We Need a Constitution That Means What It Says

by Frank Miele for American Greatness 

Some U.S. senators have famously kept a pocket Constitution handy to use as a prop at political rallies; a few may have even read it. But at this point in American history it no longer matters whether they, or anyone else, can read the words of the Constitution because the words no longer mean what they say.

Take, for instance, the Supreme Court’s ruling last week that state legislatures do not have the sole discretion to determine how federal elections will be run in those states. Instead, state courts are given veto power over the decisions of the legislature.

The mainstream media (and of course their Democratic Party allies) celebrated the court’s decision in Moore v. Harper that rejected the so-called “independent state legislature” theory. The New York Times called the theory “dangerous.” Vox said the ruling was a “big victory for democracy.” Those who supported the independent state legislature “theory” were called extreme, fringe, radical, and worse. In other words, they were Trump supporters.

The only problem is that if the theory is extreme, then so is the U.S. Constitution, because no matter how much the 6-3 majority insists otherwise, it isn’t a theory at all. It is the plain language of the Constitution. Check it out for yourself.

Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution says specifically, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

It is not the governor or the courts or even the people of the state which set election rules, according to the Constitution, but the legislatures. Mind you, the state legislatures are not entirely unchecked in their decision making, but it is the Congress of the United States that provides the checks and balances, not the courts.

And as for presidential elections, the matter is even more cut and dried. Article 2, Section 1, declares, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

Notice again that the Constitution gives state legislatures the exclusive power to determine the manner in which electors are appointed to vote for president and vice president. In this case, even Congress does not have the authority to override the legislatures.

Yet now the Supreme Court has determined that the words of the Constitution do not mean what they say. This is pure revisionism, and plainly the result of judicial activism. The plenary power of the state legislatures to make the final decision about federal elections is settled conclusively by the fact that for many years after the adoption of the Constitution, it was common in many states for electors to be chosen directly by the legislature with no election at all. Not only did the courts have no say in the matter; neither did the people.

We don’t have to defend that practice in order to confirm that it is clearly constitutional, and having said so, we can also declare that the Supreme Court in Moore v. Harper has not interpreted the Constitution, but written a new one. If we the people decided that it was inappropriate for the state legislatures to make the rules for how to elect federal officials, we could have done what the Constitution calls for and sought to amend it. But instead, lawyers have waged war upon the English language and enlisted activist judges and justices to implement interpretations that are based more on sentiment than common sense.

If we are being honest, it is not just crazy liberals who twist the words of the Constitution to mean whatever they want. Not long ago, I wrote a column titled “Do Democrats Value Abortion More Than the Constitution?” It lambasted Biden and others who want to create a law to protect abortion.

As I explained then:

Congress has no such ability. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress. They are remarkably straightforward – and limited. Raise taxes, borrow money, regulate international commerce and commerce among the states, establish a process for naturalizing citizens, coin money and punish counterfeiters, establish post offices, establish copyright and trademark laws, establish lower courts, regulate pirates, declare war, raise armies and a navy, provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, and create and maintain a small district that shall be the seat of government.

Search as you will, you won’t find any congressional power to promote social justice or to impose a moral standard on the nation. Unfortunately for lovers of limited government, Republicans have proven to be just as willing to ride roughshod over the Constitution as their Democrat counterparts. Former Vice President Mike Pence, whom I defended in my prior column, has now publicly called for a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks. No matter how much you abhor abortion, it is impossible to find any words in the Constitution which give Congress the power to regulate such a medical procedure.

So regardless of how many members of Congress (or former vice presidents) tuck a Constitution in their pockets, it is also impossible to make them read it, let alone be guided by it.

As a final note, I should probably give credit to the Supreme Court for overturning the policy of affirmative action in college admissions in two separate cases last week. It turns out that all those references in the Constitution to equality and equal protection of the law actually mean something. At least they do today. But for 45 years since the court’s ruling in the Bakke case, students who were rejected for college admission because of the color of their skin were just supposed to grin and bear it. Sure, the 14^thAmendment prohibits states or state agents from “deny[ing] to any person … the equal protection of the laws.” But once again the plain language of the Constitution was ignored until last week.

I would propose writing an amendment that forced elected and appointed officials of the United States to follow the Constitution as written, not the one with invisible asterisks and footnotes and a “social justice clause,” but chances are it would be found unconstitutional anyway – or at least inconvenient.

