Monthly Archives: April 2025

The View From The Lair

Posted on by

Opinion Opportunities

By now you have ascertained that I write (and hold) conservative opinions. Alan contributes factual information; I hope to offer things to ponder. Not that you can’t ponder information -you can and I hope you do – but I wish to offer a different reference.

Lately there has been such an abundance of subjects that it is hard to keep up with all the opportunities to opine about. That and some personal issues have distracted me from delivering my missives. I hope that the drought is over.

The other day RFK jr. – a liberal that I can stomach (very rare) – was using the governor of West Virginia as his foil to emphasize his MAHA agenda. One comment that seems to have escaped much attention was his remark about becoming the Gov’s personal trainer. And putting him on a carnivore diet.

As much as his nefarious stance on vaccines – he is against unproven, dangerous ones, much to the dismay of unelected oligarchs called “bureaucrats” – is often ridiculed and railed against, it was his support of the carnivore diet that caught my ear.

The carnivore diet is a subset of the ketogenic, or “fat burning” diet. Carnivore, if properly implemented, requires eating the organ meats, not just the muscle. For several reasons, I do not find them appetizing. Liver and onions, steak and kidney pie, chitlins’ – all fail to entice me. I’ll take my steak or burger with a salad, thank you.

But RFK jr.’s embracing of the carnivore diet recognizes his acknowledgement that the conventional Standard American Diet as recommended by the FDA is not just flawed, but deadly. Got high cholesterol? It doesn’t come from eating meat or butter. It comes from eating carbohydrates. Want to lose weight and keep it off? Low fat doesn’t work, low carbohydrates do. Sugar, starches, all carbs, whether simple or complex do the same thing: they raise blood glucose. Which causes insulin demand which stores excess carbs as fat.

Ancel Keys is responsible for the war on saturated fat in our diet. He was an epidemiologist. An epidemiological study is nothing more than an opinion poll.  What did you eat on Tuesday six months ago? What about a Monday eight months ago? How many can answer a dietary questionnaire ACCURATELY and HONESTLY that way? But that was the basis for driving the Standard American Diet – SAD.

And it is. The SAD is killing more adults and children than anything else in our lifetimes. Overweight, diabetic children. Children with heart disease. CHILDREN WITH HEART DISEASE. All due to diet. All due to the war on dietary fat in favor of carbohydrates – sugar. Is exercise helpful? Certainly. BUT you can NEVER outrun a bad diet. Exercise works up and appetite. Which is frequently satisfied with twice the calories that were burned.

Here is a dirty secret (sorry Granny G but this might get some flak) carbohydrates are NOT an essential nutrient. Fats are, proteins are, but not carbs. Carbs taste sooo good. Comfort food. They bring a smile to your face. They bring huge profits to Big Food. Carbs have a huge contribution to bad health, especially when overeaten, which they frequently are. Big Food has learned how to make carbs even more addictive than they naturally are. Sugars activate the same pleasure centers as opioids.  “Betcha can’t eat just one”. Or just one bag. Chips, Oreos, Bryers, it doesn’t matter. They’re killing us.

GO, BOBBY GO!

ciao,

The Snark

This Is Necessary, But It Shouldn’t Be

Posted on by

In North Carolina, we still don’t have the results from the state’s Supreme Court election in 2024. At issue are 60,000 ballots that were not properly or completely filled out. I don’t like the idea of disenfranchising people, but ballots should be properly filled out in order to be counted.

On Friday, Breitbart reported:

A North Carolina appeals court has ruled that more than 60,000 voters who voted in the state’s Supreme Court election in November 2024 must verify that they are eligible to vote.

The ruling from the appeals court ordering “more than 65,000 voters” to prove their eligibility comes after Judge Jefferson Griffin, who ran against North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs in November, challenged the results of the election, according to NBC News.

Per the outlet, voters “now have 15 business days to provide state elections officials with the necessary proof of identity that would verify their votes,” and voters who do not respond “will not have their votes counted in the race.”

“The inclusion of even one unlawful ballot in a vote total dilutes the lawful votes and ‘effectively disenfranchises’ lawful voters,” the panel of three judges wrote. “Post-election protests protect against this risk of vote dilution by enabling candidates and voters to rigorously investigate the election process, identify and challenges unlawful ballots, and ensure those ballots are not counted.”

