Page 92

Want a Real Red Wave?

The latest ABC/Washington Post national poll is a disaster for national Democrats. The headline is that the GOP holds a five-point (51-46) advantage amongst likely voters, but that is not the worse news from Democrats.

Not surprisingly, the economy remains the dominant issue on the minds of voters with a net 84 percent saying it is important with 50 percent more people having a negative view of the economy than a positive one.

And voters by an overwhelming 17 percent trust the GOP on the overall economy with 16 percent trusting Republicans on the inflation issue.

Additionally, Joe Biden’s upside-down approval rating has hardened over the past year with a consistent disapproval rating between 51-55 percent in every ABC/Washington Post national poll since September 1, 2021. Biden’s current disapproval rating lands at 53 percent with his approval stuck at 39 percent.

Even former Biden press secretary Jen Psaki was caught telling the truth on Sunday’s Meet the Press when she admitted, “If it is a referendum on the president, they will lose. And they know that. They also know that crime is a huge vulnerability for Democrats, I would say one of the biggest vulnerabilities.”

She is right.

Skyrocketing crime rates are problematic for the Democrats as their on-going push to release offenders with little to no bail along with choosing to not prosecute property crimes has resulted in scenes of mobs invading stores in mass thefts and criminals going from the police station to assaulting and even murdering people hours later.

2022 is the first national election where people across the nation have the opportunity to vote after feeling the insecurity of left-wing pro-criminal policies, and as Ms. Psaki notes, this is very bad news for the Democrats as it continues the dissolution of their race-based electoral coalition in many communities.

Renowned political pundit Dick Morris boldly declared on his Newsmax show on Saturday that the GOP would win four seats in the Senate giving them a 54-46 advantage and ending Vice President Harris’ ability to break ties on issues decided along partisan lines.

The subtext to all of the predictions is built around the idea that voter turnout will be much higher amongst those who are out of power than it will be for those who currently hold the reins. Historically, this is true and a chartist would show graphs of elections going back to World War II making the case.

But while momentum is certainly on the side of the GOP in 2022, the size of the wave will be determined by who votes, and this is where people who care about liberty come in.

If you want this election to be truly transformative and a rejection of the left’s economic and cultural assault on America and our ideals, the 2022 election cannot be a squeaker.  The Biden administration must face an overwhelming rejection, where new members of Congress arrive on January 3, 2023, from districts that GOP leadership did not heavily target. 

The difference between the tepid leadership that one can expect from the House GOP with a 235 to 200 majority and what can be achieved with a 255 to 180 majority matters when confronting Biden over whether to defund his 83,000 IRS agents.  It matters when it comes to vigorously confronting his attempts to change Title IX education policy to a full-blown federal government mandated inclusion of biological men competing in women’s sports.  And it matters when it comes to forcing our immigration laws to be enforced by the Biden administration, staunching the flood of illegals who are entering our nation every single day.

Winning has consequences, but winning big creates more pressure on the D.C. GOP leadership to actually fight, as the larger the new class of incoming freshmen, the more they will demand that something gets done. 

And it all comes down to maximizing voter turnout amongst voters who don’t traditionally vote in off-year elections. 

Want a true red wave?  Volunteer today to begin contacting low propensity Trump voters, because their turnout percentage will determine if Republicans just try to cling to a slim majority in 2023-2024, or if they use that power to neuter and reverse the Biden administration’s extreme policy proscriptions.

Rick Manning is President of Americans for Limited Government

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2022/09/want-a-real-red-wave/ Reproduced with permission.

Is this you? Inflation is hitting our pantries and your annual income

Currently inflation is “officially” running at around 8.5%. That doesn’t mean much until you work out 100 divided by 8.5 is around 12. Which means inflation is eating ONE MONTH’S INCOME each year. You’re going to have to get by on one month’s less salary, benefit or pension. No wonder it’s hard. And it’s going to get worse. The government is incapable of spending less. $80 Billion to Ukraine here, $50Billion to illegals there – it soon adds up. So it will inflate its way out of problems. Which is all fine and dandy for people with material assets – but it kicks workers and old or retired people on fixed incomes right where it hurts.

The Federal Reserve ordered another super-sized jump in interest rates today, and signaled that additional rate hikes are likely in the coming months, as it tries to put the brakes on runaway prices.

Forbes

Do you think this man gives a flying fig for women’s rights?

Women in Iran are murdered because they aren’t covering their hair. While Iran sits on the United Nations Women’s Rights Commission the whole organization should hang its head in shame. It’s time to shut down the UN.

Notice how Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, AOC and all the other self-proclaimed ‘champions of human rights’ are silent about the women of Iran?

Giorgia got cancelled for family values.

Note how these headlines from the MSM call the soon-to-be first female prime minister of Italy “far-right”? That’s because she ran on a platform of God, Country and Family. She calls herself a “nationalist conservative”. She is anything but woke. And she is terrifying the Left in Europe.

Italian voters took to the polls on Sunday to elect a new parliament after former Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s July resignation triggered a snap-election. The country’s far-right coalition is on course for a majority in both houses of parliament, positioning Fratelli d’Italia leader Giorgia Meloni to become the country’s first female prime minister

Reuters

Giorgia Meloni is an Italian politician and journalist. A member of the Chamber of Deputies in Italy since 2006, she leads the Brothers of Italy political party, and has been the president of the European Conservatives and Reformists Party since 2020.

As a Christian mother she gets it. “We do not want to be numbers. We will defend the value of the human being […] We will never be slaves and simple consumers at the mercy of financial speculators.” said Giorgia Meloni in her speech to the Italian people at the weekend. It’s a speech that is resonating with ordinary people – but not the elites.

In the EU, Ursula von der Leyen is threatening to “use tools” to punish Italy for failing to succumb to their jackboots and uncaring progressive “anything goes” mentality that favors outsiders over locals and spreads central control messages wherever it can.

Remember that time Kerry called this Congressman a rude word?

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-K.Y., joined ‘Kennedy’ to discuss former Secretary of State John Kerry saying he’s unsure how much the Inflation Reduction Act ‘has to do with inflation.’

Where he had to be reminded on Fox Business Network on Thursday night after he noted John Kerry called him an “asshole.”

The eponymous host of Kennedy pointed to comments Kerry made about the Inflation Reduction Act at a conference earlier in the day.

“I’m not sure how much it has to do with inflation, but that’s ok,” he said. Kennedy noted the former secretary of state praised the bill signed into law by President Joe Biden in August.

“Let’s get sassy with Massie,” Kennedy said. “I know John Kerry is one of your favorite targets. Are you–”

“He called me an asshole more than once,” Massie interrupted, prompting Kennedy to chuckle.

“We’re on the air, Congressman,” Kennedy said through laughter. “Did no one tell you?”

Kerry did indeed call Massie an “asshole” on Twitter after the congressman voted against a massive Covid-19 relief package in March 2020.

What is the Fed? (And a Smackdown)

The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It performs five general functions to promote the effective operation of the U.S. economy and, more generally, the public interest. The Federal Reserve

  • conducts the nation’s monetary policy to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates in the U.S. economy;
  • promotes the stability of the financial system and seeks to minimize and contain systemic risks through active monitoring and engagement in the U.S. and abroad;
  • promotes the safety and soundness of individual financial institutions and monitors their impact on the financial system as a whole;
  • fosters payment and settlement system safety and efficiency through services to the banking industry and the U.S. government that facilitate U.S.-dollar transactions and payments; and
  • promotes consumer protection and community development through consumer-focused supervision and examination, research and analysis of emerging consumer issues and trends, community economic development activities, and the administration of consumer laws and regulations.

The Federal Reserve System is not “owned” by anyone. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act to serve as the nation’s central bank. The Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., is an agency of the federal government and reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress.

The Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress, which created the System in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. This central banking “system” has three important features: (1) a central governing board—the Federal Reserve Board of Governors; (2) a decentralized operating structure of 12 Federal Reserve Banks; and (3) a blend of public and private characteristics.

The Board—appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate—provides general guidance for the Federal Reserve System and oversees the 12 Reserve Banks. The Board reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress but, unlike many other public agencies, it is not funded by congressional appropriations. The Chair and other staff testify before Congress, and the Board submits an extensive report—the Monetary Policy Report—on recent economic developments and its plans for monetary policy twice a year. The Board also makes public the System’s independently audited financial statements, along with minutes from the FOMC meetings.

In addition, though the Congress sets the goals for monetary policy, decisions of the Board—and the Fed’s monetary policy-setting body, the Federal Open Market Committee—about how to reach those goals do not require approval by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government.

Each of the 12 Reserve Banks operates within its own particular geographic area, or District, of the United States, and each is separately incorporated and has its own board of directors. Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in their District’s Reserve Bank. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is different from owning stock in a private company.