X22, And we Know, and more- July 10

 

Poetic Justice for the Biden ‘Ministry of Truth’

by Roger Kimball for American Greatness 

At some point in this column, I have probably had occasion to quote these famous lines from Walter Scott’s poem “Marmion”:

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.” 

In another, better world, I like to think, the Bidens and their protectors and puppet masters would ruefully be contemplating Scott’s admonitory observation.

In this world, however, I suspect that—until quite recently, anyway—they had smugly sided with J.R. Pope’s sly amendment to Scott’s moralizing couplet:

“But when we’ve practiced for a while 

How vastly we improve our style.”  

I note that Pope’s amusing title for his opuscule is “A Word of Encouragement.”

Many of us feel a great contradiction at the heart of the Biden phenomenon.

On the one hand, he—“Big Guy” Joe—and his entire Snopes-like family—coke-head Hunter, “Dr.” Jill, the litter of grasping, on-the-make siblings—all seem like ciphers, the veritable incarnation of Gertrude Stein’s description of Oakland, CA: “there’s no there there.”

Indeed, from this point of view, Joe’s painful mental and, increasingly, physical vacancy seems to be the objective correlative for the entire Biden enterprise. It’s as if the nasty brother of the scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz suddenly came to life and occupied the White House. “If I only had a brain,” he snarls softly to himself, frightening everyone around him.

And that “as if” brings me to the extraordinary “other hand.” Joe Biden is president of the United States, still, if just barely, the most important political office in the world. Amazing. How could that be? Talk about going from zero to one!

Of course, history is littered with the spectacle of destructive lunatics and incompetents in high office, as such names as Caligula, Nero, Commodus, and Elagabalus remind us. (As an aside, I hereby note that Elagabalus is poised for a rerun, so perfectly does that epicene, “gender fluid” freak epitomize some of the central pathologies of our time).

The Bidens have yet to achieve the notoriety of such grimly illustrious predecessors. Nevertheless, these past months have not been kind to the Biden conglomerate.

First, there were the serial revelations of the Elon-Musk-enabled Twitter files, as journalists like Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss and Michael Shellenberger took the ball and ran with it, exposing some portion of the Fed intrusion into and censorship of the media, social and otherwise. Those revelations might well have taken down another administration, but key segments of the media are too housebroken to respond to the scandal with condign outrage.

Second, the Republican takeover of the House, and the robust performance of Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Committee chairs like Jim Jordan (Judiciary) and James Comer (Oversight and Accountability) to ferret out, expose and hold to account the corrupt actors of the deep state, have opened a network of fissures in the edifice supporting the Biden conglomerate. Elections, as another politician observed, do have consequences.

Finally, there are the courts. The wheels of justice grind slow, we are told, but exceedingly fine. The Supreme Court has lately delivered a series of decisions that threaten to upend the entire “diversity industry” upon which the regime battens in its efforts to enforce ideological conformity throughout the educational establishment and a cowed and tranquillized populace.

The latest judicial intervention, released with what seems like poetic justice, on July 4, i.e., Independence Day, comes from U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana. In an extraordinarily forthright 155-page ruling, Judge Doughty issued a preliminary injunction barring the White House and clutch of federal agencies from liaising with social media to suppress, censor or otherwise subvert the expression of political opinions critical of the regime.

Responding to Missouri v. Biden, a suit brought by the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana, Doughty noted with refreshing frankness that “the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech.”

“The evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario,” he wrote, “During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”

Yikes.

And at issue is not just censorship of contrary opinions about Covid, its origins, severity and appropriate treatment, along with still-burning questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines imposed upon a stupefied public. The censorship also extended to other subjects, including the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell” story, which all the world now knows was ruthlessly censored on the lead up to the 2020 election. And then there is the 2020 election itself, whose long shadow includes the January 6 imbroglio.

As Judge Doughty noted, “All were suppressed.” Furthermore, he wrote, “it is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.”

“Have” or “had?”

Philip Hamburger, Columbia law professor and CEO of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (which represents plaintiffs in the case), crisply summarized the state of play in an OpEd for The Wall Street Journal. The case, Hamburger predicted, may well “become one of the most important free-speech cases in the nation’s history.”

The injunction is against the FBI, the DOJ, the CDC and five other federal agencies, as well as against such officials as the Surgeon General and various White House staffers. It prohibits them from “threatening, pressuring, or coercing social-media companies in any manner to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content of postings containing protected free speech.”