Including an unlawful ballot is just as bad as not including a valid ballot. We need to get our elections squared away.

The article notes:

Griffin’s “legal argument centers on a claim” thousands of people who voted in the election “were ineligible to vote, mostly because they did not provide proof of identity,” through either a Social Security number or a driver’s license, according to the New York Times.

North Carolina has voter ID laws. Those laws need to be followed.

The March Jobs Report

Posted on by

While everyone was focused on the tariffs and the stock market, the March jobs report came out. It provided some good news, along with a workforce participation rate that increased slightly in March. If the work requirements are passed on food stamps and medicaid, I suspect that the workforce participation rate will increase rapidly.

On Friday, Zero Hedge reported:

After today’s shocking retaliation by China, which hiked tariffs on US goods by 34%, the jobs report was an afterthought. To be honest, it would have been an asymmetric afterhought any way, as any upside would have been viewed as stale and not reflecting the new tariff reality, while any miss would have cemented the recession case. And while the market is certainly far more focused on the ongoing trade war, in the end, the March jobs report ended up being far stronger than expected, as the US added a whopping 228K jobs, the highest since December and more than double the 117K in February (revised lower from 151K)…

…The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for January was revised down by 14,000, from +125,000 to +111,000, and the change for February was revised down by 34,000, from +151,000 to +117,000. With these revisions, employment in January and February combined is 48,000 lower than previously reported.

The article concludes:

Commenting on the numbers, Trump posted on Truth Social that job numbers were “far better than expected” and that “it’s already working.”

Trump’s tweet suggests that contrary to some expectations, the president isn’t actually looking to throw the economy in a recession, but will push to keep it from crashing while he is playing the great game of trade war chicken with China and the rest of the world, which makes lives for traders more difficult as it means the Fed will have to make decisions on a tweet by tweet basis, which will be problematic.

Meanwhile, others disagreed: here is Seema Shah from Ptincipal Asset Management who encapsulates prevailing sentiment well:

“Everyone knows that economic weakness is coming, but at least we can be reassured that the labor market was robust coming into this policy-driven shock and therefore, the slowdown should not be overly steep. Next month is when hard data is likely to start showing signs of what soft data has already been signalling. From the Fed’s perspective, today’s payrolls number will not prevent them from future policy rate cuts – they know that this is just a moment of calm before the storm hits.”

Gregory Faranello, strategist at AmeriVet Securities, explained why today’s jobs report was largely ignored: “it’s all about the forward outlook around tariffs and the ensuing impact on global demand. You would never have thought to see yields performing this way with a jobs report like this.”

Ed Al-Hussainy, rates strategist at Columbia Threadneedle Investment, says “the market is betting that recession risks and the tightening of financial conditions will force the Fed to cut aggressively” now up to 100bp this year and rising. 

As for Powell’s speech later this morning, Al-Hussainy says: “If we get any pushback against this from Powell & Co., front end rates may end up offside.”

But perhaps the best wrap of today’s jobs report, however, was from Omair Sharif,  Inflation Insights: “Someone forgot there was a recession coming.”

President Trump has been in office less than three months. Are they planning to blame him for a recession? Why are some economists so focused on recession? Is this focus on recession political or economic?

The Impact Of The Tariffs

Posted on by

On Friday, Townhall reported that Vietnam, after talking with President Trump, has agreed to eliminate tariffs on all U.S. goods if the two parties can negotiate a deal. That’s a good place to start.

The article reports:

This could be some good news – especially on the tariff front. It might mean that American product could become more competitive in Vietnam, which will benefit U.S.-based corporations. Vietnam is seeing a growth of its middle class, which could open new doors for trade.

It would also mean lower prices for American consumers purchasing products manufactured in Vietnam. This would include apparel, furniture, electronics, and several others. Other major corporation have used Vietnam as a significant manufacturing hub, which suggests cheaper imports might. Lower production expenses while boosting profit margins.

A tariff reduction of this type could also strengthen the economic relationship between the U.S. and Vietnam. This might be especially critical if the U.S. seeks to diversify its supply chains away from China. Less reliance on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) could bolster Washington’s negotiating position.

There is also the possibility that other nations might follow Vietnam’s lead – especially if the deal benefits the country over the long term.