The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks, legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a surplus fund. (https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm)

The problem is – they are power mad and not very good at their job.

Watch this from one of the best Business Schools in the country (Trump went there)

9 Key Cases Supreme Court Will Hear in 2022-23 Session

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

It will be tough—if not impossible—for the Supreme Court to top the 2021-22 term when it comes to both drama and results that pleased the conservative legal community (not to mention conservatives in general). 

As I wrote elsewhere in July at the end of the term, “[t]he three words that best describe the Supreme Court’s decisions this term are text, history, and tradition. If that’s one word too many, try this: Originalism Rules! And that’s a good thing.”

But for SCOTUS fans—and who isn’t one?—there will be plenty of excitement during the term that begins on Oct. 3. 

On Sept. 27, my Heritage Foundation colleague Zack Smith will host our Supreme Court preview of the 2022-23 term with former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement and former acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeff Wall. You can register for the event here. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

Although the Supreme Court will no doubt agree to hear more cases following its “long conference” when it considers the certiorari petitions that were filed during the summer, there are already several big cases on its docket for what promises to be another blockbuster term. Here’s a brief description of a few of them.

1 and 2) Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College
and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC

The court will consider whether to overturn its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger in a pair of cases that will be argued on Oct. 31. The challenger in both cases is a nonprofit group representing students and parents that sued both Harvard and the University of North Carolina, alleging that their race-conscious admissions programs primarily benefit black applicants, largely at the expense of Asian American applicants. 

For example, assuming similar credentials, an Asian American with a 25% chance of admission to Harvard would see his chances rise to 35% if he were white, 75% if he were Hispanic, and 95% if he were black. 

The challengers assert that the University of North Carolina, a public university, is violating the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. They contend that Harvard College is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin by any educational program that receives money from the federal government, thereby banning race-based admissions that, if done by a public university, would violate the equal protection clause. 

The cases had originally been consolidated, but the court separated them so that the newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who served on Harvard’s Board of Overseers, can participate in consideration of the North Carolina case.

In Grutter, the court held that the University of Michigan Law School’s race-conscious admissions program did not violate the 14th Amendment or Title VI, determining that such programs are permissible so long as the use of race is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. The court defined that as the need to obtain the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. 

In doing so, however, the court stated that a narrowly tailored program must be flexible and non-mechanical, and cannot be a de facto quota system. Further, the court held that school administrators must in good faith consider race-neutral alternatives to achieve that objective. 

The challengers argue that Harvard and UNC have flunked those tests.

3) Moore v. Harper

The court will hear a significant election law case out of North Carolina. In it, the liberal North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the congressional map that had been adopted by the conservative North Carolina Legislature, concluding that it was the result of partisan gerrymandering. 

In 2019, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering does not violate the U.S. Constitution, but here, the state Supreme Court held that the map adopted by the Legislature violated that North Carolina Constitution’s guarantee to its citizens of “substantially equal voting power” and “substantially equal legislative representation,” as well as their right to “free elections.” 

The justices will decide whether the state court’s ruling violates the elections clause (Art. I, § 4, cl. 1), which provides that “The … Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof … .” 

The issue is particularly significant because executive branch officials and state and federal judges issued opinions that altered existing election laws and procedures in various states—using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse—during the 2020 election, without seeking or obtaining the approval of the state legislatures in those states. 

In 2020, the justices turned down a request by Pennsylvania Republicans to fast-track their challenge to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that required state election officials to extend the deadline for counting mail-in ballots. In an opinion that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, suggested that the state Supreme Court’s decision likely violated the Constitution. 

The case has not yet been set for oral argument.

4) 303 Creative v. Elenis

Lorie Smith owns a graphic design firm in Colorado and wants to expand her business to include wedding websites. Although she is willing to create graphics or design websites for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, Smith does not want to design websites for same-sex weddings because she believes that same-sex marriage conflicts with God’s will, and she wants to post a message on her own website to explain that. 

She has challenged a Colorado law that prohibits businesses that are open to the public from discriminating against gay people or announcing their intent to do so. 

This is the same Colorado law that was applied to—and was challenged by—Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, when local authorities tried to punish him for refusing to bake a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple because it violated his sincerely held religious beliefs. Phillips argued that the law violated his rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. 

In that case, the Supreme Court ducked the main issue by holding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which considered the matter, displayed impermissible hostility to his sincerely held religious beliefs and that he was entitled to a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.

In this new case, Smith argues she is being forced to express tacit support for same-sex marriages and prohibited from explaining why she declines to develop websites for same-sex weddings.

It’s expected that the court will finally address the merits of the underlying issue, but with a twist.  

While the justices agreed to take up Smith’s claim under the free speech clause, they declined to review two other questions; namely, whether requiring Smith to create custom websites for same-sex couples violates the free exercise clause and whether the Supreme Court should overrule its 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that government actions usually do not violate the free exercise clause as long as they are neutral and apply to everyone. 

The case has not yet been set for oral argument.

5) Merrill v. Milligan

On Oct. 4, the court will hear oral argument in a case that will decide whether the state of Alabama’s 2021 congressional redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. 

A panel of federal judges in January ordered the state to draw a new map with two majority-black districts, concluding that the state’s original plan—which contained only one such district—likely violated Section 2. A divided Supreme Court put that order on hold, allowing the state to implement its original plan for the 2022 midterm elections, and set the case for oral argument.

6) US v. Texas

This case poses a new challenge by a red state to a Biden administration immigration policy. 

Last term, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration when it sought to terminate the “Remain in Mexico” policy that was implemented during the Trump administration. 

In this case, Texas and Louisiana are challenging a new policy that prioritizes certain groups of illegal aliens for arrest and deportation.

In a September 2021 memorandum, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas outlined the administration’s immigration enforcement priorities. The DHS argues that while there are more than 11 million illegal aliens in the United States who are subject to deportation, the government does not have the resources to apprehend and deport all of them. The memorandum instructs immigration officials to prioritize cases involving suspected terrorists, people who commit serious crimes, and those caught at the border.

The states claim to be suffering financial harm as a result of this new policy by, for example, requiring them to keep noncitizens in state prisons for longer than they otherwise would. They argue that the policy conflicts with various statutory requirements in the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Moreover, they contend, the administration failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act in that it did not provide the public with notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, its new enforcement priorities, and it did not properly consider “the high rate of abscondment and recidivism among criminal aliens and aliens with final orders of removal” in reaching its conclusions.

The case has not yet been set for oral argument.

7) Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

Mike and Chantell Sackett are making their second trip to the high court as they pursue their long-standing dream of building a home on a vacant parcel of land they own near Priest Lake, Idaho. 

In 2007, the Sacketts filled in a portion of their land with dirt and rock in preparation for the construction. A short time later, the EPA issued an order alleging that the Sacketts had violated the Clean Water Act by filling in the parcel without first obtaining a permit. 

Although the lot has no surface water that is connected to any other body of water, the EPA contends the Sacketts’ lot contains wetlands that qualify as “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act.

The EPA demanded that the Sacketts remove the fill dirt and restore the parcel to its original condition. The Sacketts filed a lawsuit, but the lower courts dismissed it, holding that until the EPA undertakes an enforcement action, the suit was premature. In 2012, however, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sacketts that the EPA’s compliance order constituted a final agency action that was subject to judicial review.

In 2006, in Rapanos v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Clean Water Act does not regulate all wetlands, but did not establish a definitive standard for determining which wetlands qualify. 

A plurality opinion by then-Justice Antonin Scalia argued that only those wetlands that have a continuous connection to other, regulated waters qualify, while Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, argued that a wetland could qualify for regulation so long as it bears a “significant nexus” with traditional navigable waters. 

On remand, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Sacketts, adopting the broader, more permissive “significant nexus” case advocated by Kennedy. On Oct. 3, the justices will hear arguments from counsel on whether the 9th Circuit used the proper test for determining whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the act.

8) National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

As the most populous state with the biggest economy, California has regulations that often have an outsized influence on—if not basically dictate—how businesses across the country operate. This is one such case.

On Oct. 11, the justices will take up a challenge to a California law that makes the sale of pork in California contingent on compliance with conditions that virtually no existing commercial farms meet; specifically, that the pig from which the pork derives was born to a sow who was housed in a 24-square-foot space and could turn around freely without touching any barriers.

While that may be fine—or perhaps not—with California pork farmers, it’s not fine with out-of-state farmers and other industry representatives who produce 99% of the pork that is consumed in the Golden State. 

Through their trade association, those out-of-state producers went to court, alleging that this restrictive law violates the so-called dormant commerce clause, a legal doctrine inferred from the commerce clause and designed to prevent state protectionism, that prohibits state legislation that discriminates against or unduly burdens interstate commerce. 