Everyone expects the Biden administration to appeal the judgment. After all, having been in the censorship business so long and so successfully, the administration will be loath to open the window on free expression and opinions critical of their performance.

We don’t yet know how this case will turn out. Perhaps Judge Doughty will be overturned and the censorship and suppression industry will go on its merry way making the world safe for Democrats. But I suspect that the genie has been let out of the bottle. The Deep state will howl. The forces of freedom will howl louder, and now they have the House and, most likely, the courts on their side.

Whatever happens, the Wall Street Journal’s Jacob Gershman is right: “The case is among the most potentially consequential First Amendment battles pending in the courts, testing the limits on government scrutiny of social-media content on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other major platforms. Never before has a federal judge set such sweeping limits on how the federal government may communicate with online platforms.”

I wish I knew what Judge Doughty’s favorite tipple is. I’d like to buy him a case of it.

The Decline and Fall of Joe Biden

posted by Ward Clark at RedStateVIP 

It’s apparent to anyone who has been paying attention for the last few months that President Biden is failing and that his failure is accelerating. It’s to the point now where partisanship should be set aside and ordinary human decency should set in; the man is clearly not up to the job, his tendency to make odd, off-topic remarks increases by the day, and one has to wonder who is really pushing him to stay in office. He has spent 40 percent of his Presidency doing nothing, and he’s still failing.

Things have gotten serious enough that The Hill’s Douglas MacKinnon is pushing President Biden to drop out of the 2024 race, and the sooner the better.

Like a magician setting up a trick in one hand while distracting the audience with the other, the Biden White House and its allies are desperately trying to distract the attention of the American people from President Biden’s age, his obvious frailty and his increasing verbal and mental gaffes.

It has now gotten to the point where I have had a number of Democrats — including staunch supporters of the president — tell me it makes them “nervous,” “uncomfortable,” “sad” or gives them a feeling of “foreboding” anytime they watch President Biden speak in public, interact with guests or walk up or down the stairs to Air Force One.

I hesitate to give any advice to the Democrats that might help them retain the White House in 2024, but MacKinnon does not:

If Biden does drop out of the race, will he wait too long to do so? And, should that be the case, will Vice President Kamala Harris — whom few Democrats truly have confidence in — get crushed in the general election by the Republican nominee?

Timing is often as important as strategy. (President Lyndon) Johnson waited until the last day of March 1968 to drop out. If Biden dropped out now, he would give potential candidates like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg or even Michelle Obama an extra nine months to prepare for November 2024.

Honestly, that’s a pretty bad list of candidates. Like Mr. MacKinnon, I think Kamala Harris would be crushed by anyone the GOP ran. Governor Newsom? He’s popular in California. Well, he’s popular in the big coastal cities in California, but I don’t see him making it in a nationwide contest. Only last evening, I was speaking with a friend who lives up around Redding, in the “State of Jefferson” portion of California, and he maintains Newsom isn’t so popular there. I doubt Newsom’s schtick would play well in the hinterlands. Pete Buttigieg? Well, he might not be as weak a candidate as Kamala Harris. Maybe. Then again, he might be. And I really doubt Michelle Obama wants the job, as it would mean giving up her jet-setting around the world, not to mention long vacations touring the Greek islands. (Imagine that carbon footprint!)

Back to President Biden.

Ad for Alzheimer’s drug Leqembi. (Credit: Eisai)

I do agree that Joe Biden should withdraw, not only from the 2024 campaign but, frankly, from the Presidency. It’s abundantly clear that he’s not fit for office, and it seems more evidence of the Biden family’s corrupt business dealings surfaces by the day. That means, of course, elevating Kamala Harris to the top spot, which would be (at best) embarrassing. But we as Americans should be accustomed to being embarrassed by our elected officials by now. And being embarrassed at keeping a President seated at the Resolute Desk when he’s clearly failing mentally and physically is worse than being embarrassed at the elevation of a diversity-hire VP who is a walking embodiment of the Peter Principle.

Dr. Ben Carson has some thoughts on the matter as well.

The United States has become “sort of a laughingstock” because of President Joe Biden’s increasing gaffes, and it’s becoming a matter of national security, Dr. Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon and former Housing and Urban Development secretary, said on Newsmax Saturday.

“I talk to a lot of people in other countries, and everybody knows that this is not normal,” Carson, who served in former President Donald Trump’s administration, told Newsmax’s “The Count.” “People do age and have some declines, but this is beyond that.”