Of course, there is no deal just yet. But it appears that Vietnam is willing to make some important concessions. Either way, this is a promising sign.

According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative:

U.S. goods trade with Vietnam totaled an estimated $149.6 billion in 2024. U.S. goods exports to Vietnam in 2024 were $13.1 billion, up 32.9 percent ($3.2 billion) from 2023. U.S. goods imports from Vietnam totaled $136.6 billion in 2024, up 19.3 percent ($22.1 billion) from 2023. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Vietnam was $123.5 billion in 2024, an 18.1 percent increase ($18.9 billion) over 2023.

Since the amount of trade we are doing with Vietnam is increasing, a tariff agreement between the two countries would be a good deal for everyone involved.

 

A Very Honest Picture Of The War In Ukraine

Posted on by

On Thursday, Victor Davis Hanson posted an article at American Greatness detailing the current status of the war in Ukraine. The article summarizes where we have been, where we are, and where we are probably going.

The article reports:

Aside from the rhetoric, there is a growing consensus among Western diplomats, military analysts, military officers, heads of state, and even much of the media about how to end the endless Ukrainian war.

A proposed peace will see a DMZ established somewhere along an adjusted 1,200-mile Ukraine-Russia border. Tough negotiations will adjudicate how far east toward its original borders Russian forces will be leveraged to backstep.

Publicly in the U.S. and covertly in Europe, all accept that a depleted Ukraine will not have the military strength to retake Crimea and the Donbas.

In 2014, both were absorbed by Russia during the Obama administration. Neither that administration nor any since has advocated a military effort to reclaim them.

Loudly, the U.S.—and again quietly Europe—concedes that Ukraine will not be in NATO—a confirmation that Russia will use to justify to its people its disastrous invasion, and even many Ukrainians will accept.

How will the West deter Putin from his inevitable agenda of reclaiming lost Soviet territory and Russian-speaking peoples? For now, his army is exhausted, its arsenals depleted, and its reputation shattered.

In the future, a commercial corridor, anchored by concessions to American and international mining concerns, will supposedly serve as a tripwire to deter Putin from attacking in-the-way noncombatant Americans.

The media spin on a ceasefire is predictable:

If Trump can coax even a ceasefire, the oddly bellicose left will still rail about “Munich” and Trump as “Putin’s puppet.”

But after perhaps 1.5 million total Ukrainian and Russian dead, wounded, sick, and missing, transatlantic leftists will quietly admit they never had any realistic plan to win by fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.

And they certainly were not willing—despite what they claimed in their spasms of braggadocio—to send U.S., U.K., European, or NATO ground troops into Eastern Ukraine.

The article concludes:

So, Putin knows that India, China, and others who buy his oil will not if he reneges on his willingness for a ceasefire.

If and when peace comes, we can already foresee the misinformation that will follow: Trump deserves no credit. Zelenskyy remains the true hero. A now hollowed-out Russia was the real winner.

The only mystery?

Since when did the anti-war left prefer an endless and horrific war to a difficult, messy peace?

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is one of the best summaries of the situation I have read.

Leveling The Playing Field

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Townhall posted an article about one result of President Trump’s tariffs.

The article reports:

Ontario Premier Doug Ford on Wednesday suggested that Canada would drop its tariffs on U.S. goods if President Donald Trump eased up on his tariffs on Canadian goods.

During an appearance with CNBC’s Ross Sorkin, he stated that the impending tariff war is “just going to hurt American jobs” and that Trump “said he was going to create jobs, create wealth, reduce inflation.”

Sorkin asked whether Ford believed it was fair that Canada has “tariffs on a whole number of products.”

Ford replied, “And we’d be willing to take those off tomorrow if he took all the tariffs off” and suggested that “China is the problem.”

The host asked why Canada wouldn’t have these negotiations before Trump imposed his tariffs.

The premier responded:

Well, we’ve had this conversation for over the last month. We don’t want tariffs. We have another $65 billion dollars with a tariff to launch today. That’s the last thing we want to do because it’s just, again, it’s going to hurt both countries. It’s going to hurt American workers. That’s the last thing I want.

That statement is a very diplomatic way of saying nothing.

