable.

This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.

Jon Miltimore
Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times,, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times. 

This article was originally published on Read the original article.

See What Happens to Abortion State by State Now

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, an unborn baby in Alaska still could be aborted up to the moment of birth. But in Tennessee, the life of an unborn child would be protected from the moment of conception in almost all circumstances.  (This list was compiled before the Dobbs decision was officially announced. As I write, Missouri and Texas have already declared that abortion is illegal in their states. Kelly.)

How could two states in the U.S. treat their unborn children so differently? The moral or philosophical answer is challenging; however, the legal answer is simple: federalism.  

Over 230 years ago, the Framers of the Constitution established in the 10th Amendment that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  

If the Supreme Court reverses its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that made abortion on demand legal in all 50 states, the high court will be saying that the Constitution doesn’t provide a “right” to abortion, conservative legal analysts say

Just as before the court’s Roe ruling, all states again would have the power to determine abortion law within their own borders.  

States across the nation vary in how they would treat the unborn if the Supreme Court overturns Roe in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. More than a dozen states have passed something called a trigger law that would go into effect post-Roe.  For the purposes of this article, trigger law refers to pro-life legislation that bans all, or most, abortions in a state once Roe is reversed

Although a few states would allow for abortion up to the moment of birth post-Roe, many pro-abortion states won’t permit abortion once an unborn child is “viable,” meaning the baby could likely survive on its own outside the womb. A pre-born baby usually reaches viability around 24 weeks gestation.  

If the Supreme Court does overturn Roe, which the justices appear poised to do according to a leaked draft majority opinion in Dobbs, it will be “the big moment that the pro-life movement has been waiting,” says Autumn Leva, vice president of strategy for Family Policy Alliance.  

But the overturning of Roe would mark “not an ending, but a new beginning in the fight for life,” Leva told The Daily Signal during a recent phone interview.  

Because regulation of abortion would revert to the states, “citizens’ pro-life vote will matter more than it ever has before,” Leva said, “and lawmakers will be more directly responsible for the lives saved and lost in their states than ever before.” 

Look for your state in the alphabetical list below to learn to what extent the unborn would be protected where you live if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.  

And to learn more about what is likely to happen in your state post-Roe, check out Family Policy Alliance’s “After Roe” map and the Center for Reproductive Rights’ “What If Roe Fell” map, both of which are primary sources for this article. 


Nearly all abortions in Alabama would become illegal under a trigger law, with exceptions to save the “life or health” of the mother. Those convicted of performing an illegal abortion could be fined up to $1,000 and face up to a year imprisonment or a sentence of hard labor.  


Alaska does not limit abortion. Women in the state will still be able to abort their babies even past the time of viability.  


Arizona has a law in place that would ban nearly all abortions. Courts found the law unconstitutional, but it likely would take effect if Roe is overturned. Arizona also passed legislation to ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which would take effect as well.  

Those who violate the abortion ban could face two to five years in prison. Violating the 15-week abortion ban would be a class 6 felony.  

Arizona, however, does allow for abortions to save the life of the mother.  


Arkansas has a total ban on abortion, except to save the life of the mother, that is ready to take effect. 

Those who violate the Arkansas Human Life Protection Act and perform illegal abortions could be fined up to $100,000 and face up to 10 years in prison. 


In 1969, four years before the high court’s Roe v. Wade decision, California legalized abortion. Abortion would remain legal in California up to the time of the baby’s viability outside the womb. 


Abortion would remain legal in Colorado. In 2022, the state passed theReproductive Health Equity Act guaranteeing a “right” to “have an abortion.”  


Abortion would remain legal in Connecticut. State law prohibits abortion after a baby is viable outside the womb, however. The law provides no legal penalties for those who perform illegal abortions.  


Under Delaware’s Freedom of Choice Act, abortion would be legal up to the time a baby is viable. State law provides no penalties for illegal abortions.  

District of Columbia 

Abortion would remain legal at all stages of pregnancy, including through the third trimester. The nation’s capital is considered to have some of the least-restrictive abortion laws in America.  


Abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy would be banned in Florida. But in 1989, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a “right” to abortion exists, so litigation over state abortion law likely would follow.  