While the 9th Circuit agreed that the law would “require pervasive changes to the pork production industry nationwide,” it held that the challengers had failed to make out a claim for a violation of their constitutional rights. 

One justice to watch in this case will be Thomas, who has criticized the dormant commerce clause in past opinions, including in his dissent in Camps Newfound/Owatonna v. Town of Harrison, in which he wrote that the “negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application.”

9) Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts v. Goldsmith

The well-known late pop artist Andy Warhol is once said to have observed that “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” Thirty-five years after Warhol’s passing, the court will consider whether Warhol stole some of that fame from Lynn Goldsmith by infringing her copyright on a photograph that she took of rock star Prince that appeared in Vanity Fair (which paid a licensing fee to use the image). 

Before he died, Warhol created a series of images of Prince from the photograph, but altered the image by cropping and coloring it. Goldsmith was unaware of that until Vanity Fair published an article using one of those images shortly after Prince’s death in 2016, which led to her lawsuit against the foundation that holds the copyright to all of Warhol’s images. 

The court will decide whether the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with Goldsmith, is right or whether, as the foundation argues, Warhol’s alterations were sufficiently transformative to constitute a fair use.

The case will be heard on Oct. 12.

John G. Malcolm is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, overseeing The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Original here. Reproduced with permission.

Chilling: School’s Secret Transitioning Ends in Suicide Attempt

[Image Credit: Flickr-Tom Woodward (CC BY-SA 2.0)]

At the beginning of this year, Wendell Perez got a call that no father ever wants to receive—his elementary-aged daughter had attempted to hang herself in the school bathroom. Perez and his wife rushed to the school, where their daughter was whisked away by a police car to stay in a mental institution for a week. 

Searching for answers, the couple found out from school administrators that their “son” had been struggling with “his” gender identity. On top of that, the school had remained quiet about the issue as the student was concerned that “he” would not be accepted at home because of the family’s faith.

It was only until the child’s second suicide attempt in a matter of two days that Perez and his wife were informed of the situation. The school was secretly transitioning the young girl into a male identity, without the parents’ knowledge or consent.

At the recent Pray Vote Stand Summit in Atlanta, Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon hosted a panel on Perez’s story, featuring the Florida father himself and his lawyer, Vernadette Broyles of the Child and Parental Rights Campaign

With difficulty and a quivering voice, Perez shared his experience. “I’m going to be honest with you,” he told the room. “My blood still boils up to this day.”

From the outside, the Perezes are a normal family—a devout Catholic home with two parents and a 12-year-old in the Clayton County school system. According to Perez, there was “no indication at home” that the girl was “questioning her biological sex.” 

He cites the religious discrimination of the school as a reason that the parents were kept in the dark. “Our faith was used against us. They decided [for us] that our faith—because we have a Christian faith—that was not safe for our daughter.”

“After that, we had to pick up the pieces and start a very painful healing process as a family,” Perez continued. “And part of that process was that we file a lawsuit against them for the violation of our parental rights and other constitutional rights. And that lawsuit is still active in federal court.”

Child and Parental Rights Campaign’s Broyles is representing them in their lawsuit, despite Clay County School District dismissing the allegations and requesting that the judge drop the case. She maintains that both the United States and Florida constitutions protect parents’ rights. 

According to Broyles, Perez’s case is one of many instances of schools breaching parental rights and transgender ideology being forced upon children. Many parents across the country have found themselves as plaintiffs fighting school administrations that have helped their children begin quietly transitioning, such as a mother in California and a couple in Tallahassee, Florida, with similar situations. Other instances across the country have included the emergence of “gender transition closets” in communities and schools.

Kilgannon, who is senior fellow for education studies at Family Research Council, commented to The Washington Stand, “It takes special grace to be able to function beyond a crisis in your family. The Perez family’s faith blesses us all by their example and by their lawsuit, which will protect other families from activist school policies. We need to pray for them, for our schools, and all other families struggling through a gender crisis.”

While the Biden administration attempts to redefine Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity, several elected officials are siding with parents through bold advocacy and legislation. This past week, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, released the state’s 2022 model guidelines upholding a parent’s right to their child’s education above all else. Virginia’s Loudoun County has notably made headlines with sexual orientation indoctrination scandals and school boards usurping parents’ agendas. 

Additionally, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has made friends among many parents and enemies among other citizens with his Parental Rights in Education bill.

“This is a spiritual battle that knows no geographic bounds … it’s coming everywhere,” Kilgannon told The Washington Stand. She maintains that if something like this can happen to the Perez family, no one is safe from transgender ideology targeting their kids.

As the power struggle persists across the country between parents and their local school boards, Perez is using his voice to speak out on behalf of parents who have daughters like his own. 

“As a parent, I am so grateful to Wendell and his family for taking legal action,” Kilgannon concluded. “This happened in Florida, after the Parental Rights Law went into effect. Wendell is a practicing attorney, who is active in his church. His family practices their faith. So if this can happen to Wendell’s daughter, it can happen to anyone.”

Editor’s note: The Daily Signal reached out to Clay County District Schools for comment and received this comment by email from Terri Dennis: “The district has performed a thorough and complete investigation into this matter as it was presented to us and has determined that the allegations made by this out-of-state organization are completely false, fabricated, and appear to be intended solely for the purpose of inciting the public. All employees of the district consistently work to ensure that the best interests of all students are served. The district will have no further comment on this matter.”

Originally published by The Washington Stand. Reproduced with permission. Daily Signal version here.

Blast from the Past: Newsom

Listen to this self-serving idiot claim he’s going to solve the biggest problem in Pelosi’s hometown.

How it started…

How it’s going

Citizens for Sanity stick it to East Coast Virtue Signalers

Young progressives like to poke fun at the humor of Citizens for Sanity (which we also covered here) and like to disparagingly call it “Boomer Humor”. CfS like to think they’re returning common sense to America, highlighting the importance of logic and reason, and defeating “wokeism.” Here’s their ad on behalf of Martha’s Vineyard in The Providence Journal yesterday. Do you think it’s funny?

Citizens for Sanity

How about this one to the Latinos in Austin?

It translates: “Defend pregnant Latinx men this November!” Latinx is a white liberal word invented to obscure the fact that Spanish is a language which “genders” nouns, including women. Most Latinos loathe being referred to as Laninix. Latinos are famously traditional and family-oriented so this sarcastic billboard serves to remind the demographic that if they vote Democrat in November they are voting for more woke nonsense – as well as a truly incompetent Administration that’s overseeing the fastest collapse of our economy and society in generations.

Uncool: Biden Pushes Senate to Ratify Treaty That Would Negatively Affect Us All

After a hot summer with utility bills rising, reasonable people would think that President Joe Biden would want to keep air conditioning costs low for Americans.

But the Senate is poised to vote on a climate treaty that would raise those costs and put yet another notch in the belt of Biden’s whole-of-government, whole-of-the-economy climate agenda.

In his first week as president, Biden issued Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.” Among the many regulatory actions it initiated, Biden’s order also directed his administration to pursue the Senate’s ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the U.N. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

What does a treaty on the ozone layer have to do with global warming? Very little, but it offers a convenient cover to slip in costly climate policy that would drive Americans’ air conditioning costs even higher.

The Kigali Amendment mandates a phasing down of hydrofluorocarbons—the most common and affordable compounds used in the U.S. and globally for air conditioning, refrigeration, building insulation, semiconductor manufacturing, and even fire extinguishers. Hydrofluorocarbons also emit greenhouse gases (more on that later) and consequently have become a target of global warming alarmists for elimination, regardless of the costs or benefits of doing so.

Think just of where Americans use air conditioning—in houses, cars, businesses, offices, hospitals, and data centers—and the scope of the Kigali Amendment becomes clearer, to say nothing of the other uses of hydrofluorocarbons.

Ratification of the Kigali Amendment is an unmistakable item on the Biden administration’s climate “to do” list. But it adds up to trouble for Americans.

Here are six reasons why:

Doubling down: Congress passed legislation requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to develop regulations to reduce domestic production and use of hydrofluorocarbons. The law (the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act) was passed right before Christmas 2020 in a massive omnibus spending package and mirrors the Kigali Amendment requirements.

So, what is the harm in doubling down on the EPA’s regulations by ratifying Kigali? In doing so, the Senate would be ceding control to the U.N., turning oversight over to international bureaucrats, and removing flexibility to make adjustments in the future. Currently, Congress has little idea of the costs or impacts of this mandate besides theoretical guesstimates and what certain special interests have told it.

Those who push for ratification are stating a preference for oversight and ultimate implementation by the U.N. rather than Americans’ representatives in Congress.

Six years: The Constitution requires presidents to get the “advice and consent” of the Senate in order to ratify treaties. While President Barack Obama supported the Kigali Amendment in 2016 as part of his climate agenda, the Senate has declined to ratify it for these past six years. There is no rush or pressing need to ratify Kigali now.