America has been paying tariffs on its exports to other countries for years. It is not unreasonable to expect that at some point the playing field would be made more level. It is not up to us to bankroll the rest of the world by letting other countries impose tariffs on us without imposing tariffs on them. I suspect that President Trump’s tariffs are not yet set in stone and are still in the negotiating stage. We do need to put tariffs on other countries, but the final details may be different from what we are currently hearing.

Essential Patriotism

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

A patriot according to my Webster’s dictionary, is a person “… who loves his country and zealously supports its authority and interests”.  History shows repeatedly that no country can continue to exist without the majority of its citizens being true patriots.  Things have changed, and not for the better.  For example, President John Kennedy stated in his inaugural address, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” By contrast, President Obama stated after his election that “…we are days away from fundamentally transforming this country.”  Doesn’t sound like love of country to me.  The question becomes, “how do citizens become patriots?”  Let’s take a look at how well America is succeeding in developing patriotism in the year 2025.

As with most important characteristics, patriotism must be learned. In the past, the family has traditionally been the bedrock of American society, and love and respect for country was learned around the dining room table listening to parents and grandparents.  With fewer intact families and the hectic fast paced modern life style, many children do not have the opportunity to learn patriotism and other positive values from their elders as they once did.  Similarly, there was a time when public schools could be relied upon to teach the positive aspects of America and to respect and value our country.  With the continued infusion of leftist instruction in all levels of education, that is no longer the case.  Since. the introduction of Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), social equity learning, and the 1619 Project, instruction and curricula increasingly focus on what is wrong with this country and not what is right and unique.  We need to correct this.  No country is or has always been perfect.  But historically, America has been on the right side of critical issues, supporting freedom and fighting tyranny worldwide, as well as correcting mistakes that were made including slavery.

Local Boards of Education, and other elected officials need to focus on ensuring that instruction and learning materials in schools are pro-American and focus on the positive things we have achieved  A system needs to be put in place that is capable of monitoring what teachers say to their students, and anti-American instruction and attitudes eliminated.  A school classroom is not the place for teachers to exercise their free speech rights, when they area espousing anti-American propaganda.  Parents should be able to monitor what goes on in the classroom.

It is crucial, however, that we do not just rely on schools to teach patriotism.  It is our responsibility also; we must do our part.  Children learn from what they are told and what they observe.  As far as the family is concerned, parents and grandparents need to take it upon themselves to relate the history of America as they know it and have lived it.  When is the last time you spoke to your family about the founding of America, the wars we have fought to protect other countries, your military service if appropriate, etc.?  When doing this, it is critical that you use the term “we” when referring to America so that the children see how your identity is connected to this country.  Also, it is important that they observe your involvement in politics so they learn that you are committed (and they eventually will also be), to taking actions necessary to preserve this country for future generations.

The destructive flood of illegal aliens during the Biden administration makes the issue of teaching patriotism even more critical.  European countries are on a path to lose their identity by a combination of out-of-control immigration and the declining birthrate of their traditional citizens.  The immigrants are having large numbers of children while traditional citizens are way below replacement levels.  We cannot allow this to happen in our country.  It should be remembered, that in the mid-1920’s the Republican Congress and President, placed severe restrictions on immigration due to growing concern that our cultural values and heritage could not survive with mass immigration.  This effort worked until the 1960s when Senator Ted Kennedy sponsored legislation approved by a Democrat Congress and President, to remove most immigration restrictions.

President Trump is doing his part to try to go back to a sensible immigration policy, now we must do our part to ensure that our children learn to love this country and act to protect it.

Walmart and Tariffs

Posted on by

President Trump announced his tariff plan yesterday. Generally speaking, liberals are crying, “The sky is falling.” The stock market is down today, but will probably be back up in a week or so after the impact of the tariffs is calculated. One indication of how things might go is what is happening with Walmart.

A friend of mine summed it up:

“U.S. retailing giant Walmart,” Reuters reported, “is continuing to push Chinese suppliers to cut prices to offset President Donald Trump’s tariffs.” In other words, to stay competitive, foreign governments must cut their prices, to stay competitive. They must cut prices to precisely offset the tariffs. That is why foreign suppliers actually pay for tariffs, and not Americans.

To put it differently, it is true the tariff is charged at the port of entry. But if Chinese factories want to keep selling here, they must lower their prices to absorb the hit, because consumers won’t pay. Foreign producers indirectly pay the tariff through lowered prices, or they lose market share.

It’s that simple.