Ordinary human decency is one thing, but national security is quite another, and in this Dr. Carson makes a good point. This is a man that is ostensibly the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, he has his finger on the nuclear button, and he’s losing it. Day by day he is growing visibly worse. We are at the point where his continued presence in the Oval Office is not just embarrassing, it’s dangerous.

President Biden should either resign or be removed via the 25th Amendment. Enough is enough.

Ghost Guns and Inconvenient Truths

Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

“Ghost guns.” Even the term sounds scary. And it’s meant to sound scary; most of the anti-gun activist community depends on things sounding scary to make their point. Terms like “assault weapon,” or “high-capacity magazine,” or “cop-killer bullet,” or (and this is a golden oldie) “Saturday night specials.”

The problem is, on ghost guns, like so many other things, the gun-grabbers simply don’t know what they are talking about. Bearing Arms’ Tom Knighton has some details:

When a kid starts building models, the snap-together kits are a good place to start. They’re pretty easy to build, after all.

But so-called ghost guns aren’t snap-together models. They’re more involved, even if you buy a kit that comes with all the parts you need.

Of course, one would be shocked to learn that if what they know about these firearms came from CNN.

CNN decided to break the new information about the ghost guns used in the Philadelphia shooting over the weekend on Thursday’s CNN News Central by blaming the ghost gun manufacturers and distributers for the shooting. In addition to blaming these companies for this shooting, anchor Sara Sidner hosted former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on the show to essentially blame these companies for illegal gun ownership as well, since apparently they were “specifically…marketed to evade the law.”

Tom goes on to point out the major flaw in CNN’s argument:

Moreover, there’s literally nothing in those kits that people couldn’t get otherwise. They’re gun parts, all of which are readily available and aren’t subject to ATF control. The only part that’s considered a gun is the receiver, and even if you took out the “ghost gun” receivers you can buy online, this is the era of the 3D printer.

I’m sorry, but your efforts to control firearms are dead. Your efforts to stop so-called ghost guns are even more so.

All true. But there’s more to it than that.

I’ll set aside the Constitutional arguments for the moment, even though there are some very good ones to be made, especially in light of the recent Bruen decision. Instead, I’ll just describe some of the practical problems with the left’s bloviations about “ghost guns.”

Let’s talk about how banning anything always produces a black market for that product — always. We should have learned that during Prohibition, but apparently people still think blanket bans — on anything — can work. Even with guns, although the only effect any such laws would have would be on the law-abiding; in other words, the people who aren’t the problems. Criminals would still be able to get weapons on the booming black market that would quickly emerge.

The fact is, most guns really aren’t very complicated devices. The only real challenging part is producing a good-quality, rifled barrel that will deliver good accuracy, and frankly, the kind of people who are producing guns to sell to criminals on the black market aren’t very concerned with accuracy. But the balance of a typical firearm just isn’t anything complex or even new. Semi-auto rifles and handguns have been around since the late nineteenth century. Revolvers, since the 1830s. Most bolt-action rifles on the market today are derivations of the M-1898 Mauser. Lever-action rifles have been in production since before the Civil War. So these are well-known, well-established designs.

Forget 3D printing. Forget 80 percent receivers. Those may make the process easier, but that’s all. The simple fact is that anyone with a little training, a metal lathe, and a mill, can turn out a working firearm with nothing more than the machinery and some steel and aluminum blanks. No 80 percent anything, no 3D printer required. And some of the very simplest guns to produce are short, light, powerful pieces like the M3 Grease Gun, a compact submachine gun specifically designed to be cheap and easy to produce. Here’s one in action:

Designs for all these things are available, although I won’t post any links.

Gun-grabbers don’t know these things and aren’t interested in learning. They should, however, be aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. A vigorous black market in illegally fabricated guns could easily make criminals much more dangerous than they are already, even as the general, law-abiding citizens are disarmed. And if you want to see how that sort of thing works out, you need only look south of our southern border.

Less Than 3 Percent of Adults Are in Perfect Health: Study

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist 

More than 97 percent of American adults have at least one risk factor for an early death, according to new research from Canada’s York University.

In June, researchers published an analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys to assess mortality risk among adults 20 years and older. Scientists analyzed the surveys between two different periods of time — 1988-1994 and 1999-2014 — to examine risk factors ranging from obesity and chronic illness to lifestyle habits such as drug use and alcohol consumption.