Florida law also bans abortions after the second trimester, around 27 weeks, as well as partial-birth abortion.  

Performing an abortion after the second trimester is considered a third-degree felony in Florida and conviction may result in a fine of up to $5,000 and a prison sentence of up to five years.  


Almost all abortions likely would be illegal in Georgia. In 2019, the state passed a bill banning abortion after a baby’s heartbeat can be detected, at around six weeks of pregnancy. The law was challenged and is currently enjoined, meaning it can’t be enforced. The six-week abortion ban likely would take effect, however, if Roe ends.  

Georgia’s heartbeat bill includes exceptions in cases of medical emergencies; pregnancies before 20 weeks when the child was conceived by reported rape or incest; or when the baby is declared “medically futile.”  

Violating the heartbeat law could result in a prison sentence of up to 10 years.  

Georgia also bans partial-birth abortion, but allows it to save the life of the mother. Violating this ban could result in a fine of up to $5,000 and up to five years in prison.  


Under state law, abortions would remain legal to the point of the baby’s viability in Hawaii.  

Performing an abortion after that time could result in a fine up to $1,000 or up to a five-year prison sentence.  


Abortion would be legal in Idaho only to save the life of the mother, or in cases where the child was conceived in rape or incest.  

Violating Idaho’s pro-life trigger law would be punishable by two to five years in prison and suspension of a physician’s medical license.  


Abortion would remain legal in Illinois and be limited only after the baby is viable.  

If a physician performs an abortion after that time, except to save the life of the mother, he or she could be charged with intentional homicide.  


Some abortions would be illegal. Indiana bans partial-birth abortions, dismemberment abortions, and abortions after a baby is viable.  

The state also prohibits performing an abortion based on a baby’s sex, a disability diagnosis, including Down syndrome, or due to the race or ethnicity of the baby.  

Abortions performed after the first trimester, around 14 weeks, are level 5 felonies.  

Indiana law includes exceptions to save the life of the mother. 


Partial-birth abortion would remain illegal. Iowa also prohibits abortions after a baby is viable, around 24 weeks or after the second trimester.  

Iowa allows for partial-birth abortions only when the mother is endangered by a physical injury, physical disorder, or physical illness.  

Post-viability abortions would be allowed to save the life or protect the health of the mother.   

Violating either abortion ban is considered a class C felony in Iowa.  


Kansas has several laws in place to protect the unborn, but those measures were put at risk in 2019 when the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution contains a “right” to abortion.  

During the primary election Aug. 2, residents will have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment called Value Them Both, which would overturn the Kansas Supreme Court’s ruling and allow state elected officials to regulate abortion.  

Kansas’ pro-life laws that are at risk because of the court’s ruling include those that prohibit abortions past a baby’s viability, gender-selective and partial-birth abortions, and abortions once a baby can feel pain, or about 20 weeks.  

Exceptions to these abortion limits include to preserve the life of the mother or prevent her physical impairment.  


Kentucky has a trigger law that would take effect and ban nearly all abortions.  

Kentucky would allow an abortion to save the life of the mother, however.  

Violating the law would be a Class D felony.  


Nearly all abortions would be banned in Louisiana. The state has a trigger lawthat would take effect and allow an abortion only to save the life of the mother or prevent “permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ.” 

Violating the law would punishable by up to two years in prison and up to a $1,000 fine.  


Maine would allow abortions up to the time of viability for the baby.  

It is a class D felony to perform an abortion after a baby is viable, or to perform an abortion on a minor without written consent from a parent, guardian, or adult family member.  


Abortion would remain legal up until the time a baby is viable.  

However, Maryland does not currently have a way to enforce its ban on abortions after viability.  


Massachusetts would continue to allow abortions through 24 weeks of pregnancy. The state Supreme Court has ruled that the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights supports a “right” to abortion.  

No penalties exist for those who perform abortion after 24 weeks.  


It’s possible that almost all abortions would become illegal in Michigan.  

A 1931 statute makes abortion illegal in all circumstances except to save the life of the mother. This law would go back into effect, with violation a felony, but it isn’t clear whether the state would enforce the law.  


Abortion would remain legal in Minnesota because the state’s Supreme Court has ruled that a “right” to abortion exists.  