Here’s how it works in real life: If a Chinese plasma TV costs $1,000 and there’s a 10% tariff, the U.S. government collects $100. Walmart tells the Chinese supplier, “We’re not eating that cost. Cut your price to $900 or we’ll stop buying.” So the Chinese factory promptly cuts its price to stay in business.

The result is that the U.S. Treasury gets paid, Chinese exporters take the loss, and American consumers barely notice.

On Wednesday, Yahoo Finance reported:

Walmart is reportedly standing firm in its demands that Chinese suppliers absorb the costs of U.S. tariffs.

Bloomberg, citing sources with knowledge of the situation, said Walmart (WMT) is asking suppliers to reduce prices by up to 10% for every new round of tariffs, effectively shifting the financial burden onto manufacturers. Last month, Chinese officials met with Walmart executives to discuss the request, calling it irresponsible and unfair. Despite this, Walmart appears unfazed and has doubled down on its demands.

…Walmart isn’t alone in pushing suppliers to absorb some of the tariff costs. Other major retailers, including Target and Costco, are following suit. Target (TGT), for instance, asked a supplier of hairpins and claw clips to take on “half the costs of the tariffs.” The supplier said the failed negotiation led to delayed orders, eventually losing the business. Target has not responded to Quartz’s multiple requests for comment.

Tariffs are a very efficient way to deal with uneven trade practices and with import/export imbalances.

 

Who Should Vote In American Elections?

Posted on by

In the beginning days of America, only land owners were allowed to vote because it was assumed that they had a stake in the game. Later male citizens were allowed to vote. Women were not voting at that time because it was assumed that the man in the house represented the family. There were few single-parent families in those days, and generally women were expected to be married and in families. Obviously that has changed, and women now have the right to vote. But should non-citizens have the right to vote? There does not seem to be agreement on that question.

According to the Cornell Law School website:

18 U.S. Code § 611 – Voting by aliens

(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless—

(1)the election is held partly for some other purpose;
(2)aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and
(3)voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.

On April 2nd, Zero Hedge reported the following:

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and two top U.S. lawmakers on March 31 sued President Donald Trump over a recent executive order that aims to enforce the law against illegal immigrant voting and election dates.

“The Executive Order seeks to impose radical changes on how Americans register to vote, cast a ballot, and participate in our democracy—all of which threaten to disenfranchise lawful voters and none of which is legal,” says the lawsuit, filed by Democratic Party attorney Marc Elias in federal court in Washington.

Trump’s March 25 order has multiple sections. Several deal with laws that bar foreigners from registering to vote or from voting in federal elections. Trump directed the independent Election Assistance Commission to require proof of U.S. citizenship in its mail voter registration form, ordered U.S. officials to work with the Department of Government Efficiency to review voter rolls to identify noncitizens who are already registered, and told the U.S. attorney general to prosecute individuals who have illegally registered or voted.

Another prong takes aim at how some states in recent years have begun counting mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day, which the order says contravenes federal law.

A third portion says the Election Assistance Commission shall stop providing federal funds to states that don’t comply with the laws on election dates and noncitizen voting and voter registration.

The U.S. Constitution’s election clause says that states can set election dates, although Congress can alter them.

“Outside of the Elections Clause, other provisions in the Constitution place certain requirements and limitations on the regulation of elections—but none allows the President to override the will of the States or Congress in this space,” the new suit states.

The legal challenge also says that the Election Assistance Commission is an independent agency over which the president, who appoints commissioners, has no control, and that federal law lets applicants who vote in federal elections attest to citizenship with a signature as opposed to requiring proof from documents such as a passport.

Not allowing people who are not citizens to vote does not disenfranchise anyone who is legally allowed to vote. One wonders why the Democrats brought this suit (other than simply to harass President Trump).

Sad, But Not Surprising

Posted on by

On Wednesday, American Military News posted an article about the FBI’s handling of the Hunter Laptop Story. Obviously, they covered it up, and even were involved in a false letter implying it was Russian disinformation. But why? And why were so many people willing to get involved in the attempted hiding of the story? Those are the questions I would like to see answered.

The article reports:

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee revealed new Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) chat logs on Tuesday that show the FBI imposed a “gag order” on the Hunter Biden laptop story that was released in October of 2020 by The New York Post.