“Over 97% of individuals had at least one of the 19 risk factors examined with no difference in the prevalence over time,” their report concluded. “The prevalence of individuals who are free of all of the 19 examined risk factors was less than 3%, at all time points.”

The kinds of risks that were present in 1988-1994 compared to 1999-2014, however, shifted from physiological risks such as cancer and lung problems to mental risks and lifestyle issues like sedentary movement.

Health professor Jennifer Kuk, the lead author of the study, said in a university press release that “you can take this as a good news story or a bad news story, depending on how you want to look at these numbers.”

“What we discovered is that the relationship with risk factors and mortality changes over time, which could be explained by factors such as evolution in treatments and changes in social stigma,” Kuk said. “Overall, most of us have something wrong with us, and we’re more likely to have a lifestyle health-risk factor now than in the ’80s and that’s actually associated with even greater mortality risk now than before.”

Lifestyle habits from excess sugar consumption to drug use often feed chronic illnesses leading to premature death. A paper published in the journal Population Studies from the University of Colorado Boulder earlier this year found obesity raises the risk of early mortality by as much as 90 percent. 

Nearly 42 percent of American adults aged 20 and older, meanwhile, were categorically obese between 2017 and 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Multiple studies published last year revealed Americans were in worse shape than previously thought at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. Just 1 in 7 adults enjoyed “good cardiometabolic health” in 2018, just two years before the public health emergency. Only 1 in 5 adults was considered to have “optimal heart health” based on the American Heart Association’s “Life’s Essential 8.”

New data from the U.S. Geological Survey this week is raising new concerns about the nation’s deteriorating health. Federal investigators found at least 45 percent of American tap water is likely contaminated with PFAS, known as “forever chemicals.” PFAS are synthetic chemicals found in everyday products such as cookware and food packaging. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has connected PFAS to obesity, cancer, and fertility issues. Last summer, the EPA issued a health advisory to raise the alarm on chemicals contaminating drinking water.

Another Study Reveals Social Contagion Behind Surge in LGBTQ+ Identifications

posted by Jeff Charles at RedStateVIP 

As much as progressives try to convince the rest of us that the rise in younger folks identifying as LGBTQ+ is perfectly natural and organic, data continues to emerge showing that there is more to this story. In this latest example, it becomes even more clear that societal forces are playing a much bigger role in this trend than folks on the hard left would have us believe.

New survey data from Brown University’s student newspaper suggests that the increase in identification as LGBTQ+ among students is driven by social pressures, with the percentage of non-heterosexual students almost tripling from 2010 to 2023.

The survey also revealed significant increases in other sexual orientations within the LGBTQ+ community. Critics argue that the idea of LGBT identification as a social contagion is controversial, but social pressure is acknowledged in other areas of behavior and lifestyle:

New survey data from Brown University’s student newspaper provides further evidence that the increase in LGBT identification is driven by social pressures.

The latest data show that between 2010 and 2023, identification as LGBTQ+ has almost tripled among the student body at Brown (from 14% in 2010 saying they were not heterosexual to 38% now). “The Herald’s Spring 2023 poll found that 38% of students do not identify as straight — over five times the national rate ,” The Brown Daily Herald reported. “Over the past decade, LGBTQ+ identification has increased across the nation, with especially sharp growth at Brown.”

Other sexual orientations have seen massive increases. “Since Fall 2010, Brown’s LGBTQ+ population has expanded considerably. The gay or lesbian population has increased by 26% and the percentage of students identifying as bisexual has increased by 232%,” the student newspaper reported. “Students identifying as other sexual orientations within the LGBTQ+ community have increased by 793%.”

Other studies have also shown that the rise in folks identifying as transgender, in particular, is largely influenced by society and environment. In her book “Irreversible Damage,” author Abigail Shrier referred to a 2018 United Kingdom study showing a 4,400 percent increase in the number of teenage girls seeking out gender treatments.

Amid widespread speculation about the social contagion theory, folks on the left are making the dubious claim that these increases are not influenced by society:

“Social contagion” is not driving an increasing number of adolescents to come out as transgender, according to a new study published Wednesday in the journal Pediatrics.

The study also found that the proportion of adolescents who were assigned female at birth and have come out as transgender also has not increased, which contradicts claims that adolescents whose birth sex is female are more susceptible to this so-called external influence.