It is a felony to perform an abortion after 24 weeks in Minnesota, however.  


Almost all abortions would be banned in Mississippi, which is at the center of the current legal battle to overturn Roe v. Wade. The state passed a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, which was quickly challenged and blocked in court proceedings.  

Before someone leaked a draft majority opinion, the Supreme Court was expected to rule on the case, Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Dobbs, no later than June 30. If the court rules in Mississippi’s favor along the lines of the draft opinion, Roe will be overturned and the state’s 15-week abortion ban will go into effect.  

Mississippi also has a trigger law that would ban nearly all abortions and a “heartbeat” law that doesn’t permit abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. A court has enjoined the latter law from enforcement.  

The state’s abortion laws contain some exceptions. The 15-week ban allows exceptions in cases of medical emergency or when the baby has a severe abnormality.  

The trigger law and the heartbeat law both provide an exception to save the life of the mother.  

Physicians who violate the 15-week ban could have their medical license suspended or revoked. Violations of the heartbeat law would be considered a misdemeanor that could result in a $1,000 fine and a six-month prison sentence. Physicians who violate the trigger law could face one to 10 years in prison.  


Missouri has a trigger law called the Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act, which would limit almost all abortions.  

Abortions would still be allowed to save the life of the mother or to prevent physical harm below the mother’s sternum.  

Physicians who violate the trigger law could be charged with a class B felony and have their medical licenses suspended or revoked.  


Abortion would remain legal in Montana up to the time a baby is considered viable.  

It is a felony to perform an abortion after that time, except to save the life or protect the health of the mother. State law requires three physicians to agree in writing that a post-viability abortion is necessary.  


Some abortions would be permitted in Nebraska. The state has laws in place to ban partial-birth abortions and abortions after a baby is viable. Both bans provide exceptions to save the life or health of the mother. 

Nebraska also has a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, with no exceptions.  

Physicians who violate the 20-week or post-viability bans may be charged with a class IV felony. It is a class III felony to violate the partial-birth abortion ban.  


Abortion would remain legal. Nevada prohibits abortion after 24 weeks, except when a physician says it is necessary to save the life or protect the health of the mother.  

No penalties exist, however, for violating the 24-week ban.   

New Hampshire 

Abortion would remain legal in New Hampshire, although the state prohibits the procedure after 24 weeks of pregnancy. The state also bans partial-birth abortion.  

Exceptions allow abortions to save the life of the mother.  

Physicians who violate the ban on abortion after 24 weeks may be charged with a class B felony and are subject to up to seven years in prison and up to a $100,000 fine. Violating the ban on partial-birth abortion is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. 

New Jersey 

Nearly all abortions still would be allowed. In 2022, New Jersey passed legislation called the Reproductive Choice Act, which removed state restrictions on abortion.  

New Mexico 

Almost all abortions would be allowed in New Mexico.  

Partial-birth abortions are prohibited except to save the life of the mother or prevent great bodily harm. Physicians who violate that ban may be charged with a fourth-degree felony.  

New York 

Nearly all abortions would remain legal. 

New York’s Reproductive Health Act prohibits abortion after 24 weeks except to protect the life and health of the mother, but critics say the law doesn’t define those terms clearly.  

That vagueness and the lack of an enforcement mechanism mean most abortions are permitted.  

North Carolina 

Abortion would remain legal in many situations in North Carolina. The state doesn’t allow abortion after viability, except to save the life of the mother or to prevent irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.  

It is a class H felony in North Carolina to perform abortions after the baby is viable.  

North Dakota 

Almost all abortions would be illegal. North Dakota’s trigger law would take effect and permit abortions only to save the life of the mother, or in cases where the pregnancy results from “gross sexual imposition, sexual abuse of a ward, or incest,” according to the law.  

It would be a class C felony to violate North Dakota’s trigger law.  


Abortion would remain legal in Ohio up to the point of viability or 20 weeks, whatever comes first. It is illegal to have an abortion in Ohio because of a diagnosis of Down syndrome. 

Ohio permits abortions post-viability to save the life of the mother or to prevent permanent damage to major bodily functions.  

Ohio passed a law banning abortion after a baby’s heartbeat is detected, but the law was challenged in court and currently is enjoined from enforcement.  