146 nations: If the Senate ratifies the Kigali Amendment, the U.S. would be held to a more rapid timeframe to phase out hydrofluorocarbons and comply with the treaty. In contrast, 146 other nations, including China and Iran, have more lenient requirements and an extra decade to comply.

People and businesses in those countries will have access to more affordable refrigerants and other hydrofluorocarbons for a decade longer than American residents and businesses.

With the second-largest economy in the world, China is outgrowing its label as a developing nation and the favorable terms and flexibility afforded to it by the U.N.

$957,235,348: A multilateral fund was created by parties to the Montreal Protocol to subsidize compliance by developing countries and fund related research and development. American taxpayers have paid more into this fund in the past 30 years than any other country, to the tune of nearly $1 billion. By ratifying the Kigali Amendment, American taxpayers will be subsidizing other countries’ compliance with the mandates in addition to the costs that will come with meeting the mandates themselves.   

Fourfold: The Kigali Amendment mandates a rapid decrease in the consumption and production of the most widely used, affordable means of cooling.

Americans can expect repair and replacement costs for appliances, such as the air conditioners in their homes and cars, to increase. Ben Lieberman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute writes that “the price of the refrigerant used in home air conditioners shot up 4-fold, and as a result, certain repairs now cost hundreds [of dollars] more” since the EPA began implementing domestic regulations that took effect this year and mirror Kigali.   

Ironically, Biden recently directed millions of dollars to subsidize air conditioning for low-income families in the midst of a July heat wave. In the years to come, those very same units are likely to only get more expensive and out of the financial reach of the people he was intending to help.

0.05 to 0.06 degrees Celsius by the year 2100: That’s the more realistic reduction in global temperatures Americans can expect, assuming countries fully comply with the Kigali Amendment. Many have claimed that eliminating hydrofluorocarbons is necessary to fight climate change and can reduce global temperatures by “as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius.” 

However, that estimate makes the most generous assumptions about compliance, likely double counts alleged temperature reductions from other countries’ other climate pledges, and relies on the most extreme (and implausible) climate scenario, which even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers of low likelihood.

In sum, the goals of the Kigali Amendment promise increase costs on American families and businesses, with invisible environmental benefits.

Rather than an easy environmental “win” for the Senate, ratifying the Kigali Amendment would create hotter, more expensive summers for Americans that will be very hard to undo.

Katie Tubb

Katie Tubb is a policy analyst for the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. Reproduced with permission. Original here.

Is this why the left moved from Gay Marriage to Transgender activism? $$$

“Non-profits sometimes have to create a big issue so that they can generate funding”.

Senator NAILS Biden nominee in lie after lie

It’s painful to watch as Missouri GOP Senator Josh Hawley goes toe to toe with this progressive zealot, but so worth it as he takes her apart seam by seam.

Josh Hawley grilled Colleen Shogan, President Biden’s nominee to lead the National Archives and Records Administration, noting that she had written a paper he said disparaged every two-term Republican president since World War II.

Hawley’s questions came during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Sept 21st. He referenced an article Shogan had written entitled, “Anti-Intellectualism in the Modern Presidency: Republican Populism.” In the 2007 article, published by the American Political Science Association, Shogan wrote of Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush, saying that their “leadership posturing place them on the explicitly anti-intellectual side of the spectrum.”

This is for the job as the National Archivist. Do we want a partisan in charge of our most precious possessions?

NY Attorney General Pursues Vendetta against First Family

The New York AG ran on a platform of just going after Donald Trump and carrying out a political vendetta. She should be spending time putting criminals in jail in New York, where crime is out of control.

New York Attorney General Letitia James announced Wednesday that she filed a civil lawsuit against former President Donald Trump and his three eldest children over his long-running alleged tax-dodging scheme.

Letitia James NY AG

James hopes to convince a court to take steps to bar Trump, Donald Trump Jr.Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump from conducting business in the state of New York, along with making them pay some $250 million in restitution and limiting their access to loans. HuffPost

Chickens Coming Home to Roost: Part V💉💉💉

This one is being squeezed out by Twitter

Canada – Still Manipulating its People

Can we have some clarity here? You’re just lying now.

Remember this – total BS. The Internet is forever.

“Offended” – 10 years ago this would have been unimaginable. Now it’s a meme.

This is so true. Can you imagine this happening 20 years ago

Joe’s Bay of Pigs Moment?

Vladimir Putin has today threatened to nuke the West over Ukraine, as he announced plans to annex occupied parts of its territory to the Russian mainland.

A former Russian MP and Putin advisor also warned that British cities could be targeted by Putin’s nukes in a bare-faced tirade this morning on the popular Today radio news program. 

Sergei Markov had barely exchanged pleasantries with BBC Radio 4 host Justin Webb when he launched into a series of threats about nuclear warDaily Mail

It’s not a good morning for everybody. In Russia there’s partial mobilisation and for your British listeners Vladimir Putin told you that he would be ready to use nuclear weapons against Western countries… including against Great Britain.

‘Your cities will be targeted.’

Markov, who was elected to Russia’s State Duma in 2007 representing Putin’s United Russia party, is now a professor of international relations at a Moscow university and has a history of spouting Putin’s rhetoric in Western media.

Now that crack are showing at the Kremlin, we’re all left wondering what will Joe do? Isn’t it great to know we have a strong, articulate clear-thinking leader. Why, it’s just like Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, isn’t it?

Every 3 Hours Someone is Hit

From the Association of American Railroads: While the number of crossing collisions, deaths and injuries has dropped over the past five decades, it’s still a startling fact that about every three hours in the U.S., a person or vehicle is hit by a train.

There are countless reasons never to walk, run or play on rail tracks and rail property. Most people don’t know it can take more than a mile to stop a train — the equivalent of about 18 football fields. That makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a train to stop if someone is on the tracks. Trains are also deceptively quiet. Even when standing on a rail platform, it is unlikely a commuter will hear one approach, especially if wearing headphones. Pedestrians are not the only ones who need to be careful, drivers also need to play it safe behind the wheel at rail crossings. The force of a train hitting a car is equivalent to that of a car hitting a soda can.

Safety Tips

  1. Always Expect a Train: Freight trains don’t travel at fixed times, and schedules for passenger trains often change. Always expect a train at each highway-rail intersection at any time.
  2. All train tracks are private property: Never walk on tracks; it’s illegal to trespass and highly dangerous. Trains can’t stop quickly enough to avoid a collision. It takes the average freight train traveling at 55 mph more than a mile to stop.
  3. Think of a soda can: The average locomotive weighs about 400,000 pounds or 200 tons: it can weigh up to 6,000 tons. This makes the weight ratio of a car to a train proportional to that of a soda can to a car.
  4. Right of way: Trains have the right of way 100% of the time over emergency vehicles, cars, the police and pedestrians.
  5. A train can extend three feet or more beyond the steel rail: The safety zone for pedestrians is well beyond the three-foot mark. If there are rails on the railroad ties, always assume the track is in use, even if there are weeds or the track looks unused.
  6. Trains can move in either direction at any time: Sometimes, a train’s cars are pushed by locomotives instead of pulled, which is especially true in commuter and light rail passenger service.
  7. Trains are quieter than ever: Today’s modern, highly technological trains don’t produce that “clackety-clack” you see in old movies. Any approaching train is always closer and moving faster than you think.
  8. Obey the signs: Cross train tracks ONLY at designated pedestrian or roadway crossings, and obey all warning signs and signals posted there.
  9. Stay alert: Since trains are quiet and fast, you could easily miss an oncoming train if you have headphones on or you are distracted by your phone.

ADMITTED: “COVID-19 was the test”

This is from the Evil Empire over at the World Economic Forum and its billionaire and deranged whack job leaders like Henry Kissinger and Klaus Schwab. As you can see they are hellbent on implementing their deluded carbon reduction plan. If, as they claim, it’s the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide that’s the issue (and at 0.04% of our atmosphere that’s unlikely) ‘sequestering’ carbon is futile. Another virtue signaling misdirect to ensure all resources remain in the hands of our overlords and we’re crammed like cattle into inner cities.

There have been significant developments in last five to seven years on social, environment and technology fronts that could help realise “My Carbon” initiatives for shaping the future towards smart and sustainable cities. 

Specifically, to mention three developments in this context:

1. COVID-19 was the test of social responsibility – A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world. There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health, which demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility. 

Inclusivity of citizens is becoming the most important element of success or failure in the journey towards sustainability. Community-led initiatives can make a significant contribution towards sustainability, increase resilience and social cohesion. There have been numerous examples of personal carbon allowance programs in discussions for the last two decades, however they had limited success due to a lack of social acceptance, political resistance, and a lack of awareness and fair mechanism for tracking “My Carbon” emissions.