“The hypothesis that transgender and gender diverse youth assigned female at birth identify as transgender due to social contagion does not hold up to scrutiny and should not be used to argue against the provision of gender-affirming medical care for adolescents,” study senior author Dr. Alex S. Keuroghlian, director of the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center at the Fenway Institute and the Massachusetts General Hospital Psychiatry Gender Identity Program, said in a statement.

Nevertheless, the past decade has witnessed a significant increase in the number of individuals identifying as LGBTQ+, particularly among transgender individuals. The rapidity of this surge suggests that social contagion plays a significant role. Dismissing the impact of social contagion in the LGBTQ+ identification process is an oversight, as evidence indicates that children and young adults experiencing gender dysphoria are being influenced by societal pressures to embrace transgenderism, often through the promotion of “gender-affirming care” in K-12 schools.

The concept of social contagion suggests that individuals may adopt certain behaviors, beliefs, or identities due to peer influence or societal pressure. In the case of LGBTQ+ identifications, there is mounting evidence that social contagion plays a significant role. They cite influences coming from school, friends, and social media as the top contributors to the trend.

Many children and young adults experiencing gender dysphoria are being encouraged to embrace transgenderism through the “gender-affirming care” model. This model often includes medical interventions, such as hormone treatments and surgeries, without sufficient exploration of underlying psychological factors. Progressives in the medical field have been pressuring professionals to push these treatments on minor children while rejecting the “watchful waiting” approach that was used previously. This involved using talk therapy to treat children suffering from gender dysphoria while waiting to see if they would grow out of it, as 79 percent of children typically do.

In K-12 schools, there is a concerted effort to promote transgenderism, sometimes even without parental consent. These influences can create an environment where vulnerable individuals may feel pressured to adopt a transgender identity, influenced by the desire for acceptance and validation.

Denying the influence of social contagion in the rise of LGBTQ+ identifications is both disingenuous and detrimental to an open and honest discussion on the matter. It is essential to differentiate between those who authentically identify as LGBTQ+ and those who may be influenced by societal pressures and peer influence. This is especially true when it comes to transgenderism in children.

Acknowledging the influence of social contagion does not mean disregarding the importance of acceptance and support for LGBTQ+ individuals. Instead, it calls for a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding gender identity and a more comprehensive approach to addressing gender dysphoria. Providing appropriate mental health resources, unbiased counseling, and a thorough exploration of underlying psychological factors can help ensure that individuals receive the care and support they need instead of subjecting these children to harmful “treatments” that cause damage that cannot be healed.

Sen. Ron Johnson's Battle for Transparency: Can We Trust Our Government Institutions?

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

The FBI and Justice Department have been under a lot of scrutiny lately over the onslaught of whistleblower testimonies alleging bias and corruption in these agencies.

Actually, let me rephrase that.

These two agencies have been under a lot of scrutiny lately from conservatives and libertarians who have questions about corruption and bias within their ranks. Folks on the left are looking the other way while whistling Dixie.

As more details emerge about these agencies, many are speculating as to how America could go about ridding the federal government of its apparent corruption. During an interview on Fox News with host Maria Bartiromo, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) expressed concern about the difficulty in determining potential misconduct by the Department of Justice and FBI because of procedures they’ve put in place specifically designed to shield themselves from scrutiny and accountability.

The lawmaker called for more whistleblowers to step forward and expose abuses of power within these agencies. Johnson highlighted the stark contrast in the allocation of resources and thoroughness between investigations targeting Republicans or Donald Trump compared to those involving Democrats, suggesting a potential bias.

“How are we ever going to get to the bottom of all of this if the people who are abusing power are still in power?” Bartiromo asked. “It’s the same with the Russia collusion story. All of those people who pushed Russia collusion aggressively are now — I mean, many of them are actually in Biden’s cabinet. Look at Jake Sullivan. He was the one pushing the story for Hillary Clinton. So what are we going to do, and what can you do as an elected official to ensure that this corruption is — is exposed?”

Johnson responded by explaining that Republicans “have to keep exposing the truth.”

He continued:

We need more whistleblowers coming forward. But they have done a really good job of setting up their procedures in the FBI, in the Department of Justice to insulate themselves from scrutiny. I mean, look at the letters that David Weiss sent to Jim Jordan in June 7 — June 7, June 30, basically giving Jim Jordan the middle finger: You can’t investigate us because we have an active investigation. That’s what they always use as an excuse. So they have insulated themselves from scrutiny. It’s very difficult. But one indication of the problem we have, in terms of the multiple-tier system of justice here, is Robert Mueller, in less than two years, spent $32 million on his special counsel investigation on a complete hoax, on a false narrative that the Biden — that the Obama administration knew was perpetrated by Hillary Clinton as a dirty trick, the Russian collusion with Trump hoax, 32 million bucks.