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, the litigation must first be resolved before the heartbeat law can take effect.  

In Ohio, it is a fourth-degree felony to perform an abortion after a baby’s viability.  


Almost all abortions would be illegal. Earlier this year, Oklahoma passed a lawprohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother. This law will take effect if Roe is overturned.  


Abortion would remain legal. Oregon doesn’t place any restrictions on the procedure.  


Abortion would remain legal in Pennsylvania through 23 weeks of pregnancy. Sex-selective abortion, however, is illegal in the state.  

Pennsylvania law permits abortions past 23 weeks if two physicians agree in writing that the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother or to prevent “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” 

Physicians who violate the state’s 23-week abortion ban may be charged with a third-degree felony.  

Rhode Island 

Abortion would remain legal in Rhone Island until the time of viability for the baby. The law allows exceptions to save the life of the mother or to prevent serious health risks.  

Physicians who violate the post-viability ban face indefinite revocation of their license, but may receive only a reprimand.  

South Carolina 

Most abortions likely would become illegal. In 2021, South Carolina passed legislation banning abortion after the baby’s heartbeat is detected. The law, currently enjoined while being challenged in court, would not automatically go into effect if Roe is overturned.  

The heartbeat law includes exceptions to save the life of the mother, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or when a fetal abnormality is present. Violation would be a felony. 

South Carolina currently bans abortions after the second trimester as well as partial-birth abortions. Exceptions to the former are to save the life or health of the mother, including her mental health.  

It is a misdemeanor in South Carolina to perform an abortion after the second trimester and a felony to violate the ban on partial-birth abortion.  

South Dakota 

Almost all abortions would be illegal. South Dakota’s trigger law would allow an abortion only when necessary to save the life of the mother.  

It would be a felony for abortion providers to violate the trigger law.  


Almost all abortions would become illegal. Tennessee has a trigger law that would allow an abortion only to save the life of the mother or “to prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” 

Abortion providers who violate Tennessee’s trigger law would be guilty of a class C felony.  


All abortions likely would be banned in Texas. In 2021, Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed a trigger law to ban all abortions that would take effect 30 days after Roe is overturned.  

Texas also never repealed pre-Roe laws banning abortion, so these laws would go back into effect.  


Almost all abortions would become illegal in Utah because the state’s trigger law bans the procedure in most cases.  

The trigger law allows for abortions to save the life of the mother or to prevent substantial physical harm to her body. The law also includes exceptions for when two fetal physicians agree in writing that a baby has a severe brain abnormality or a deadly defect, or when the baby was conceived in rape or incest.  

Physicians found guilty of violating Utah’s abortion ban have committed a second-degree felony, and clinics face revocation of their licenses. 


All abortions would remain legal in Vermont, with no restrictions. The state has passed legislation saying abortion is a “right.”  


Most abortions would remain legal. However, Virginia allows abortion past the second trimester only if three physicians agree that it is necessary to save the mother’s life or to prevent irremediable impairment of her mental or physical health. 

Partial-birth abortion is illegal in Virginia.  

Physicians found to have violated the law are guilty of a class 4 felony.  


Most abortions would remain legal. Abortion is illegal in Washington after a baby is considered viable, but the law allows a physician to determine when an unborn child likely is able to survive outside the womb.  

A physician may perform an abortion post-viability to save the life or protect the health of the mother. It is a class C felony to violate the ban on abortion after viability.  

West Virginia 

Almost all abortions would become illegal, with exceptions to save the life of the mother or baby. An 1848 statute in West Virginia, banning abortion hasn’t been repealed, and would go back into effect. The statute was originally a Virginia law, but West Virginia adopted it upon becoming a separate state in 1863.

Abortion providers who violate the 1848 abortion law could be charged with a felony and subject to three to 10 years in prison if convicted.  


Most abortions likely would become illegal. Wisconsin has a statute banning nearly all abortions, although state courts have interpreted that law differently.  


Almost all abortions would become illegal.  

Wyoming’s trigger law, passed earlier this year, would permit abortion in cases of rape or incest. It also would allow an exception to protect the mother from “a serious risk of death or of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including any psychological or emotional conditions.”