2. Fourth Industrial Revolution technology breakthroughs – Advances in emerging technologies like AI, blockchain and digitization can enable tracking personal carbon emissions, raise awareness and also provide individual advisories on lower carbon and ethical choices for consumption of product and services. The World Economic Forum’s Scale 360 initiative demonstrates the use of fourth industrial revolution technologies across the whole life cycle of products and services.

There have been major advances in smart home technologies, transport choices with carbon implications, the roll-out of smart meters in providing individual choices to reduce their energy-related emissions, the development of new personalized apps to account for personal emissions, and better personal choices for food and consumption-related emissions. AI can also help strengthen circular economy business models like product as a service models, demand predictions, and smart asset management by combining real time and historical data from products and users.

There is a significant number of programs and applications enabling citizens to contribute towards carbon emissions by providing them in-depth awareness on the choices of personal carbon for food, transport, home energy and lifestyle choices.

These energy efficiency apps give suggestions and statistics regarding greenhouse emissions and offer ways to reduce your personal footprint. Keeping track of energy consumption in the home and motivating people to make lifestyle changes and to contribute your share towards the betterment of the environment.

3. Raised awareness and ownership for nature and environment – In the last few years, there is an increased awareness and public concern on climate change and specially among youth. The UNDP’s “Peoples’ Climate Vote” reflects that over 64% of people believe climate change is a global emergency. A new Pew Research Center survey in 17 advanced economies found widespread concern about the personal impact of global climate change: 80% of citizens say they are willing to change how they live and work to combat the effects of climate change. Young adults, who have been at the forefront of some of the most prominent climate change protests in recent years, are more concerned than their older counterparts about the personal impact of a warming planet in many public surveys.

And if there’s any doubt who is really behind all this BS check this out.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/these-chinese-innovations-are-improving-resiliency-and-sustainability-in-2022

Why Won’t Biden Help Puerto Rico By Doing This?

With much of the island still without electricity as a result of Hurricane Fiona pummeling Puerto Rico on Sunday, one might think that the Biden administration would be leading an effort to repeal a 1920 federal law that continues to cost the island’s inhabitants dearly for every gallon of petroleum imported into the island, which in turn pushes the cost of most consumer goods far beyond those on the U.S. mainland. 

The administration, along with a majority of the Congress, however, stubbornly refuses to seriously consider weakening, much less repealing, the Jones Act (also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920) as a way to help the island’s 3.2 million inhabitants cope with inflation, high unemployment, and lack of basic necessities.

The Jones Act is best described as the poster child for overtly protectionist legislation that long ago outlived any usefulness it might have provided when signed into law. It was designed to protect the domestic maritime industry against competition from other countries; a goal it has accomplished for more than a century. The law does this by mandating that shipment by water of any goods or cargo between any two U.S. ports must be conducted only by vessels built in the United States and that are at least 75 percent U.S.-owned and crewed.

The Jones Act was passed in the aftermath of the First World War, during which America’s maritime fleet had been severely impacted by German submarine attacks, and when our nation’s shipbuilding and cargo carrying capacity was insufficient to meet the needs of the war effort. While national security might at the time have constituted a legitimate basis on which to enact corrective legislation, such is no longer the case and has not been for decades. 

Still, like the famous case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce described by Charles Dickens in his well-known novel, “Bleak House,” the Jones Act lives on and on and on. 

Exceptions to the law’s rigorous and costly mandates can be invoked for emergency needs, as President Trump did in 2017 following the devastation suffered by Puerto Ricans as a result of Hurricane Maria. The Act also allows for national security exceptions, as was considered earlier this year in the context of cuts targeting Russia’s petroleum exports. Over the decades, however, such moves are rare, insofar as they may incur the wrath of union leaders and members of Congress from districts having significant shipbuilding industry.

The cost of this law for a small nation like Puerto Rico (an “unincorporated territory of the United States”) that is highly dependent on importing virtually all petroleum and most other consumer goods, is massive; estimated to be in excess of $1.2 billion per year

Still, whatever compassion resides in the White House or on Capitol Hill for the misery periodically inflicted on citizens of Puerto Rico by disruptive and deadly hurricanes, remains insufficient to move Washington away from its steadfast support for the protectionist law and the many shipbuilding union voters who demand allegiance to it.

In fact, rather than our government moving to relax some of the strict mandates the Jones Act requires which make it significantly costlier and less efficient to move goods and services from one U.S. port to another, recent initiatives have been in the opposite direction. In December 2020, for example, legislation was passed requiring that the law’s mandates apply to all aspects of the “offshore wind industry.”

The survivability of the Jones Act proves yet again that the most powerful force in Washington, if not in the entire universe, is the force of the status quo.

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.

Fentanyl Facts & Help

Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. are reporting that rainbow-colored fentanyl and drugs containing fentanyl, such as pills, powder and blocks that look like sidewalk chalk, have been found throughout the nation.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) warned the public in late August about an “alarming emerging trend of colorful fentanyl available across the United States.” There’s no indication that certain colors are more potent than others, according to the agency.

“Every color, shape, and size of fentanyl should be considered extremely dangerous,” the DEA said.

Although some law enforcement agencies said it’s unknown if this type of fentanyl is “targeted” at young people, DEA staff say it’s true. 

“Rainbow fentanyl — fentanyl pills and powder that come in a variety of bright colors, shapes, and sizes — is a deliberate effort by drug traffickers to drive addiction amongst kids and young adults,” DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said. 

DEA agents have seized the brightly-colored fentanyl, dubbed “rainbow” fentanyl, in 21 states. A spokesperson for the agency says the below list “only reflects DEA seizures and it’s possible that state and local law enforcement have encountered it in other states.”

Fentanyl Facts

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. It is a major contributor to fatal and nonfatal overdoses in the U.S.

There are two types of fentanyl: pharmaceutical fentanyl and illicitly manufactured fentanyl. Both are considered synthetic opioids. Pharmaceutical fentanyl is prescribed by doctors to treat severe pain, especially after surgery and for advanced-stage cancer.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is 50 times stronger than heroin 100 times stronger than morphine

However, most recent cases of fentanyl-related overdose are linked to illicitly manufactured fentanyl, which is distributed through illegal drug markets for its heroin-like effect. It is often added to other drugs because of its extreme potency, which makes drugs cheaper, more powerful, more addictive, and more dangerous.

Illicitly manufactured fentanyl

Illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF) is available on the drug market in different forms, including liquid and powder.

Powdered fentanyl looks just like many other drugs. It is commonly mixed with drugs like heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine and made into pills that are made to resemble other prescription opioids. Fentanyl-laced drugs are extremely dangerous, and many people may be unaware that their drugs are laced with fentanyl.

In its liquid form, IMF can be found in nasal sprays, eye drops, and dropped onto paper or small candies.

Illicit drugs do not come with an ingredient list. Many contain deadly doses of fentanyl

Street names for IMF include:

  • Apache
  • Dance Fever
  • Friend
  • Goodfellas
  • Jackpot
  • Murder 8
  • Tango & Cash 1

Fentanyl and Overdose

Fentanyl and other synthetic opioids are the most common drugs involved in overdose deaths. Even in small doses, it can be deadly. Over 150 people die every day from overdoses related to synthetic opioids like fentanyl.

Drugs may contain deadly levels of fentanyl, and you wouldn’t be able to see it, taste it, or smell it. It is nearly impossible to tell if drugs have been laced with fentanyl unless you test your drugs with fentanyl test strips.

Test strips are inexpensive and typically give results within 5 minutes, which can be the difference between life or death. Even if the test is negative, take caution as test strips might not detect more potent fentanyl-like drugs, like carfentanil.

Signs of overdose

Recognizing the signs of opioid overdose can save a life. Here are some things to look for:

  • Small, constricted “pinpoint pupils”
  • Falling asleep or losing consciousness
  • Slow, weak, or no breathing
  • Choking or gurgling sounds
  • Limp body
  • Cold and/or clammy skin
  • Discolored skin (especially in lips and nails)

The dollar is as strong as it was at the height of the Covid recession – And what that means!

The nominal broad U.S. Dollar Index reported by the Federal Reserve is showing its strongest readings since the height of the Covid pandemic in April 2020 when the global economy was shutting down and 25 million jobs were lost in the blink of an eye.

The latest reading of 123.9 is edging close to its high of 126 in late March 2020 as another global recession looms and central banks and investors once again begin to flood into U.S. dollar-denominated assets like treasuries and other debt, with an added incentive: interest rates are much higher.

10-year treasuries now list at 3.5 percent. And 30-year mortgages are up over 6 percent, the highest since 2008. Which is what happens when inflation is at 40-year highs, where consumer inflation is still above 8 percent as global production is still struggling to keep up with demand.

But besides interest rates, the relative strength of the dollar is another potential tool against inflation, but it can be a double-edged sword, for just as the dollar being too weak can spark a run of inflation, if it is too strong, the opposite can occur with deflation, as in the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2008-2009 when the U.S. housing market crashed.

The implication is that with the dollar so strong, asset prices invariably have to come down, which they already are in equities and other commodities, with oil now down to the low-to-mid $80s and even natural gas prices cooling slightly, with Title Transfer Facility (TTF) in the Netherlands down from more than $85 per 1,000 cubic feet in early September to just more than $60, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

But with Russia now threatening to shut down not just natural gas shipments via the Nordstream pipeline to Germany, but also wider shipments throughout Europe this winter, there could still be upward on prices for the foreseeable future as European states seek to stock up on supplies. 

Either way, all signs point to recession in Europe, and that may be a big part of the reason why prices are coming down there already. The question of severity appears to come down whether Europe—with the assistance of the U.S.—can successfully offset the loss of Russian natural gas on their markets. 

In the meantime, a Russian-Ukrainian agreement to allow Ukrainian wheat to ship out from the Black Sea could be in jeopardy, just when global prices were just starting to come down, once again threatening the supply of wheat particularly for the poorer countries who depend on imports. With supplies already strained, starvation in a world where 8 million people tend to starve in an average year is a real concern.

Now, all eyes turn to the Federal Reserve’s Sept. 20-21 meeting, where it is expected to raise the Federal Funds Rate another 0.75 percent to an effective range of 3 percent to 3 1/4 percent. 

This raises the rate that banks can borrow from the Fed, and has the effect of destroying money by taking it out of the system. Not a bad idea, considering the inflation but also the fact that the M2 money supply reported by the Fed increase more than $6 trillion to combat the Covid recession. 

But monetary policy has its limits. While the Fed can address excess money flowing through the system left over from the Covid stimulus packages created by Congress, it cannot address the global supply crisis as the world still struggles to get production back up to where it was before Covid, especially with deliberate policies to ratchet down carbon-based energy production of coal and oil.

Now, with another global recession either already here or just about to strike, demand will take another hit and so too will production. Oil prices are cooling even with OPEC lowering its production quotas.

The danger is that once labor markets feel the conditions of the recession—leading into 2023—the Fed will once again loosen policy, Congress will issue another stimulus and the dollar will weaken, but the supply issues will not have been fully addressed. If so, the recession might only briefly cool off the inflation, but once the dollar starts weakening it could experience a resurgence, squeezing household budgets once again and making sure you pay at the pump. As usual, stay tuned.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government. 

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2022/09/the-dollar-is-as-strong-as-it-was-at-the-height-of-the-covid-recession/ Reproduced with permission.

These 3 Women Tried Transgenderism, and Then Stopped

A documentary, released Monday, unveils the stories of three women who previously identified as transgender in a futile attempt to escape depression and suicidal thoughts.

Jennifer Lahl, a former pediatric nurse and current president of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, produced her most recent documentary, “The Detransition Diaries,” after a series of films highlighting bioethical issues.

Her film tracks the stories of Helena Kerschner, Grace Lidinsky-Smith, and Cat Cattinson, three women who believed their mental and emotional trauma would be solved by transitioning to the opposite sex. Each woman underwent hormone treatment and one had her breasts removed as well.

“We are following the news and the studies, and the evidence that shows this uptick in rapid-onset gender dysphoria [is something] young girls are particularly prone to,” Lahl told The Daily Signal in a phone call. Gender dysphoria refers to the condition of persistently and painfully identifying as the gender opposite one’s biological sex. “Young girls are getting sucked into this.”

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a recent phenomenon in which children and adolescents are suddenly, and without prior indication, identifying as the opposite sex.  

Lahl found that her previous documentary “Trans Mission: What’s the Rush to Reassign Gender?” struck a chord with a broad audience. Firsthand accounts of men and women who “believed they were born in the wrong body” and thought gender transition “was the solution to all their problems” resonated with thousands of people, Lahl explained.

“As documentary filmmakers, we made the editorial decision that we are going to focus on women, realizing that this applies to men too,” she remarked on her most recent film.

“The Detransition Diaries” cover. (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)

Helena Kerschner, one of the detransitioners featured in Lahl’s film, says she struggled with depression, isolation, self-harm, an eating disorder, and suicidal thoughts as an early teen. She was introduced to the transgender belief system through Tumblr culture at 13.

Tumblr’s message was: “If you don’t like your body, that’s a sign you’re trans,” she notes.

After she came out as transgender, teachers and adults who never noticed her struggles before suddenly “bent over backward” to accommodate her new-found identity.  

She did everything to make herself appear masculine. Eventually, Kerschner was prescribed testosterone at 18 after a single consultation at Planned Parenthood.

After a few weeks, she noticed how irritable she had become. “I couldn’t control myself,” Kerschner recalls in the documentary. When she got angry, she felt she needed to hurt someone—so she hurt herself. She eventually resorted to the emergency room, where staff directed her to the psych unit. Doctors diagnosed her with borderline personality disorder and psychosis, and sent her home with prescriptions for four different medications. She wound up in the hospital a few weeks later.

“My life became a total disaster,” she says. “I wasn’t functioning, I couldn’t hold a job, I wasn’t going to school—I felt like a monster.”

Seventeen months later, she stopped taking testosterone. Her negative symptoms vanished. During this time, not a single medical professional suggested that her hormone treatment was causing these symptoms, she remarks in the film.

Grace Lidinsky-Smith, another detransitioner featured in the film, noted that she felt a rush of energy when she first started testosterone treatment. Though she had some underlying anxiety, she told herself this was “internalized transphobia,” she says to the filmmakers.

Grace Lidinsky-Smith in “The Detransition Diaries.” (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)

Cat Cattinson describes a similar euphoric feeling when she first went on testosterone.  It was “one of the better antidepressants I had taken,” she recalls.

Cat Cattinson in “The Detransition Diaries.” (Photo: The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network)

Lidinsky-Smith, unlike the other two women, went forward with a double mastectomy. Looking back, she believed she would feel better “because she’d be in a body that fit her better.” After her breasts were removed, she recalls, she looked down at the gashes on her chest. “I had the most awful feeling.”

She found others online also had an “intense, suicidal despair after surgery … and then got over it and felt better.” But the experience planted a seed of doubt, she explains. She found a testimony of another person who had transitioned from female to male. As the person described, a desire for “a small amount of masculinization” led to full-out body dysphoria.

At that point, Lidinsky-Smith stopped testosterone and slowly reversed course, eventually growing comfortable enough to use her birth name. “It became important to just accept myself as myself,” she explains.

Kershner and Cattinson described similar breaking points. Kershner realized: “This is not what I thought it would be,” adding that she believed “once I’m a boy, my confidence is gonna come out.” Instead, as she describes, she became dysfunctional.

As Cattinson explains, three months into her testosterone treatment, she found a dramatic drop in her voice. “Nothing was coming out except air and squeaks,” she describes. She stopped going to social events and performing live.  

Like the other women, she found an online community of detransitioners and doctors who revealed the hidden underbelly of the trans movement.

She began questioning the basis of transgender ideology: the “idea that we should define a woman based on what’s in a person’s head,” as she describes it. Does “what you believe in your head … really trump the biological reality of being an adult female?” she wondered.

As the documentary concludes, Lidinsky-Smith notes that she is worried about those who continue to get sucked into gender transition treatment, when they can find the answer to their problems elsewhere.

All three women interviewed suffered from suicidal ideation and depression. Each believed that changing her name, pronouns, appearance, and hormones would solve her problems, yet each found her emotional state dramatically worsened as a result.

“I think the fallout will be severe,” Lidinsky-Smith notes. Remarking on the growing community of detransitioners, she adds, “Our voices can no longer be denied.”

Gillian Richards is a journalism fellow at The Daily Signal. Reproduced with permission. Original here.

Weaponized FBI Twists Facts to Pursue Enemies Not These Disgusting Criminals

A whistleblower has come forward and accuses the FBI of moving assets from child abuse cases to focus on political enemies.

The whistleblower describes how a “manipulative” practice by the FBI overstates the DVE threat nationwide by categorizing Jan 6-related cases as originating in field offices around the country rather than “stemming from a single, black swan incident” in Washington, D.C.

In an appearance on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, revealed the contents of a letter he sent to FBI Director Christopher Wray in which he detailed evidence from an unnamed whistleblower. The mystery whistleblower accused the FBI of breaking its own procedures and miscategorizing case files to create an illusion of a new violent extremism crisis rapidly emerging across the U.S. – as suggested by President Biden in his public address earlier this month.

Child sexual abuse material investigations were no longer an FBI priority and should be referred to local law enforcement agencies.

FBI Whistleblower

A cashless society is a surveillance society, right?

The digital yuan was born as China’s answer to Facebook’s Libra, says Wired.UK. But it’s much more than that.

In April 2020 a grainy screenshot of China’s sovereign digital currency, DCEP (short for Digital Currency/Electronic Payments) or the Digital Chinese Yuan (DCNY), was leaked online. The image showed a wallet for the DCNY provided by the Agricultural Bank of China, with payment functions, QR codes, and the ability to tap phones together to pay offline. While the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) had started researching digital currencies as early as 2014, the screenshot was the clearest indication of how far along in the process they were.

Soon after, pilot programmes were rolled out in a few major cities. In Suzhou, the DCNY was used to pay half of the travel subsidies owed to public servants. In October 2020, more than 47,000 people in the Luohu district of Shenzhen spent 8.8 million yuan (£986,000) during a week-long trial of the digital currency. During the trial, over 62,000 transactions were made. By May 2020, China had already filed more than 120 patent applications for its official digital currency, more than any other country. In Xiong’an, a new urban centre near Beijing, 19 companies, including foreign brands like McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Subway were invited as participants to test the DCNY. As of July 2021, trial users have created more than 20 million digital yuan wallets and executed over £3.6 billion worth of transactions with the new CBDC.

While still in its infancy, these pilot programmes taken together with statements from the PBOC itself show the extent to which China is powering ahead with its own central bank digital currency (CBDC), at a time when the rest of the world is just starting to tentatively explore the future possibilities for their own economic systems.

According to research from the Bank of International Settlements, 86 per cent of the 60 central banks they surveyed are now exploring CBDCs, and 40 per cent are already building proofs-of-concept. A CBDC is a digital version of a fiat currency. More than 88 of CBDC projects, at pilot or production phase, use blockchain as the underlying technology. However, unlike cryptocurrencies which use blockchain as a way of maintaining anonymity and decentralisation in the system, CBDCs rely on a centralised ledger. This means that Central Banks are able to access an incredibly rich seam of data about the financial transactions of their populations – data that otherwise would not be captured by existing systems or would require going through intricate proxies.

As we reported yesterday the Biden-Harris Administration has published policy objectives and a technical analysis for a potential U.S. central bank digital currency. Europe, as usual, is well on its way to even more control by central government and global elites.

As it all depends upon a digital identity, that’s what we must fight first. That’s because “A biometrically secured EU digital identity wallet will allow citizens across the continent to verify their identities, access public and private services, and store sensitive digital documents in one place.” Cross-border cooperation requires agreements with government agencies, banks, and technology providers to integrate digital payments and digital identity across borders. All of that is ripe with opportunities for today’s bad guys: political global elites, Big Tech and the money that used to be in banks but is now in private hands and now owns the world.

You know? Trump was right about this.

A recent Department of Homeland Security intelligence report received by the Border Patrol instructs agents to look for Venezuelan inmates released from entering the U.S., according to a source within CBP.

The report, reviewed by Breitbart Texas, indicates the Venezuelan government, under the leadership of Nicolás Maduro Moros, is purposely freeing inmates — including some convicted of murder, rape, and extortion.

The intelligence report warns agents the freed prisoners have been seen within migrant caravans traveling from Tapachula, Mexico toward the U.S.-Mexico border as recently as July.

Image from Beitbart video here. Some are from Venezuela.

The source, not authorized to speak to the media, told Breitbart Texas the move is reminiscent of a similar action taken by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro during the Mariel boat lift in the 1980s. More

Back in 2017, Trump forecast that these tinpot dictatorships would send us the “worst of the worst”. He was mocked and scorned.

According to CBP, between October 2021 and July 2022, more than 130,000 Venezuelan migrants have been encountered after entering the United States illegally.

In all of Fiscal Year 2020, less than 5,000 were apprehended. This represents an increase of nearly 3,000 percent.

Frustrated by the increased number of migrant crossings along the southwest border, Republican governors from Texas and Florida began transporting migrants, mostly Venezuelans, to Washington D.C., New York City, and Chicago.

Last week, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis chartered flights for 50 mostly Venezuelan migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard.

The migrants were quickly shuttled from the wealthy island city by National Guard soldiers to nearby Joint Base Cape Cod.

Very few Americans would reject genuine refugees. We would welcome hard working legal immigrants, especially as we are experiencing a labor tightening right now. What we won’t stomach is the automatic entry of people who represent a threat to our safety.

OMG – Watch Out! This Is How They Will Track Us Next!

You just know that this is a fervent dream of the Davos global elite. They not only want to know where we are with geotagging, CCTV cameras and tracking devices, they also want to make sure we’re not spending money on things we want and they don’t approve of. Now, technology is coming to help them. The Biden is all over CBDC, or a digital currency, where our hard-earned cash only exists as computer code online. This means they can track our spending — and if they run true to form — prevent us from purchasing “anti-social” items such as alcohol, cigarettes, guns or conservative literature.

Technical Possibilities for a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency

SEPTEMBER 16, 2022• OSTP BLOG

By Dr. Alondra Nelson, head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Alexander Macgillivray, Principal Deputy United States Chief Technology Officer

Nik Marda, Policy Advisor


President Biden often summarizes his vision for America in one word: Possibilities. A “digital dollar” may seem far-fetched, but modern technology could make it a real possibility.

A United States central bank digital currency (CBDC) would be a digital form of the U.S. dollar. While the U.S. has not yet decided whether it will pursue a CBDC, the U.S. has been closely examining the implications of, and options for, issuing a CBDC. If the U.S. pursued a CBDC, there could be many possible benefits, such as facilitating efficient and low-cost transactions, fostering greater access to the financial system, boosting economic growth, and supporting the continued centrality of the U.S. within the international financial system. However, a U.S. CBDC could also introduce a variety of risks, as it might affect everything ranging from the stability of the financial system to the protection of sensitive data.

Notably, these benefits and risks might vary significantly based on how the CBDC system is designed and deployed. That is why Executive Order 14067, Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets, placed the highest urgency on research and development efforts into the potential design and deployment options of a U.S. CBDC. The Executive Order directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in consultation with other Federal departments and agencies, to submit to the President a technical evaluation for a potential U.S. CBDC system.

Today, OSTP is publishing its report, Technical Evaluation for a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency System, which lays out policy objectives for a potential U.S. CBDC system and analyzes key technical design choices for a U.S. CBDC system. The report also estimates the technical feasibility of building a CBDC minimum viable product and describes how a U.S. CBDC system might affect Federal operations. The report makes recommendations on how to prepare the Federal Government for a U.S. CBDC system. Importantly, the report does not make any assessments or recommendations about whether the U.S. should pursue a CBDC, nor does it make any decisions regarding particular design choices for a potential U.S. CBDC system.

Policy objectives for a U.S. CBDC system

At last year’s Summit for Democracy, President Biden spoke about the importance of using technology “to advance democracies to lift people up, not to hold them down.” If the U.S. launches its own CBDC, it should advance this democratic vision.

This report includes the Biden-Harris Administration’s policy objectives for a potential U.S. CBDC system, building on priorities outlined in the Executive Order. For example, these objectives state that a U.S. CBDC system should expand equitable access to the financial system, preserve the role of physical cash, and only collect data that is strictly necessary. They also note that a U.S. CBDC should be sustainable, avoiding the environmental concerns raised by some privately-issued digital assets. And, they note a U.S. CBDC should be functional and provide a good customer experience, so that all Americans can truly benefit.

These policy objectives provide a framework by which to evaluate different design choices for a U.S. CBDC system. The 18 technical design choices in this report are analyzed with respect to these policy objectives, so that policymakers can see how policy objectives manifest themselves deep in the weeds of technical design choices.

Technical and financial design choices are interconnected

Good technology policy often requires getting specific about the technology being discussed and the policy priorities being pursued. This is particularly true for CBDCs, which can be challenging to evaluate without being precise about the design choices underpinning the CBDC system. As the U.S. contemplates potential development of a U.S. CBDC, this report tries to add specificity to the choices that policymakers could make about the details of the underlying technology as well as the overarching policy priorities.

While a U.S. CBDC would be a monetary instrument like cash, it is important to note that it would also be a large technology initiative. Over the past two decades, the Federal Government has rolled out a number of large technology initiatives, learning valuable lessons in the process. Many of these lessons can help ensure that the U.S. has sufficient technological infrastructure, capacity, and expertise to build and maintain a CBDC system. It will be important for technical experts to work closely with experts in money and payment systems to ensure that a CBDC system serves broader economic goals while delivering a good customer experience.

Digital assets R&D agenda

Following a recommendation in the report, OSTP and the National Science Foundation will lead an interagency effort to develop a National Digital Assets Research and Development (R&D) Agenda. This agenda will place a high priority on advancing research on topics like cryptography that could be helpful to CBDC experimentation and development at the Federal Reserve. This agenda will also cover topics less related to CBDCs; for example, working with consumer protection experts, it might support innovations that increase financial inclusion and equity in the digital assets ecosystem without placing already-financially vulnerable communities at greater risk.

This R&D agenda will take an whole-of-government approach, consistent with the President’s directive to place the highest urgency on R&D efforts related to CBDCs, as well as the fiscal year 2024 budget priority that requests that Federal departments and agencies collaborate on critical and emerging technologies, including financial technologies. This will help bring the Federal Government’s resources and expertise to bear on hard questions related to digital assets.

This report helps advance the mission of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which is to maximize the benefits of science and technology to advance health, prosperity, security, environmental quality, and justice for all Americans. The American people deserve to fully benefit from technological possibilities like a U.S. CBDC, while being protected from the harms it could bring.

We look forward to continue advancing President Biden’s priorities on digital assets.

Can anyone guess who is behind this?

Yep, The World Economic Forum and the Davos crowd. Billionaires, guilty lefties, narcissists and God-complex characters are out to improve the lives of the little people — Their way.

McCarthy and McConnell need to fight now or lose later

Elections are less than two months away with a likelihood that either or both the Senate and the House of Representatives will switch partisan control.

Republicans led by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should do everything in their power to stop passage of any substantive legislation, beyond a Continuing Resolution through either chamber until the new Congress is seated in 2023.

Toward this end, the CR should also extend until March, in order to allow the new Congress to set the nation’s funding priorities.

Important items like Senator Amy Klobuchar’s proposed changes to anti-trust law which would provide more power to Biden’s radical Federal Trade Commission without speech protections for those who disagree with the majority, and Majority Whip Dick Durbin’s continued attempts to change credit card processing fees which threaten individual rewards programs need the hand of GOP Committee Chairs before being considered.

America has been subjected to the Democrats’ slim majority in the House and zero vote majority in the Senate expanding the size and scope of government for the past 19 months. 

In about 50 days, the people will have their say about whether to continue with the Biden vision unabated or to balance government by restoring GOP leadership in Congress. Republicans need to show that they are not contributing to the problem and would instead serve as an effective check on the White House should they be fortunate enough to receive a majority in the House and/or the Senate in November.

Please implore your colleagues to walk away from the idea that they can make minor corrections to legislation so that it is slightly more palatable.

I am confident that under each of your leadership, legislation can be crafted that is far more in line with America’s concerns while making minor concessions to Democrats to get the necessary votes.

Rick Manning is the President of Americans for Limited Government. Reproduced with permission. Original here.

What is Schumer up to?

“The head of one of the government’s major agencies, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or FDIC, has resigned after warning of a “hostile takeover” by the Democrats. Jelena McWilliams, 48, who was the chairperson of the agency, penned a letter to President Joe Biden on Friday attacking Senate Democrats for going around her to suit their own agenda.”

McWilliams was appointed to the position in 2018 under former President Trump. Her resignation will be effective Feb. 4.

McWilliams did not provide a direct reason for her resignation in her letter to the president. However, she previously published a December op-ed in which she described a “hostile takeover” of the FDIC by Democrats.

The op-ed in The Wall Street Journal warned of a “hostile takeover” by Democrats when the new director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and FDIC board member Rohit Chopra said that she was not recognizing attempts by Democrat regulators to review the rules about bank mergers.

“The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is led by a five-member board, which for decades has delegated day-to-day operations to its chairman, who by statute serves a five-year term. This structure was designed to ensure independence from changing political administrations and has led to a long legacy of collegiality. For 88 years the chairman has controlled the board agenda and worked collaboratively with other board members,” she said in her piece.

“That all changed on Oct. 31, when board member Rohit Chopra presented me with a draft request for information on bank mergers. Two-and-a-half weeks earlier, Mr. Chopra had been sworn in as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a position entitling him to a seat on the FDIC board,” she said.

“This conflict isn’t about bank mergers. If it were, board members would have been willing to work with me and the FDIC staff rather than attempt a hostile takeover of the FDIC internal processes, staff and board agenda.,” she wrote. Conservative Brief.

McWilliams’s resignation gives Biden a chance to install a new FDIC chief in line with the industry-skeptical financial regulators he has already appointed. Biden’s choice will almost certainly face intense opposition from Republican senators, and the president has a narrow margin for error in the 50-50 Senate.

Biden must also appointee nominees for two vacant FDIC director positions, including the one held on an interim basis by Gruenberg. Chopra and Hsu are de facto members of the FDIC board as CFPB director and acting comptroller of the currency, respectively.

FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams Announces Her Resignation

For Release

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Jelena McWilliams today sent the following letter to the President of the United States:

The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC  20500

Dear Mr. President,

After serving as the 21st Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) since June 2018, I intend to resign as Chairman effective February 4, 2022.  

When I immigrated to this country 30 years ago, I did so with a firm belief in the American system of government.  During my tenure at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the United States Senate, and the FDIC, I have developed a deep appreciation for these venerable institutions and their traditions.  It has been a tremendous honor to serve this nation, and I did not take a single day for granted.  Throughout my public service, I have been constantly reminded how blessed we are to live in the United States of America. 

Serving the American people alongside the dedicated career professionals of the FDIC has been the highlight of my professional life.  Throughout my tenure, the agency has focused on its fundamental mission to maintain and instill confidence in our banking system while at the same time promoting innovation, strengthening financial inclusion, improving transparency, and supporting community banks and minority depository institutions, including through the creation of the Mission Driven Bank Fund.  Today, banks continue to maintain robust capital and liquidity levels to support lending and protect against potential losses. 

The unexpected shock of COVID-19 tested the resilience of our financial system beginning in March 2020, and the FDIC took swift actions to maintain stability and provide flexibility for banks and consumers.  The core of our financial system not only weathered the storm, but was a tangible source of strength for the American economy.  The committed staff of the FDIC deserve great credit for these results, and they have my profound gratitude.  I am humbled by their dedication to the FDIC’s mission and honored to have served with them.  

Sincerely,
Jelena McWilliams

Why Americans Are Buying Guns

In the aftermath of every mass shooting, we hear calls for “commonsense gun control.” But how do you determine which gun laws are commonsense? Jason Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, explores this loaded question.

Script: “The issue we face is one of conscience and common sense.” So said President Joe Biden in a prime-time plea for more Second Amendment restrictions. The president is right on both counts—just not in the way that he and other gun-control enthusiasts imagine. Many Americans have noticed that cities where shootings occur almost daily also have some of the strictest gun laws. Using common sense, they’ve concluded that more gun-control legislation isn’t the solution because criminals, by definition, don’t respect laws. Many of the same people find it unconscionable that politicians would make it more difficult for law-abiding residents to arm themselves for protection. Many of these law-abiding citizens happen to be black. It’s worth noting that the past two landmark Supreme Court rulings on gun control were brought by black plaintiffs who simply wanted to defend their homes and their families. Moreover, they hailed from cities controlled by Progressives who have done a poor job of protecting low-income minorities from criminals. In a 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and that you don’t need to be part of a militia to exercise it. One of the initial plaintiffs was Shelly Parker, a black computer-software designer who decided to challenge the district’s handgun ban in court after a neighborhood drug dealer tried to break into her home one evening and threatened to kill her. “What I want is simply to be able to own a handgun in my home, in the confines of the walls of my home—nothing else,” she told National Public Radio. Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the high court expanded on the Heller case. The lead plaintiff was Otis McDonald, a black Chicago retiree who wanted to own a handgun for protection from the gangs that terrorized his low-income neighborhood. It’s well known that gun sales have surged in recent years, but less well known is that blacks have led the trend. Retailers in a survey conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, reported that they sold 58% more guns to black customers in the first half of 2020 than a year earlier, the highest increase for any racial or ethnic group. Personal safety tops the list of why people decide to buy a firearm. In a 2021 Gallup survey, 88% of respondents said they own a gun “for protection against crime,” which is up from 67% in 2005. Social conditions have convinced more Americans that they need a gun, yet progressive politicians have spent little time reassessing the policies that led to such thinking. Meanwhile, violent crime keeps rising. Homicides in major cities have reached levels not seen in three decades. But left-leaning policy makers treat criminals like victims and police officers like criminals. Anti-gun police units that help keep illegal weapons off the streets have been disbanded. Felonies have been downgraded to misdemeanors, and misdemeanors go unpunished, which only encourages the bad actors. Low-income minorities feel the brunt of these so-called reforms because they are most likely to be crime victims. The same “defund the police” progressives who have spent most of the past decade undermining efforts to combat crime are now using sensational but rare mass-shooting tragedies as an excuse to limit people’s ability to defend themselves. For the full script, visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/why-ame…

TRENDING