In a series of posts on X, formerly Twitter, the House Judiciary GOP said that while the FBI had possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the FBI “refused to tell Big Tech the truth” when the New York Post published the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Why were so many people in the intelligence community, the media, and the Department of Justice so willing to cover this up? At what point did these agencies and groups become so politicized that they no longer cared about the truth?

The article notes:

In Tuesday’s posts, the House Judiciary GOP revealed that “one FBI analyst tried to tell Twitter that the laptop was real—until his bosses shut him up” on the morning of the story’s publication.

…“The internal FBI chat log also shows how far senior FBI officials went to silence this analyst. After the meeting, a senior FBI lawyer put a ‘gag order’ on the analyst,” the House Judiciary GOP added. “The analyst was also ‘admonished’ by FBI staff, who lamented that he still wouldn’t ‘shut up.’”

The House Judiciary GOP noted that “big tech” was able to successfully censor The New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story due to the FBI refusing to comment on the story and the “truth-telling analyst” being issued a “gag order” by the agency. As a result, House Republicans said more than 30 million Americans voted in the hotly-contested 2020 presidential election in the week that Facebook demoted the Hunter Biden laptop story.

“Fortunately, President Trump, @AGPamBondi, @FBIDirectorKash have ended the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, which was responsible for this ‘prebunking’ operation,” the House Judiciary GOP added. “We will continue to work with them to increase transparency and end the weaponization of federal law enforcement.”

Everyone involved in this coverup needs to be fired or worse.

More Good News From Argentina

Posted on by

Argentina is a beautiful example of what happens when a freedom loving President is elected and allowed to do what he promised to do.

On Tuesday, Breitbart reported:

Argentina’s poverty rate dropped from 52.9 percent to 38.1 percent during the second half of 2024, according to new data by the National Institute of Statistics and Census of Argentina (INDEC).

Local outlets reported that INDEC, a decentralized entity within the Argentine Economic Ministry, observed a nationwide decrease in poverty and indigence (extreme poverty) rates during the last six months of 2024. During that time period, poverty fell 14.8 percentage points and 8.2 percent of the population was documented living below the extreme poverty line.

Argentina’s Radio Mitre stated that the government of President Javier Milei managed to improve the country’s situation in comparison to 2023, the last year of the disastrous socialist administration of former president and suspected domestic abuser Alberto Fernández. According to INDEC’s report, there are roughly 18 million Argentines living in conditions of poverty.

The article concludes:

Upon taking office in December 2023 as Argentina’s first libertarian President, Milei began implementing a series of “shock therapy” economic measures to help avert a collapse of the nation’s economy after the administration of Alberto Fernández pushed Argentina to the brink of complete economic ruin.

Milei’s policies successfully lowered Argentina’s runaway inflation. In January, Argentina logged its lowest inflation rates in five years, going from 25.5 percent at the start of Milei’s administration to 2.2 percent that month. In February, the inflation rate in Argentina was measured at 2.4 percent. INDEC is expected to release March’s inflation rate report in mid-April.

America could be enjoying the same financial blessings if the courts would get out of the way.

America Is Becoming The Last Outpost Of Free Speech

Posted on by

On April 2nd, The Federalist posted an article about the death of free speech in Europe.

The article reports:

It’s been a banner week for authoritarians in Europe, and it’s only Wednesday.

On Monday, a French court banned Marine Le Pen, the leader of the right-wing National Rally party and the frontrunner in the 2027 presidential election, from seeking public office for the next five years. The same day, The Telegraph reported that a toddler had been booted from a U.K. preschool for being insufficiently supportive of LGBT politics. Over the weekend, a British couple revealed they had been arrested based on complaints they expressed in a WhatsApp chat about their daughter’s public school.

This is exactly the kind of crackdown on free expression that Vice President J.D. Vance chastised complicit European leaders about in February, in an address at the Munich Security Conference. This week’s insanity further proves Vance’s dire warnings were right.

The article notes:

France isn’t the first country to bar political opposition candidates from its elections. In December, Romania’s highest court suspended its presidential election, blaming Russian interference. (Where have we heard that one before?) Calin Georgescu, who cast himself as a Trumpy “Romania first” candidate, took the lead in the country’s first round of voting before the court canceled the election and then barred Georgescu from running again.

In Brazil, former President Jair Messias Bolsonaro is going to be put on trial for supposedly staging a coup. The politicians who oppose populist candidates are taking notes on how President Trump has been treated and attempting to duplicate those efforts in their own countries.

The article concludes:

The European Union’s Digital Services Act, which took effect last year, ensures speech that authorities deem “hateful” can be punished across the continent. Trump’s Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr blasted the law as “incompatible” with the “free speech tradition.”

Jailing citizens for the expression of ideas and barring political candidates from elections are two sides of the same authoritarian coin. Neither is compatible with self-government.

“[S]hutting down media, shutting down elections, or shutting people out of the political process,” as Vance told European leaders in February, “is the most surefire way to destroy democracy.”

He was right. Unfortunately, European leaders appear to have taken his statement as an instruction manual instead of an urgent warning.

This censorship would have come to America if Kamala Harris had been elected.

The Story From Someone Who Was There

Posted on by

There are a number of debates going on right now as to whether or not Planned Parenthood should receive federal or state money. The people who want them to receive money claim that their facilities provide necessary healthcare services. The people who oppose giving them money claim that they are simply an abortion mill. There is also the question of selling aborted baby body parts, but that has been addressed in previous articles.

On Tuesday, The Daily Signal posted an article about funding Planned Parenthood from the perspective of someone who worked there for a number of years. The author of the article believes that Planned Parenthood should not get federal or state funding.

The article reports:

One of the legal points being addressed on Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court as it hears arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is whether South Carolina officials have a right to refuse Medicaid funding—that is, taxpayer dollars—to the two Planned Parenthood centers and other abortion facilities in their state.

Underlying that legal concern, being presented to the court by attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom, who are representing the state, is a more basic question: What is Planned Parenthood really about, and what are taxpayers really funding?

If you want a short, simple, and accurate answer to that question, ask someone who saw firsthand how Planned Parenthood functions and who understands its priorities.

From 2000 to 2017, I worked at every level of Planned Parenthood, from the front desk to the labs, doing everything from showing videos to managing up to three centers at a time across Arizona. What started out for me as a job with good benefits that would let me help my people (I was born in Mexico) and serve women in need ended up as something altogether different—a front-row seat for the big business of killing babies.

The article also notes:

I took a lot of those calls. Almost every day, we heard from women who were experiencing incredibly more pain than the medical staff had promised … who were bleeding out over a bathroom floor … who were horrified to find themselves trying to flush a baby’s corpse down the toilet.

“Just go to the ER,” we were instructed to tell them. “And make sure you say it’s a miscarriage.”

Nothing was allowed to stop the push for abortions. If a woman’s blood pressure was too high or her iron count too low for the procedure, nurses kept rechecking the numbers until they found what they wanted to see. If a woman in the surgical room had serious second thoughts about killing her baby, a doctor would go in and talk to her until she agreed to go through with it.

We paid the staff who did abortions more than we paid other workers. We gave them bigger Christmas bonuses. When I presented ways of expanding or converting our facilities to accommodate a wider array of non-abortion services, I was reminded—again and again—that that’s not where the money was.

And when I kept expressing my concerns about all of this, I was fired.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. Abortion is not healthcare and it kills the most vulnerable. It has been said that if the abortion clinics were killing puppies instead of babies, the public outcry would have closed them by now. I am not sure what that says about our culture.

How Religious Is Religious?

Posted on by

On April 1st, The National Pulse posted an article about the U.S. Supreme Court Case regarding the tax exempt status of Catholic Charities. In the past, charitable church organizations have pretty much automatically been tax exempt, but some anti-religious groups are working to change that.

The article explains:

The United States Supreme Court appears poised to rule in favor of a Catholic charitable group challenging Wisconsin’s decision to deny them a religious exemption from state unemployment taxes. The case brought by the Catholic Charities Bureau may alter the way religious activities are classified under state law, with significant implications for religious freedom.

The crux of the disagreement lies in whether the Catholic Charities Bureau qualifies as a religious employer eligible for tax exemptions under Wisconsin statutes. The state law permits such exemptions for organizations if their operations are primarily religious. However, Wisconsin officials assert that the charity does not meet this criterion because its activities, like assisting the elderly and disabled, are not explicitly religious nor centered on religious instruction.

Catholic Charities Bureau has contributed to the unemployment tax system since 1972. They argue their missions are embedded in Catholic tenets of charity and good works, thus deserving of the religious exemption. The organization challenges the state’s evaluation of what constitutes religious activity, suggesting it is an unfair assessment.

While the Supreme Court’s more conservative justices appeared open to the Catholic Charities Bureau’s arguments, Justice Elena Kagan—who is one of the high court’s more liberal justices—appeared amenable as well. “I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don’t treat some religions better than other religions, and we certainly don’t do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach,” Justice Kagan said during oral arguments on Monday.

With oral arguments concluded in the case, the justices will confer, and an opinion on the case is expected later this summer. The outcome might influence how other religious organizations are taxed and exempted, with restrictions placed on a state’s interpretations of “religious” work.

Before the growth of big government, charity was handled by the church and by individuals. If you knew your neighbor had lost his job, you might leave a bag of groceries on his front porch. Charity wasn’t done by the government–it was done by churches and individuals who understood the needs of the community.

For further information on the government and charity, please read the speech regarding government charity given to Congress by Senator Davy Crockett. You can find it here.

Restoring The Power to The Executive Branch

Posted on by

We seem to be having a problem right now with a lot of the court cases opposing President Trump’s (and the American people’s) agenda. Oddly enough, a lot of these cases seem to end up in the court of one particular judge, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. Well, there may be a way (other than impeachment) to get back to government by “we the people” who elected President Trump.

On Monday, Just the News reported the following:

An Arizona congressman introduced legislation Monday to remove the federal judge who has blocked President Donald Trump’s efforts to deport Venezuelan gang members, offering a novel path that avoids the impeachment process and the need for two-thirds support in the U.S. Senate.

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., filed a resolution that would remove U.S. District Judge James Boasberg for “failing to maintain the standard of good behavior required of judges” under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.

You can read the resolution below:

“Most Americans believe that there is lifetime tenure for a federal judge. That unless impeached, a federal judge can serve until death,” Biggs told Just the News. “But lifetime tenure is not guaranteed, nor mentioned, in the Constitution. Article III, Section 1 permits a federal judge to serve only ‘during good behavior.’”

Biggs argued the clause gives Congress the authority to remove judges that it believes have failed to uphold that standard short of using impeachment.

The article also notes:

Biggs said he believes many of these judges have overstepped their authority and reached outside their narrow judicial districts, and that Congress should take the reigns, invoking the Constitutional provision, to fire ones that make politically biased decisions that fall short of grounds for impeachment.

“[W]hat about a judge who has a conflict of interest and refuses to recuse himself from the case with which he has a conflict? Or, what if he has repeatedly supported publicly a political figure and vigorously denounced, not just on policy grounds, but on more virulent grounds, his political opponent?” Biggs asked.

It has been reported that Boasberg’s daughter Katharine defends MS-13 and TDA gangsters, receiving pay from an NGO, Partners in Justice, which raked in $3.3 million in 2023 year from the federal government.  That should disqualify him from the deportation case, but the question is bigger than that.

Does the President run the country or do the judges run the country? The President is elected by the people. Shouldn’t he be in charge?

Remember When Children Were Allowed To Be Innocent?

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Wire posted an article about a child between the ages of 3 and 4 being suspended from nursery school for being “transphobic.”

The article notes:

“Department for Education (DfE) data show the child, aged either three or four, was suspended from a state school in the 2022-23 academic year for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity,’” The Telegraph reported.

…“Worse still, this is not an isolated case,” she continued. “Apparently, 13 four and five-year-olds were suspended or permanently excluded from school for the same reason. Teachers and school leaders involved in this insanity should be ashamed of themselves for projecting adult concepts and beliefs onto such young children. It’s unforgivable for children’s vital early education to be so traumatically disrupted by school leaders who prioritize activists’ demands over their charges’ wellbeing.”

Although the article does not cite the specifics of the incident, it notes:

“In 2022, a Church of England school in the Isle of Wight warned a six-year-old boy’s parents that he might be deemed ‘transphobic’ if he were to question another pupil wearing a dress,” The Daily Mail pointed out.

I can easily picture a three-year-old boy walking up to another three-year-old boy and asking him why he is wearing a dress. That is not transphobic–that is a normal childhood question from a child that is probably too young to have the proper social graces.