Sen. Johnson rightly points out that federal agencies, such as the FBI and the DOJ, have developed procedures that insulate them from scrutiny. These protections have created an environment conducive to abuses of power and the violation of natural rights. The lack of robust oversight mechanisms perpetuates a status quo that impedes meaningful accountability, allowing bad actors in the federal government to engage in all kinds of malfeasance.

Johnson’s efforts to expose these inherent protections and abuses of power are commendable. Shedding light on the issue is an essential step toward sparking a larger conversation about accountability. However, real change requires a more comprehensive approach that goes beyond individual exposés. It necessitates a collective effort to challenge the systemic flaws in our political and administrative structures.

Unfortunately, this means that reforming the federal government at this point is not possible. The rot has entrenched itself into the system, and even electing a decent president will not be enough to fix it. The government will continue its overreach and abuses as long as state and local governments do not have leaders willing to push back and nullify laws that violate natural rights.

Americans need to rediscover the importance of local governance and understand that electing leaders that are directly accountable to the public is the way to stop overreach at higher levels. Only when there are enough people in these positions can we hope to shrink the size of the federal government so that it can no longer be an intrusive force in the lives of everyday citizens.

Senator Johnson’s remarks have shed light on the built-in protections that federal agencies have established, making accountability a significant challenge. While his efforts to expose these issues are commendable, true change requires a collective commitment to reshaping the political landscape from the bottom up. By actively engaging in local politics, fostering community involvement, and demanding transparency, citizens can pave the way for a more accountable and responsive government. It is through these grassroots efforts that we can build a stronger democracy that upholds the principles of transparency, fairness, and the protection of individual rights.

Spain coast guard spots boat during search for missing migrant vessel

 

The Spanish coast guard says one of its aircraft has found a boat during a search for a vessel carrying migrants that went missing more than a week ago.

The boat was 71 miles (114km) south of Gran Canaria and had around 200 people on board, the coast guard said.

It added that one of its vessels has been sent to assist the rescue.

The aid group Walking Borders earlier said the fishing boat sailed from a coastal town in southern Senegal that is roughly 1,700km from Tenerife.

It said the vessel had 200 people on board when it left Kafountine on 27 June, heading for the Canary Islands. Many children were said to be on board.

Two similar boats carrying dozens more people are also said to be missing.

There are few details about the other two boats - however, Walking Borders told the BBC that one had about 65 people on board, the other up to 60.

The two smaller boats are thought to have left Senegal on 23 June - four days before the larger vessel.  

The news comes just weeks after Europe saw one of its worst Mediterranean migrant shipwrecks, when an overcrowded trawler sank off the Greek coast.

At least 78 people were confirmed drowned, but the United Nations (UN) reported that up to 500 were still missing.  

The voyage from West Africa to the Canary Islands is among the most dangerous routes for migrants, not least because they usually sail in simple dugout fishing boats that are easily tossed by powerful Atlantic currents.

Last year at least 559 people died at sea attempting to reach the Spanish islands, the UN's International Organisation for Migration (IOM) says. The death toll for 2021 was 1,126.

However, the IOM says information about the number of departures from West Africa is scarce and shipwrecks are often not reported.

It adds that the migrants are often from Morocco, Mali, Senegal, the Ivory Coast, or are of other sub-Saharan origins.

According to Spain's Interior Ministry, 15,682 people arrived in the Canary Islands without permission in 2022, a decrease of more than 30% compared to 2021.

"Despite the year-to-year decrease, flows along this dangerous route since 2020 remain high compared to prior years," the IOM says.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66150788

🌲 New details on Lori's new Christmas movie

 

Source: https://deadline.com/2023/07/great-american-family-lori-loughlin-christmas-movie-premiere-date-1235432820/

EXCLUSIVE: Great American Family has released details about its next Christmas movie featuring Lori Loughlin.

The Full House actress will star in Blessings of Christmas (working title), which will premiere as part of Great American Christmas that returns October 20. New holiday movies will premiere every Saturday and Sunday through the end of the year.

In Blessings of Christmas, Loughlin stars as renowned TV star Mandy Gilmore, who is saying goodbye to her hit culinary series, A World of Food, so she can travel the globe and dine in all 142 Michelin star restaurants. Before jetting to Paris, Mandy stops in Milwaukee with the deed to her deceased aunt’s food pantry, Angel’s Fare, recently purchased by adjacent business owner, Adam Carraway (James Tupper). It’s a simple transaction until pantry volunteer Otto Nessen (Jesse Hutch) reminds everyone that Aunt Susie’s love of cooking was actually love of feeding — which inspires one more holiday feast for those who need it most.

Loughlin’s last movie for GAF was Fall Into Winter, Loughlin’s first romantic comedy role since serving time behind bars in 2020 for the college admissions scandal. She previously appeared on GAF in When Hope Calls Christmas, which premiered on the network in December of 2021.

Blessings of Christmas is executive produced by Brad Krevoy, Amy Krell, Vince Balzano, Alfonso Moreno, Lori Loughlin, Susie Belzberg Krevoy, Jameson Parker, David Winning, Doran S. Chandler, Trevor McWhinney. Produced by Brian Dick. Supervising producer is Bradley Goodman. David Winning directs from an original screenplay Blessings of Christmas by Alfonso H. Moreno. Revisions by Andrea Stevens.

Treasury Secretary Yellen Won't Rule out Recession, Talks China but Doesn't Say Much

Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is in the midst of a busy trip to China, where, as my colleague Nick Arama reported, she got the official proceedings rolling by repeatedly bowing in front of Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in Beijing. Doesn’t exactly project a show of strength, does it?

She further embarrassed herself by getting his name wrong.

On Sunday, she spoke from Beijing to Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation” and talked about the U.S.-China relationship and our economic prospects. When will “economic growth will be back at a point like it was before the pandemic?” Brennan asked. I could have answered for Yellen—“when we get a new Republican president.”

Yellen had her own thoughts:

Well, you know, the [Trump] economy before the pandemic was operating at what I would describe as full employment, with very low unemployment growth- very low unemployment rates, and growth at moderate levels. When the pandemic struck, there was huge job loss and a contraction in our economy.

And as recovery took place, due to President Biden’s economic policies, and success with our vaccination effort, there was a very rapid, a dramatic rebound, the labor market recovered.

Biden’s economic policies?! The ones that have given rise to historic inflation? Meanwhile, I don’t know what success she’s talking about with the COVID vaccinations—they didn’t stop transmission as promised, and virtually no one wants the shots anymore. Lastly, the labor market recovered because the economy had been artificially stifled by draconian mandates and lockdowns at the federal and state level. The Biden administration finally ended the national state of emergency in April (months if not years after it should have been).

Brenna asked if the threat of a recession was off the table. Yellen indicated that it could still be coming:

It’s not completely off the table. But we would expect, with the job market as strong as it is now, to see a slower pace of ongoing job gains. Prime-age labor force participation is at the highest level in several decades, so we’ve seen this strong job market attract workers back to it. But as- as that stabilizes at a high level, we should expect the monthly job gains to be coming down toward a more normal level.

The economy has improved since the pandemic, this is true. However, Biden’s profligate spending jacked up inflation to such levels that many, if not most, Americans don’t feel that it’s doing all that great. In fact, a CNBC All-America Economic Survey conducted in April showed that a stunning 69 percent of respondents viewed the economy negatively. The same poll showed that 62 percent of Americans disapproved of how President Biden is handling the economy, while just 34 percent approved.

Yellen and Brennan also held an extensive talk about China and its desire to dominate the world stage. However, the treasury secretary mostly avoided specifics in her answers and dodged questions about the spy balloon and other CCP aggressive behavior. Instead, she painted a rosy picture of mutual cooperation:

Well, I participated in the meeting between President Xi and President Biden in Bali and on both sides, the sentiment that was expressed is that the world is big enough for both of our countries to thrive, to cooperate on shared global challenges, to have a meaningful economic relationship, and that we needed to stabilize our relationship to make sure that we were able to accomplish that.

Their conversation lasted more than 15 minutes, but Yellen was playing her cards close to the vest regarding China and talked in general terms, rarely offering specifics. I understand that she wanted to be diplomatic—and not call Chinese President Xi Jinping a dictator like her boss did recently—but what she didn’t project was strength.

She lost that battle the moment she started bowing to the Vice Premier.

Full interview: