Rep. Gonzalez Funded Racist Blog Attacks on GOP Opponent Maya Flores thumbnail

Rep. Gonzalez Funded Racist Blog Attacks on GOP Opponent Maya Flores

By Discover The Networks

A Texas blogger has levied a volley of racist attacks against Rep. Mayra Flores (R-TX) just days after receiving a payment from her general election opponent, far-left Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX), according to NBC News.

Gonzalez’s campaign provided $1,200 to the blog for “advertising services” on June 24, and yet no advertisements from Gonzalez run on the site. But within days, derogatory attacks began flowing, labeling Flores “Miss Frijoles,” “Miss Enchiladas,” “gringa hag,” a “cotton-pickin’ liar,” and other hate-mongering insults.

The posts came under a byline called “brownsville literary review,” a pseudonym for Jerry McHale, who published one of his latest racially-charged attacks against Flores on Monday:

We have gone through a variety of nicknames for a person who has been described as a cotton pickin’ liar. She hasn’t taken kindly to being called ‘Miss Frijoles’ or ‘Miss Menudo’ or ‘Miss Pozole’ or ‘Miss Enchiladas.’ In her opinion we at The McHale Report are blatant racists. She obviously has no concept of satire, particularly in the political arena. She might have an argument if we had called her ‘Miss Spic’ as a part of our campaign against her, but when did frijoles become the equivalent of the ‘N’ word?

Flores shot back in a tweet, asserting that her “far-left opponent, Vincent Gonzalez, hired a local blogger to run hateful & racist ads against me!”

“But, I love frijoles & I grew up eating frijoles. I am not embarrassed of my upbringings & frijoles w/tortillas de harina is simply the best. Here’s to Miss Frijoles 2022,” she added.

“Democrat Congressman Vicente Gonzalez is paying a liberal blogger to attack Congresswoman Mayra Flores,” Republican National Committee Communications Director Danielle Alvarez told Breitbart News. “These attacks are racist, disparage her Hispanic heritage, and target her sexually. Every Democrat must go on record condemning Vicente Gonzalez and his disgusting campaign tactics.”

But they won’t, of course, because Democrats are hypocritical bigots.


Vicente Gonzalez

4 Known Connections

In 2017 Gonzalez voted against HR 3004 (a.k.a. “Kate’s Law”), legislation that: (a) was named after Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman who had been shot and killed in 2015 by an illegal alien with numerous prior convictions and deportations on his record; and (b) called for more severe penalties for illegal aliens caught re-entering the U.S. after deportation.

Gonzalez supports the right of local government officials in sanctuary cities to refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Thus, in 2017 he voted against HR 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which proposed that federal funds be withheld from localities that practiced sanctuary policies…

To learn more about Vicente Gonzalez, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Report: Only 14% of Abrams’ Donations Have Come from GA

Defund Police Advocate Bush Spent $400K on Private Security

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

DOJ VIDEO: Exposé of what really happened on January 6th during the U.S. Capitol Protests thumbnail

DOJ VIDEO: Exposé of what really happened on January 6th during the U.S. Capitol Protests

By Dr. Rich Swier

This exposé is actually what happened to President Donald J. Trump and all those who supported him on January 6th, 2021. The surveillance video (below) is from the U.S. Department of Justice of Justice of what happened on the Upper West Terrace doors on January 6th.

You can actually see for yourself what really happened?

Corruption at its finest?

President Trump and his supporters were set up by our own government.

A black capital police officer killed Ashley Babbitt who was supporting President Trump yet he was never investigated, referred for prosecution or convicted by a jury of his peers of this crime.

WATCH: 

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

VIDEO: Ashli Babbitt Shooting Emails Released!

Ashli Babbitt Was Murdered by the Capitol Police

CNN Uses Ashli Babbitt to Paint Trump Supporters As Terrorists

Virtue-Signaling Pastors On The Religious Left And The Rapid Rise Of Communism In America thumbnail

Virtue-Signaling Pastors On The Religious Left And The Rapid Rise Of Communism In America

By John Eidson

Formerly known as “The Protestant Hour,” a religious radio program called Day 1 billed itself as an affiliation of what it referred to as “mainline” Protestant churches that embrace “the progressive worldview.” In other words, Day 1 is an affiliation of churches led by people who vote Democrat.

By describing itself as “mainline,” Day 1, unwittingly or otherwise, projected the scurrilous notion that churches not led by progressives—in other words, ones led by conservatives—are outside the Christian mainstream, and are therefore of suspect religious virtue.

(Note: Perhaps because I sent an earlier version of this article to several of its guest pastors, Day 1 no longer refers to itself as an affiliation of “mainline” churches led by progressives; it now self-identifies as an affiliation of “historic Protestant denominations that proclaim a positive, passionate faith for the real world.”)

Many sermons delivered by Day 1 guest pastors are steeped in religious virtue-signaling, especially on the politically charged issues of race, LGBTQ & transgender rights, illegal immigration and climate change. The often holier-than-thou undertone of Day 1’s guest pastors comes across loud and clear: we are morally superior Christians because we are tolerant and inclusive progressives; conservative Christians are not really Christians at all—they’re racists, bigots, white supremacists, homophobes, xenophobes, etc.

Day 1 guest pastors never come out and make such hateful accusations directly, but that is what they’ve been taught to believe by the identity politics election strategy of the political party they support. The Democrat presidential nominee in 2016 summed up the progressive view of conservative America when she denounced those who voted against her, including millions of devout Christians, as “a basket of deplorables.”

How has America come to have a branch of Christianity whose members see themselves as morally superior because of their political affiliation? The answer requires understanding the frightening extent to which Marxist ideology has been quietly infused throughout the entire spectrum of American society, including an uncomfortably large segment of organized religion.

In his best-selling book The Naked Communist, former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen listed 45 communist goals to subvert America from within. One of those goals calls on communist warriors to “Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with social religion.”

Revealed religion is religion based on Scripture. The communist concept of social religion teaches citizens to look to government, rather than to God, for their daily salvation. Scripture-based religion is about individual salvation. Social religion is about collective salvation, a concept that does not exist in Christianity.

In many churches on the religious left, the communist goal of replacing revealed religion with social religion has largely been accomplished, as evidenced by the constant refrain of progressive pastors who sanctimoniously sermonize about their undying commitment to the cause of “social justice,” as if their counterparts on the religious right couldn’t care less about a just and fair society.

Social justice is a progressive term used to describe justice within a society as meted out by a socialist government that allocates wealth, opportunity and privileges according to the Marxist directive “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

An innocuous-sounding term that suggests the utopian concept of fairness and equality for all, social justice and its pernicious offshoots—economic justice, housing justice, food justice, migration justice, health justice, climate justice, etc.—are progressive code talk for forced wealth redistribution, the central tenet of communism.

In pushing the alleged virtues of Marxism, social justice crusaders in progressive-led churches tell parishioners that socialism is about sharing, a subtle way of advancing the fallacious notion that socialists are morally superior because they believe in sharing. Christian sharing is a voluntary act of love; socialism is forcedsharing.

Since the 1960s, the tentacles of communism have snaked their way throughout the fabric of our culture, including its Judeo-Christian heritage. Marxist infiltration of America’s churches has had remarkable success on the religious left, where parishioners are taught the absurd notion that the values of socialism are in sync with the values of Christianity. Anyone who believes that need only ask Christians who fled the Soviet-dominated countries of Eastern Europe.

So who came up with the plan for Marxist warriors to infiltrate America’s churches? His name is Antonio Gramsci, a 1920s Italian communist known as a leading Marxist thinker of the 20th century. Disappointed that communists were unsuccessful at inciting a Bolshevik-style revolution in Italy, Gramsci came up with a plan to overturn capitalism in western countries by non-violent means. That under-the-radar plan is known as Cultural Marxism, the process of gradually infusing Marxist doctrine into a society through its culture.

Realizing that communism faces an uphill battle in Christian nations—where citizens look to God rather than government for their daily salvation—Gramsci developed a stratagem to assault and diminish Christianity in western societies. Part of that stratagem calls for infiltrating churches with closet Marxists who use deceit, manipulation and misinformation to quietly supplant revealed religion (religion based on Scripture) with the communist concept of social religion. Gramsci summarized his stratagem for subverting Christianity in western nations thusly:

“Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.”

Gramsci referred to his stratagem as “the long march through the institutions,” i.e. infiltrating a society’s cultural institutions and surreptitiously replacing their traditional values and principles with those of communism. Operating via stealth and deception, Gramsci’s disciples in this country have diligently labored to grind down every cultural institution in America, including its predominant religion, Christianity.

Gramscian Marxists have infiltrated the leadership of every major branch of Christianity, including the Catholic Church. In February 2020, Pope Francis announced his support for the Global Education Pact, a United Nations-backed initiative to usher in a “new humanism” under which God “withdraws” so “all of humankind can be free.”

Under the Pact, children of the world will be indoctrinated with social justice propaganda designed to pave the way for a New World Order under the banner of global communism.

Marxist infiltrators have seized control of the Vatican in a way that went virtually unnoticed by most Catholics until after the fact, just as Gramsci planned. Pretending to do God’s bidding, Marxist pastors hiding under the ecclesiastical robes of the Christian faith are knowingly subverting their professed religion from within.

In contemporary America, social religion is connected at the hip with social justice, a noble-sounding code term that’s self-righteously trumpeted by religious-left pastors who cleverly weave the universally failed promises of socialism into their sermons.

A false idol ideology pursued with religious fervor by its proponents, socialism is doomed to fail where ever it is tried, because it is in eternal mortal conflict with the basic human instinct that those who work hard, educate themselves, employ their ingenuity and risk their capital have an inborn expectation to do significantly better than those who don’t. That is an immutable human condition that will never change, even in the face of socialist lies propagated by virtue-signaling pastors on the religious left.

©John Edison. All rights reserved

Why Does the Left Seem More Committed to Death Than to Life? thumbnail

Why Does the Left Seem More Committed to Death Than to Life?

By Jerry Newcombe

Did you read in the news about the three mosques in the U.S. that were set on fire just the other weekend?

Did you hear in the mainstream media about the scores of attacks, including some firebombings, of the Planned Parenthood facilities by pro-life extremists?

Did you hear about the harassment of the pro-abortion politicians and judges for their pro-choice stance?

You didn’t? Neither did I, because none of those things happened. But the mainstream media has for the most part ignored the multiple churches and pro-life facilities that have been attacked in one way or another by pro-abortion forces in the last several weeks. Indeed, if they had been mosques or abortion providers, we would hear over and over about all this.

To add insult to injury, the loving services that the crisis pregnancy centers provide is being woefully distorted by many, including Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Senator Warren said last week: “In Massachusetts right now, those crisis pregnancy centers that are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help outnumber true abortion clinics by three to one. We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts, and we need to shut them down all around the country. You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that.”

Pregnancy centers “torture” women? How blind can these people be? The crisis pregnancy centers, now in the cross hairs of the left, provide loving alternatives to abortion.

Through no help of the government, they provide millions of dollars of services—at no charge to the mothers they serve.

Micaiah Bilger of lifenews.com reports that “$266 million of free medical services and resources” are provided per year by these pregnancy centers.

The attack against pro-life churches and facilities was highlighted in the Capitol recently by Congressman Jim Jordan who read a litany of the dozens of attacks since the May 2 leak of the draft of the Dobbs decision. Yet a majority in the House of Representatives just voted against a measure to condemn these attacks.

Recently I spoke on a radio segment with Jim Harden, the president of Compass Care, a ministry that helps women with crisis pregnancies. Their center in Buffalo (technically, Amherst), New York, was firebombed on June 7th, and he told me that the perpetrators were “the pro-abortion terrorist group known as Jane’s Revenge. They’ve taken responsibility for scores of attacks on pro-life organizations since the leak of the Dobbs case.”

I asked Harden, isn’t it illegal to firebomb any building—say a candy factory, much less a charity providing loving services to those in need (although the left doesn’t view it as charity)? He answered, “An arson attack is just below murder in the criminal justice system because it carries too much potential damage and threat to life.”

He told our listeners that so far there have been no leads from the police or the FBI as to suspects. He said that friends in nearby offices were able to provide office space so that Compass Care could continue to serve the mothers in need. They did not miss a day serving, despite the firebombing.

In a follow-up call this week, he told me there have now been, all over the nation, “over 100 attacks where prolife people gather, with no arrests to date.”

His organization is dedicated to rebuilding the facility, which had to be gutted, costing $300,000-$400,000.

Crisis pregnancy centers are doing the Lord’s work, but today it is “open season” on them, thanks in part to the Marxist organization, “Jane’s Revenge.”

Meanwhile, there has been an on-going harassment against pro-life justices of the Supreme Court. These were illegal acts when the pro-death party was trying to intimidate them to change their opinion.

Now the left is even going after pro-life individuals at home.

Writer Alicia Powe notes, “An attorney who founded the Thomas More Society, a conservative Catholic law firm, was attacked as abortion activists threw smoke bombs and firecrackers at his house following the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade. The insurgents surrounded the home of pro-life lawyer Thomas Brejcha, in Evanston, Illinois.”

I’ve interviewed Tom Brejcha through the years. He once said of the pro-life cause in general: “This is a spiritual battle. This is not just a legal battle. And prayer is the ultimate resource. We need divine intervention…This is God’s work to protect the dignity and value of every human being.”

Is this the America the left is bringing to us, where the full force of government is on the side of death? This is indeed a spiritual battle. Our founders said that our first right granted by the Creator is the “right to life.”

But the left seems more committed to death than life.

©Jerry Newcombe, D. Min. All rights reserved.

America’s Corrupt Two-Tier Justice System thumbnail

America’s Corrupt Two-Tier Justice System

By The Geller Report

We are living under illegitimate banana republic style justice system, one for Republicans and one for Democrats. Conservatives get the book thrown at them while the progressives walk.

This destruction of our justice system is leading the downfall of our Republic.

America’s Insanely Two-Tiered Justice System Perfectly Encapsulated in Sentencing of Antifa Arsonist

By Bonchie | RedState, July 19, 2022:

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. A Black Lives Matter rioter gets off with a light sentence after doing something objectively worse than just about everyone who walked into the Capitol Building on January 6th.

This latest example may take the cake, though. Ayoub Tabri traveled from Alexandria, VA, to Philidelphia, PA, in 2020, torching a police car during the Black Lives Matter riots that occurred. That’s where a blatant example of America’s two-tiered justice system begins.

First, the government struck a sweetheart deal with Tabri, as they have with past Antifa arsonists (including the two lawyers who threw Molotov cocktails at cops), ensuring that he wouldn’t have to serve the mandatory seven-year minimum sentence. Already, that’d showed the DOJ was willing to work with violent BLM protesters in ways they refuse to work with even non-violent January 6th protesters, many of whom entered the Capitol out of confusion.

Prosecutors then requested an intermediate sentence of 37-46 months. Yet, Tabri didn’t even get that. Instead, the judge handling the case gave him just 364 days, amounting to less than a year for torching a police car during a riot. Meanwhile, grandmas who took selfies on January 6th believing they were allowed to be in the Capitol got more than that in solitary confinement.

But trust me, it gets worse when you find out the reason why that extremely lenient sentence was given. The following tweets have the official documents posted, but for more sourcing, see this piece from The Philadelphia Inquirer.

You see, Tabri holds a green card via the government’s lottery system, which is an insane idea in its own right. Why would the United States be giving out legal entry permits to people from foreign nations based on pulling names out of a hat? That seems rather dangerous and unfair.

But I digress, the defense argued that giving Tabri over 364 days would result in the revocation of his green card and lead to his deportation. To which any normal response would be “so what?” The judge agreed with the reasoning, though, sentencing Tabri in a way that would ensure it wouldn’t qualify as an aggravated felony under federal law and making sure he could remain in the country.

In other words, a violent arsonist who torched a police car during the BLM riots received an incredibly lenient sentence specifically because of his immigration status. Being an American citizen now denotes fewer rights than being a felonious immigrant. If that’s not a perfect encapsulation of the two-tiered justice system, then nothing is.

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Painful To Watch’: RNC Drops Montage Of Biden’s Stammers, Stutters, And Stops thumbnail

‘Painful To Watch’: RNC Drops Montage Of Biden’s Stammers, Stutters, And Stops

By The Geller Report

The Biden Administration will be remembered as one of the worst tragedies in American history. Rest assured, our adversaries are watching.

100 seconds of Joe Biden showing he’s totally fit to be president. pic.twitter.com/o0JBRgEhWA

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 18, 2022

‘Painful To Watch’: RNC Drops Montage Of Biden’s Stammers, Stutters, And Stops

By Daily Wire, July 19, 2022

The Republican National Committee dropped a damning montage Monday, showcasing some of President Joe Biden’s worst verbal miscues during his presidency so far.

The RNC Research Twitter account posted the one and a half-minute clip Monday morning, showing just a handful of times Biden stammered, stuttered, or simply stopped talking during a speech or while answering questions from the press. The montage comes as Biden comes under increasing scrutiny for his routine gaffes during public events.

AUTHOR

Geller Report Staff

RELATED TWEET:

Joe Biden leaves crowd STUNNED and wondering whether he’s just battling with the teleprompter AGAIN when he announces he has CANCER:

“That’s why I, and so damn many other people I grew up with, have cancer.”

pic.twitter.com/RuN2hquQtc

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 20, 2022

RELATED ARTICLES:

Nazi Collaborator Soros Contributes $1 Million to Beto O’Rourke’s Campaign to Unseat Texas Gov. Abbott

Prince Harry’s U.N. Speech ‘Wildly Insulting’ to Americans, TORN APART on Social Media -‘Go Home, Little boy!’

Biden Regime Booting Immigration Judges Who Enforce The Law

HYPOCRITE: John Kerry’s family private jet emitted over 300 metric tons of carbon since Biden took office

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Green Energy Threatens Reliability of Texas, US Electric Grids thumbnail

Green Energy Threatens Reliability of Texas, US Electric Grids

By Bill Peacock

Texans might be forgiven for thinking they have it better than the Brits when it comes to keeping the lights on. After all, they live in the energy capital of the world. However, the destructive nature of renewable energy like that used in Great Britain knows no borders, especially when American politicians push subsidies and mandates to force us off fossil fuels, threatening not just Texas but the entire U.S. electric grid.

Just a few days after the British were warned they might have to lower their thermostats and delay their dinners this winter to avoid blackouts, Texans were advised last Monday and Wednesday to conserve energy as summer temperatures peaked.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the grid manager for most of Texas, issued a conservation appeal to Texans and Texas businesses as last week’s temperatures were expected to top 105 degrees.

Yet the high temperatures were not all that unusual for Texas this summer. So even though demand was pushing to near-record levels, the primary reason for the call for conservation was “wind generation [that] is currently generating significantly less than what it historically generated in this time period.” On Wednesday, some forced traditional outages and lower solar output (due to West Texas cloud cover) also contributed.

Renewables—wind and solar—have come to dominate Texas’s electricity market. For years, coal and natural gas had been the leading sources of electric generation. Over the last two years, though, renewables have topped both, with wind leading the way.

But not last week.

Since the push for renewables in Texas began in 1999, electric generators have spent about $66 billion building wind and solar farms that have a generation capacity today of 46,949 megawatts, with wind accounting for 35,162 of those megawatts.

Yet as temperatures and Texans’ need for electricity were soaring, wind turbines across the state were still; and last Monday, they were producing about only 8% of their installed capacity. Operating reserves—the backup generation needed to keep air conditioners blowing and factories working—were shrinking.

Something very similar happened last year during the unprecedented 2021 blackouts when 10 million Texans went without power and 12 million without water, many for several days, during freezing temperatures. Energy analyst Robert Bryce noted at the time, “Roughly 17% of [wind’s installed] capacity was available when the grid operator was shedding load to prevent the state’s grid from going dark.”

It should also be pointed out that solar’s contribution to the grid during those pre-dawn hours was zero.

Thankfully, last Monday and Wednesday, the Texas grid did not fail. The wind began to pick up in the afternoons, allowing the state to avoid any blackouts. Yet the lesson learned is clear: During periods of extreme cold and heat, Texans have become deeply dependent on the wind and the sun to keep the lights on.

Why did energy-savvy Texas build an electric grid dependent on such unreliable energy sources? The answer is simple: Since 2005, renewable energy subsidies and benefits from federal, state, and local governments have totaled about $23 billion in Texas. As a result, investors have thrown $66 billion at renewables, chasing $1 of guaranteed return for every $3 invested, regardless of the price they get for their electricity.

Additionally, the Biden administration is doing everything it can to make investments in fossil fuels unprofitable. From bans on pipelines and drilling to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed rule on environmental, social, and governance investing that would force businesses to disclose uncertain risks due to climate change, it is becoming more difficult and expensive to run afoul of the green agenda.

Despite these costs, renewables are still far more expensive and less efficient in practice than fossil fuels and nuclear energy. For instance, with wind operating at only 8% of installed capacity last Monday, about $51 billion of the $56 billion invested in Texas wind turbines produced nothing just when Texans needed power most. While investors profited, Texas consumers and taxpayers were paying billions for a grid on the verge of blackouts.

On the other hand, imagine if the $56 billion spent on wind had been invested in reliable generation from coal, natural gas, or nuclear fuel. With those sources operating at 90% or more of capacity, no calls for conservation would have been issued last week, electricity prices would be lower in general, and Texans would be working and resting comfortably without a regular fear of grid failure.

Of course, Texans are not the only people experiencing these problems. The reliability of the entire U.S. electric grid is under pressure as it is being forced by irresponsible politicians and bureaucrats to shift away from fossil fuels to renewables. Energy trader Brynne Kelly recently said, “Problems with power grids across the U.S. and other countries are a potential catalyst for chaos in energy markets that are underappreciated.”

Bryce explains that the push for renewables is doomed to failure for the simple reason that they are ancient technologies that have long been eclipsed by more reliable alternatives:

By using hydrocarbons (at first coal, then later oil and natural gas) humans were able to harness ever increasing quantities of power and do so in ever-denser packages. In place of animal power, sun power, and wind power, factories began using advanced waterwheels and coal-fired steam engines.

The only reason wind and solar have made a comeback in the United States is because of government mandates and the more than $140 billion in government subsidies renewables have received in recent years.

There is still hope, however, that Americans won’t have to experience the energy poverty and forced lifestyle changes of our British neighbors. The solution for avoiding this is straightforward: End the subsidies and mandates, and renewables will go the way of the horse and buggy.

*****

This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

GODLESS: 47 Republicans Join All Democrats to Legalize Sodomy thumbnail

GODLESS: 47 Republicans Join All Democrats to Legalize Sodomy

By Dr. Rich Swier

The Prophet (Mohammed, peace be upon him) said:If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done’. — Narrated By Abdullah ibn Abbas


We have written that sodomy is a mortal sin and that it is time to reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644. On June 25th in a column titled With Roe Aborted It’s Time to Reconsider SCOTUS’ Gay Marriage & Sodomy Rulings we wrote:

Like Roe v. Wadewe believe Obergefell v. Hodges and Lawrence v. Texas are demonstrably erroneous and issues to be decided via the democratic process at the state level.

It appears that Justice Clarence Thomas agrees with us that Obergefell v. Hodges because he, like we, fundamentally disagree with the concept of “substantive due process“—that “due process” protects not just procedures but fundamental rights—has a constitutional foundation. Justice Thomas has a history of arguing that the Due Process Clause does not actually guarantee rights but rather protects that proper procedures are followed.

Justice Thomas wrote:

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana…(THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment)…we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States…(2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring)….After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

For Congress to mandate that states give special rights to one group over another is tyrannical and violates substantive due process in the U.S. Constitution.

In our December 15th, 2019 article Decadent Democrats — From Pedophilia to Sex with Animals we reported:

The Democratic Party has devolved into the party of decadence. We are seeing transgender story hours in public libraries, the sexualization of children in our public schools, the promotion of the LGBTQ agenda, transgender athletes competing in women’s sports and, for the first time in our history, an openly gay candidate running for the Democratic nomination for president.

Decadence is becoming systemic and dangerous. Our heterosexual culture is under attack on all fronts. The fundamental idea of marriage between one man and one woman is now considered “homophobic” and hate speech. The age for legal marriage is going down in state after state. According to Wikipedia:

As of May 2019, in all but two states, a minor can marry with parental consent or with judicial authorization, with the minimum marriage age, when all exemptions are taken into account, being as low as 14, and potentially lower.

As Mark Dysan wrote in The Evil Trance, “Everyone can be corrupted, even the great and the good.”

It is time for those who are good to end the corruption of our social and moral values.

Here are the corrupt and immoral 47 Republicans who voted along with every corrupt and immoral Democrat in the House to legalize sodomy:

  1. Reps. Kelly Armstrong (N.D.),
  2. Don Bacon (Neb.),
  3. Cliff Bentz (Ore.),
  4. Ken Calvert (Calif.),
  5. Kat Cammack (Fla.),
  6. Mike Carey (Ohio),
  7. Liz Cheney (Wyo.),
  8. John Curtis (Utah),
  9. Rodney Davis (Ill.),
  10. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.),
  11. Tom Emmer (Minn.),
  12. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.),
  13. Andrew Garbarino (N.Y.),
  14. Mike Garcia (Calif.),
  15. Carlos Gimenez (Fla.),
  16. Tony Gonzales (Texas),
  17. Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio),
  18. Ashley Hinson (Iowa),
  19. Darrell Issa (Calif.),
  20. Chris Jacobs (N.Y.),
  21. David Joyce (Ohio),
  22. John Katko (N.Y.),
  23. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.),
  24. Nancy Mace (S.C.),
  25. Nicole Malliotakis (N.Y.),
  26. Brian Mast (Fla.),
  27. Peter Meijer (Mich.),
  28. Dan Meuser (Pa.),
  29. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa),
  30. Blake Moore (Utah),
  31. Dan Newhouse (Wash.),
  32. Jay Obernolte (Calif.),
  33. Burgess Owens (Utah),
  34. Scott Perry (Pa.),
  35. Tom Rice (S.C.),
  36. Maria Elvira Salazar (Fla.),
  37. Mike Simpson (Idaho),
  38. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.),
  39. Bryan Steil (Wis.),
  40. Chris Stewart (Utah),
  41. Mike Turner (Ohio),
  42. Fred Upton (Mich.),
  43. David Valadao (Calif.),
  44. Jefferson Van Drew (N.J.),
  45. Ann Wagner (Mo.),
  46. Michael Waltz (Fla.)
  47. Lee Zeldin (N.Y.).

The Bottom Line

The dual issues of sodomy and gay marriage have impacted our culture, society and our children and grand children.

Since Obergefell v. Hodges  and Lawrence v. Texas were decided we have witnessed a juggernaut of efforts to normalize the unscientific premises that gay marriage and sodomy are  normal. That traditional marriage between one man and one woman and their biological children, the bedrock of all cultures, is abnormal.

These dual myths are being promoted from the school house to the White House. 

In our September 16th, 2017 column “Perverts, pedophiles and pederasts in high offices” we reported:

Daily Americans are bombarded with negative news about political and religious leaders who have fallen from grace. This has led to a loss of confidence in not only these individuals but the institutions, political parties and churches through which they used their positions of trust to abuse underage children.

Our title includes three distinct classes of abusers. A pervert is, “a person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.” This category includes both heterosexual and homosexual men and women. A pedophile is, “a person who is sexually attracted to children.” A pederast is, “a man who indulges in pederasty (sexual activity involving a man and a boy).” All pederasts are by definition homosexuals.

We have reported on efforts by groups such as B4U-ACT and the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to indoctrinate our children into believing that sex with men by children is not only normal but encouraged (watch the below video for a history of these two groups).

We must do the right thing and focus now on overturning Obergefell v. Hodges as well as Lawrence v. Texas.

In 2017 we warned, “There are many who fear being labeled bigots, homophobic or intolerant for telling the truth about these perverts, pedophiles and pederasts.

Today we see parents who object to teachers promoting and teaching about sex and gender in public schools, sexuality and homosexuality in public school classrooms, pornographic books in public school media centers and the grooming of children in public schools labeled terrorist by the Department of Justice.

The myths of diversity, inclusion and equity are destroying the traditional family and Western Civilization. It’s time that pro-family and pro-life groups join together to attack those two social evils: gay marriage and sodomy.

It’s time to tell the truth and empower parents and the democratic process to weed out these myths that have destroyed so many lives and families.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

America College of Pediatricians Says Encouraging Transgenderism is Child Abuse

House Passes Bill Mandating States Recognize Gay Marriage

When a Quarter of the Class Identifies as Trans thumbnail

When a Quarter of the Class Identifies as Trans

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

No, I am not making this up.


A quarter of the girls in my daughter’s class identify as transgender. Seven out of 28.

When I said that on Twitter recently, I was roundly attacked for being a TERF who makes up ridiculous stories to harm trans people.

While I may be a TERF, I did not make this up. A quarter of the girls in my kid’s class identify as boys. One of them has had four names this year, all from anime series.

I keep seeing people say, both on the hell-site Twitter and in the popular media, that the trans population is a tiny minority, less than 0.1% of the population. If that is true, what is going on at my child’s school? What has made the number of trans-identified girls in one year group grow from a constant zero pre-pandemic, to 25% now?

Here’s my theory, and I know that this will be a familiar story for many parents.

The first issue is with what the school is teaching children. My daughter’s trans identity started when the school taught a module on “identity” during which they told a group of 11-year-olds that, if you feel uncomfortable in your body, it means you are transgender. My daughter had just had her first period two months prior to this class. Of course she was feeling uncomfortable in her body. She went home, looked up “transgender” on Tiktok, and that was it. She was now trans.

The second issue is a related one, and that is to do with the school’s non-stop celebration of LGBTQI+ identities. I used to be proud that my children attended a progressive school that is anti-racist, inclusive, and believes in social justice. We chose the school for these qualities. But in the last two to three years, this has meant a relentless stream of identity flags and rainbows. Transgender “heroes” like Jazz Jennings are worked into any part of the curriculum that they even vaguely fit. This is a school for kids aged 9 to 13. I’m no prude, but I also don’t think a constant parade of sexual politics is appropriate for such young children.

The third issue is with how the school is approaching the children “coming out”. Their official policy seems to be to just go with whatever the kids say without informing the parents. If a child says they have a new name and pronouns, the school just rolls with it—and they create the scenario where an already distressed child ends up cycling through four names in six months.

(I say it “seems to be” the policy, because this policy is nowhere written down or official. My child’s name and pronouns were changed by the school without my knowledge. We didn’t get so much as a phone call, when we have been at the school for years, we know the teachers well, and we have been active members of the school community.)

None of this would matter if it was just about flags and fun identities. But it is not. For my daughter, the name and pronoun change (which we foolishly went along with, on the advice of a therapist) was a tipping point into depression and self-harm. It has made her miserable.

When I spoke to the school about the harm they are doing, they would not hear it. They told me that they celebrate all identities, that they pride themselves on being inclusive. They cannot see the transgender issue as anything other than fun flags and inclusivity and respect. They do not see the dark side that we parents do: we are trying to protect our kids from bone-crushing puberty blockers; from taking cross-sex hormones when they’re too young to have had sex; from having radical surgery on their developing bodies. Some days it feels like we are holding back a tsunami.

I regularly speak to the parents of the other girls. Everyone has had a different response: some have started to medicalise, others are against it; some have bought binders, others not; some have gone with the name changes, others are resisting. The one thing that all the parents share is a sense of bafflement. What the hell is going on here? Why is a quarter of the girls in the class identifying as trans?

“I guess in the 90s, a lot of us were in anorexic friend groups,” said one mother. I think the similarities are striking, but there is one major difference: in the 90s, no medical professionals were encouraging these groups of girls in their skewed perceptions of their bodies, and their self-harm. No school celebrated anorexia. But this time, the doctors and schools are helping the anorexics to diet.

This article has been republished with permission from Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans (PITT).

Data Show California Is a Living Example of the Good Intentions Fallacy thumbnail

Data Show California Is a Living Example of the Good Intentions Fallacy

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

“Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.”


During a speech at Harvard several years ago, Charlie Munger related a story about a surgeon who removed “bushel baskets full of normal gallbladders” from patients. The doctor was eventually removed, but much later than he should have been.

Munger, the vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, wondered what motivated the doctor, so he asked a surgeon who participated in the removal of the physician.

“He thought that the gallbladder was the source of all medical evil, and if you really love your patients, you couldn’t get that organ out rapidly enough,” the physician explained.

The doctor was not motivated by profit or sadism; he very much believed he was doing right.

The anecdote is a perfect illustration of the righteousness fallacy, which Barry Brownstein noted is rampant in modern politics and a key driver of democratic socialism.

The Righteousness Fallacy (also known as the fallacy of good intentions) is described by author Dr. Bo Bennett as the idea that one is correct because their intentions are pure.

It recently occurred to me that California is a perfect example of this fallacy. Consider these three facts about the Golden State:

  1. California spends about $98.5 billion annually on welfare—the most in the US—but has the highest poverty rate in America.
  2. California has the highest income tax rate in the US, at 13.3 percent, but the fourth greatest income inequality of the 50 states.
  3. California has one of the most regulated housing markets in America, yet it has the highest homeless population in American and ranks 49th (per capita) in housing supply.

That politicians would persist with harmful policies should come as little surprise. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once observed the uncanny proclivity of politicians “to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

In his book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman described the danger of such thinking.

[The threat comes] … from men of good intentions and good will who wish to reform us. Impatient with the slowness of persuasion and example to achieve the great social changes they envision, they’re anxious to use the power of the state to achieve their ends and confident in their ability to do so. Yet… Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.

I don’t doubt that California lawmakers, like the physician who was removing healthy gall bladders, believe they are doing the right thing. Yet they, like the physician, need to wake up to reality and realize they aren’t making people better.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Federal Plan to Save Local Government Jobs Cost $800,000 Per Job Annually, Economic Paper Finds thumbnail

Federal Plan to Save Local Government Jobs Cost $800,000 Per Job Annually, Economic Paper Finds

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Why was the program so wasteful? The answer is surprisingly simple.


We’re finding out more every day about the true cost of Covid-19 policies.

Economists Jeffrey Clemens, Philip G. Hoxie & Stan Veuger recently released a paper titled Was Pandemic Fiscal Relief Effective Fiscal Stimulus? Evidence from Aid to State and Local Governments.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper examines whether Covid stimulus was effective at the stated goal of preserving jobs in state and local government.

The results will be surprising to many.

The authors find that federal aid to state and local governments to save jobs was incredibly ineffective.

In fact, this program was even more inefficient than the notoriously inefficient Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).

Jon Miltimore recently wrote for FEE on the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis’ harsh critique of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). One highlight of the Federal Reserve’s report is the cost for each job-year saved with the PPP was incredibly expensive.

But as Clemens and co-authors point out, “[t]he PPP, which has itself been criticized for having a modest job-preserving impacts per dollar spent, has been estimated to cost much less per job year saved” when compared to the stimulus to local government.

So the PPP, despite being very expensive per job-year saved, was much less expensive than the federal spending intended to preserve local and state government jobs. How much less?

The PPP was estimated to have cost somewhere from $169,000 to $258,000 per job each year. This program to save state and local government jobs cost in the range of $433,000 to $855,000 per job each year. This is as much as 5x more waste!

This is a staggering amount to spend on preserving jobs, which begs the question, why was the program so wasteful?

The average salary for a state government worker is less than $100,000 even in the highest paying states according to ZipRecruiter. For the same amount of money it cost to preserve a single job, government could have created 8 jobs with a $100,000 salary digging holes in the ground.

So how did the government spend more than $800,000 per job to save jobs which normally pay five figures?

To understand why, consider the other institutions which support most of the employment in our society: businesses.

Firms would never be willing to spend $800,000 to preserve a worker who is usually only paid $100,000. Why?

Well, a business engaging in an ineffective and wasteful policy like this would make a loss on each worker and go out of business.

When the cost of a worker exceeds the value of what they produce (as judged by customers), private companies will lose money by hiring the worker. This mechanism ensures businesses don’t pay owners of resources (in this case labor) more than society values them.

Defenders of government policy here could argue that government is trying to fulfill a different role than business. Perhaps it’s the job of government to ensure steady employment in troubling times.

The problem with this line of thinking is it assumes jobs in and of themselves are good. But, as many great economists have noted, this belief is wrong.

Consider an exchange economist Milton Friedman had as documented by the American Enterprise Institute:

While traveling by car during one of his many overseas travels, Professor Milton Friedman spotted scores of road builders moving earth with shovels instead of modern machinery. When he asked why powerful equipment wasn’t used instead of so many laborers, his host told him it was to keep employment high in the construction industry. If they used tractors or modern road building equipment, fewer people would have jobs was his host’s logic.

“Then instead of shovels, why don’t you give them spoons and create even more jobs?” Friedman inquired.

The point of the story is clear. It’s possible for jobs to be wasteful. And government is particularly prone to generating these wasteful jobs.

Economist Anne Bradley explains why:

Jobs created through market competition are much more likely than government jobs to foster entrepreneurial thinking, discoveries, and the products and services that make people’s lives better at increasingly lower costs. This is not because government jobs are filled with bad or lazy people, but because the government does not operate under the self-correction mechanism that profits and losses provide.

The complete failure of Covid economic policy becomes clearer as more programs like this are examined.

Without a mechanism like profit and loss to evaluate the value of alternative options, we are left with a policy which spends nearly a million dollars to preserve a single job with a salary less than one tenth of that.

We can only hope future government programs are scrutinized more carefully given the wasteful policies generated at every turn.

AUTHOR

Peter Jacobsen

Peter Jacobsen teaches economics at Ottawa University where he holds the positions of Assistant Professor and Gwartney Professor of Economic Education and Research at the Gwartney Institute. He received his graduate education George Mason University and received his undergraduate education Southeast Missouri State University. His research interest is at the intersection of political economy, development economics, and population economics. His website can be found here.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Can Republicans Retake the Senate? thumbnail

VIDEO: Can Republicans Retake the Senate?

By Church Militant

Recent Senate projections show an uphill climb for Republicans. However, that’s far from a guarantee for the Democrats.

In tonight’s In-Depth Report, Church Militant’s Joseph Enders breaks down the current chances of the GOP winning back the Senate.

The United States Senate is up for grabs in November. Thirty-four states are holding Senate elections this cycle, and RealClearPolitics is already predicting Republicans will wind up with 47 seats to the Democrats’ 46. This means seven seats are up for grabs. But three of these toss-up states — New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Arizona — have yet to hold their primary elections.

Jim Ellis: “It’s really hard to predict what’s going to happen because three of the states haven’t had primaries and there are contested primaries in each — Arizona and Wisconsin in August and New Hampshire in September.”

In Wisconsin, Republican incumbent Ron Johnson is fighting for his seat against leading primary challenger Mandela Barnes.

Jim Ellis: “He is one of the more underestimated candidates in the Republican stable. Back in 2016, he was supposed to lose to former senator Russ Feingold, who he had defeated in 2010. There were 33 polls conducted. Ron Johnson was losing in 32 of the 33, but won by three points.”

In Arizona, Trump-endorsed Blake Masters is up 10 points in GOP primary polls, but there is no recent polling on whether Masters can oust Democrat incumbent Mark Kelly.

Jim Ellis: “This is one of the premier contests in the whole country that will help determine which party will hold the majority in the new Congress, and all eyes will be on Arizona after that Aug. 2 primary.”

In New Hampshire, the most recent data has Republican Chuck Morse two points ahead of incumbent Democrat Maggie Hassan.

Jim Ellis: “They have the latest primary of all. The Republicans won’t have a nominee until Sept. 13. The state Senate president Chuck Morse is the leader right now, but it is a crowded field. I think Sen. Hassan is one of the most vulnerable Democrats on the ballot this year.”

With Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote, the upper chamber currently breaks 51 to 50 for the Democrats.

Jim Ellis: “The Senate is going to come down to one or two seats either way. And it’s very important as to which party has the majority. … But having that majority to control the agenda — to control the timing and to set the stage for 2024 presidential campaign — is extremely important.”

Though Republicans have more seats to protect in 2022, the Democrats’ slumping popularity provides a unique chance for the GOP to win back all of Congress on Election Day.

AUTHOR

Joseph Enders

RELATED ARTICLE: RED CONGRESSMEN VS. BLOODY DEMOCRATS

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Church Militant (a 501(c)4 corporation) is responsible for the content of this commentary.

Both Sides Raising the Stakes in Election Process thumbnail

Both Sides Raising the Stakes in Election Process

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

Georgia prosecutors are investigating all 16 Trump alternate electors in the 2020 election for alleged subversion of the Electoral College.  Critics say the alternate electors were following the established constitutional process for challenging disputed elections.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are ramping up an effort to commandeer the election machinery by getting Democrats voted in as elections officials all across the country. This is a new $80 million effort and it’s patterned after George Soros’ multi-million effort to get left-wing Secretaries of State and out-of-control progressive prosecutors who won’t prosecute into office.  The new effort is called ‘Clerk Work’ and it’s being spearheaded by the Run for Something PAC headed by a former Hillary Clinton campaign staffer.  The $80 million is coming from a Hillary Clinton-affiliated (c)(4), Chan Zuckerberg, LinkedIn, ActBlue, and others.  This follows another recently announced $80 million Democrat effort – the Alliance for Election Excellence – to schmooze local elections officials and give them ‘advice’.   One of the participants – the Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life – teaches elections officials how to conspire with each other and the media.  Which could explain the recent spate of stories about how elections officials feel, oh so threatened by those mean Republicans.

But Team Red is also raising the stakes in the election process.  It was just announced a Constitutional Sheriffs association is teaming up with True the Vote to investigate election fraud claims in the 2020 presidential election and future elections.  Obama’s IRS couldn’t kill True the Vote and the organization is fresh off a stunning success with its ‘2000 Mules’ documentary showing extensive ballot trafficking occurring at COVID-era drop boxes.  Democrats LOVE those drop boxes and are trying to make them permanent, and now we know why.

The sheriffs’ initiative is raising money so law enforcement will have the resources to conduct surveillance of drop boxes, use artificial intelligence to analyze drop box video, and set up hotlines to report suspicious activity at drop boxes and polling places.  The Democrats are freaking out at the prospect elections just might become more secure.  You should read the hysterical Reuters article on the sheriff’s initiative.  If you didn’t know any better, you would come away believing the sky is falling.  Reuters is a hopelessly left-wing arm of the Democrat Party posing as honest brokers of the news.  They are anything but.

Team Red is continuing to enjoy success in getting common-sense election reforms adopted at the state level.  Missouri’s Governor recently signed a bill banning drop boxes and requiring voter ID which has been widely upheld in the courts.  Even Stacey Abrams will tell you voter ID laws are not racist.  The Democrats have lost the voter ID argument.  It’s all over but the shouting and, boy, do they continue to shout.  Missouri’s new law also stops indiscriminate mail-in voting and gets rid of electronic voting machines in 2024, requiring them to be ‘air-gapped’ from the Internet in the meantime.  This is a great victory for election integrity.

In case you’re one of the few Americans remaining who still believe the 2020 elections were the ‘most secure’ ever, have I got news for you.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the use of drop boxes in the 2020 election was illegal and candidates are calling for the state’s 2020 election results to be decertified as a result.  In Arizona, newly released video shows ballot mules forging signatures on ballot envelopes.  Federal authorities have confirmed two Iranian nationals hacked into a state computer election system in the 2020 election.  There was illegal ballot harvesting in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin, not to mention dirty voter rolls, nursing home fraud, and over a dozen more documented problems with the 2020 election.  None of this can seriously be disputed.

No wonder people are up in arms and demanding election integrity.  Citizen efforts to clean up the voter rolls are underway in MichiganMaryland, and elsewhere.  Recent articles from Democrat-controlled media are howling about election integrity efforts from professional paid groups on the Right, but they miss the mark.  It’s the grassroots efforts that will eventually return us to free and fair elections.  Smear us all you want, but we know we’re right, and we’re not going away.  So, get over it.  Your days of cheating are coming to an end.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

PODCAST TOPICS: GODLESS ENCLAVES — FABRICATING REALITY — SURVEY OF WOMEN VOTERS 50+ thumbnail

PODCAST TOPICS: GODLESS ENCLAVES — FABRICATING REALITY — SURVEY OF WOMEN VOTERS 50+

By Conservative Commandos Radio Show

GUESTS AND TOPICS

DR. RICH SWIER, LTC, U.S. ARMY (RET.)

Dr. Rich Swier is a “conservative with a conscience.” Rich is a 23 year Army veteran who retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. He was awarded the Legion of Merit for his years of service. Additionally, he was awarded two Bronze Stars with “V” for Valor and Heroism in ground combat, the Presidential Unit Citation, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry while serving with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. Dr. Rich now publishes the “drrichswier.com report”. A daily review of news, issues and commentary!

TOPICS: GODLESS ENCLAVES — FABRICATING REALITY — SURVEY: Women Voters 50+

TRISTAN JUSTICE

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism.

TOPIC: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz blamed woke elected officials in Democrat-run cities for the abrupt closure of 16 stores.

©Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

Arizona Dem: If You Marry a White Guy, You Ain’t Latina thumbnail

Arizona Dem: If You Marry a White Guy, You Ain’t Latina

By Robert Schmad

Editors Note: It would appear that Democrats are becoming just a tad sensitive about the wholesale movement of Latino voters to the Republican side. Congressman Gallego lets his racism get in front of his common sense. Where is his sense of inclusion? Apparently where it is for most Democrats. Inclusiveness is fine as long as white people are not included. Latinos are hard-working, family-oriented people who have little in common with the sexual extremists, racial dividers, and promoters of high gasoline pricing in the name of climate control and the Green New Deal of the Democrats of today. And incidentally, marrying white men is not a crime or an act of cultural depravity. In fact, it is quite common.  According to Pew Research, about 43% of all inter-racial marriages are between Latino and White people.

This is something to be celebrated in that ethnic and racial differences are disappearing in the US, even as Democrats attempt to divide the nation along racial and ethnic lines. Congressman Gallego hopefully will lose badly, not just because he is an unhinged Progressive, but especially because he is a very nasty man, filled with racial bigotry. Such a man has no place representing Arizona.

Rep. Ruben Gallego (D., Ariz.) accused Tanya Contreras Wheeless, a Hispanic woman running for Congress in Arizona’s fourth district as a Republican, of not being authentically Latina because she took her husband’s last name.

Gallego suggested that Wheeless deliberately “hid” her Hispanic identity before running for office to avoid discrimination. “If you were Latino in Arizona around 2010 people were telling us to go back to Mexico,” he said, “you would hear I am not voting for a ‘spic.’”

“Tanya is Latina,” Gallego tweeted, “cuando le conviene,” meaning, “when it suits her.”

Following Republican Mayra Flores’s upset victory this year in Texas’s 34th Congressional District, which had traditionally been a Democratic stronghold, liberal pundits have smeared conservative Latinas. CNN said the conservative Hispanic women running for Congress were “not the ‘real deal,’” whereas the New York Times referred to the “Rise of the Far-Right Latina.”

Democrats have sought to mend their faltering ties with the Latino community ahead of the 2022 election. Some of those gestures have fallen flat. First Lady Jill Biden, for instance, received backlash for suggesting that Hispanics are “as unique as … breakfast tacos” at a Latinx IncluXion Luncheon in San Antonio…..

*****

Continue reading this article at The Washington Free Beacon.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

Twelve Questions on Economic Issues for the Next Congress thumbnail

Twelve Questions on Economic Issues for the Next Congress

By Jeffrey Tucker

We are now experiencing an economic crisis that could get worse. Financials are in bear markets. Inflation is roaring. The recession could soon become official.

Many voters are looking to their elected representatives to address the problem. What follows are questions that I would like to pose to any and all candidates for office concerning their views on essential issues related to the economic well-being of Americans. I was prompted to put them together by a primary debate for a U.S. Congressional race in Tennessee at which I was a questioner.

1. Every poll shows economic concerns rank very high among the public concerns right now. Congress has some but not all authority over policies that affect people’s lives in this respect. Let’s first address the issue of spending over which Congress has primary control.

Before pandemic lockdowns, federal spending stood at $5 trillion per annum (five times as high as when Ronald Reagan said the budget was out of control and needed to be slashed). This soared over six months by 82% to $9.1 trillion. The total pulled back a bit to $6 trillion before soaring under Biden to $8 trillion. It seems to have settled back to $5.8 trillion but Congress is now being pushed more spending.

In the course of two and a half years, the federal debt skyrocketed from $23 trillion to $30.5 trillion, or 32.6% in a mere 28 months. The national debt now stands at 125% of GDP.

All of this spending was approved by Congress.

Do you see this as sustainable?

What do you believe needs to be done to repair the damage to the balance sheet?

With Biden as president, what can Congress do in the area of spending?

2. Inflation ranks very high among the concerns of voters today. The Biden administration has attempted to blame Putin, oil companies, meat packers, and of course the broken supply chains for the problem. He has suggested prosecuting companies for raising prices too high too quickly. But many economists are pointing to deeper structural problems.

What in your mind bears primary responsibility for the dramatic fall in the purchasing power of the dollar? What if anything can Congress do about it?

3. I would like to address the sufferings of small businesses today. Most estimates are that one-third or more of small businesses closed during the lockdowns and have not come back. Large businesses, particularly tech companies, thrived as never before. Small business optimism is at a 48-year low. Is it possible to construct policies that seek some kind of redress? What kinds of things can Congress do to make life easier for small businesses?

4. History bears witness to how both parties were initially supportive of lockdowns that shut business, schools, churches, playgrounds, and divided workers into essential and nonessential. There has since been a strange silence among Republicans about this event. Do you believe that the Republicans in Congress at the time should admit responsibility for this panicked reaction? Are there conditions that you think would warrant governments stepping in to shut businesses and other institutions in the future?

5. The US today faces myriad trade conflicts in the world today both concerning imports and exports, as well as outsourcing and foreign investment in the US. The US Constitution clearly gives the trade power to Congress, in Article I, Section 8: “Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Today, the power over trade has been given to the US president. Do you believe that Congress should take it back and what effect do you believe that would have on US international relations in the economic realm?

6. The Supreme Court in the case of EPA vs. West Virginia sought to curb the power of the administrative state, not just the EPA but the full range of agencies that regulate and effectively make law without legislation. We all know that President Trump sought to curb the role of the administrative state but with limited success. How can Congress go about taking back the power to make policy from the agencies? If agencies need to be cut or abolished, which would you name as part of that list?

7. Related to the previous question, the problem of the concentration of power in the US economy has presented itself in many forms over the last years, including the role of Big Pharma at the Food and Drug Administration, Big Tech in the Department of Homeland Security surveillance, and Big Media at the Federal Communications Commission. It appears to many that these agencies have been captured by the largest players in the industry. Do you have opinions on this topic and what Congress can do?

8. This question concerns American energy needs. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told the Senate that the US needs to transition from oil and coal and instead use the “wind and sun” for energy needs. Right now, her preferred sources account for perhaps 10% of US energy production, and even achieving that has required vast government subsidies. What is your view on choice in energy, including nuclear, and how US energy policy should proceed?

9. Are there any conditions under which you would support tax increases of any form?

10. What is your plan to reduce the size and scope of government, if that is what you desire? What do you hope a new Republican-controlled Congress can achieve, not just in this term but the next too?

11. Many economists have suggested that the Fed is not doing the job it was founded to do. Under Article I, Section 10, of the US Constitution, the authority to oversee money was clearly given to Congress, specifying that no state can “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.” Should Congress curb the power of the Fed and take back its role in managing monetary affairs?

12. Ronald Reagan often emphasized that an enterprising and prosperous society requires limits on government to unleash the creativity of the human spirit. What to your mind is the role of government in a free and prosperous society and how will you use your seat in Congress to promote that?

*****

This article was published by The Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

Here Are The 17 Democrat Members Of Congress Who Were Arrested Outside The Supreme Court thumbnail

Here Are The 17 Democrat Members Of Congress Who Were Arrested Outside The Supreme Court

By The Daily Caller

At least 17 House Democrats were arrested Tuesday afternoon outside the Supreme Court.

The Democrats were attending an abortion rights rally to protest the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. In several videos posted on Twitter, Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar can be seen with their hands behind their back being held by police officers who appear to be escorting them away from the protest in front of the Supreme Court.

“Today, Rep. AOC was arrested along with other members of Congress outside the Supreme Court for protesting in support of abortion rights,” Ocasio-Cortez’s office tweeted from her account.

Today, Rep. AOC was arrested along with other members of Congress outside the Supreme Court for protesting in support of abortion rights. #AbortionRightsAreHumanRights pic.twitter.com/gvj9J1o5ic

— Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@RepAOC) July 19, 2022

HERE ARE THE NAMES: 

  • New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
  • Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar
  • Missouri Rep. Cori Bush
  • Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley
  • Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark
  • New York Rep. Nydia Velazquez
  • California Rep. Barbara Lee
  • California Rep. Jackie Speier
  • California Rep. Sara Jacobs
  • Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib
  • North Carolina Rep. Alma Adams
  • Pennsylvania Rep. Madeleine Dean
  • New Jersey Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman
  • Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar
  • Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky
  • New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney
  • Michigan Rep. Andy Levin

Democratic Missouri Rep. Cori Bush tweeted Tuesday that she and her colleagues “put” their “bodies on the line” amid the protest.

“I introduced legislation yesterday and today to protect reproductive freedom. Today my colleagues and I put our bodies on the line—because we will leave no stone unturned in our fight for justice. Bans off our bodies,” Bush said.

I introduced legislation yesterday and today to protect reproductive freedom. Today my colleagues and I put our bodies on the line—because we will leave no stone unturned in our fight for justice.

Bans off our bodies. https://t.co/ahmWgAd9WR

— Cori Bush (@CoriBush) July 19, 2022

The Daily Caller contacted the U.S. Capitol Police about the videos to which Capitol Police said they would be releasing final arrest numbers later in the afternoon.

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Senior Congressional correspondent. Follow Henry Rodgers On Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ocasio-Cortez, Members Of ‘The Squad’ Appear To Have Been Arrested In Front Of Supreme Court

Ocasio-Cortez, Members Of ‘The Squad’ Appear To Have Been Arrested In Front Of Supreme Court

‘There Must Be Consequences’: Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Suggests SCOTUS Justices Should Be Impeached

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Bad Moves by Bad People for Bad Policies thumbnail

Bad Moves by Bad People for Bad Policies

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

Move over, Deplorables.  Here come the Despicables.

The January 6th Committee is putting on its dog-and-pony show supposedly for the purpose of passing new legislation to secure the Capitol building.  But ask yourself this:  if they had a case that insurrection occurred that day, why would they need to doctor the evidence they’re showing the public?  Liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz blasted the Committee for editing out part of Trump’s speech:

It was unethical,” Dershowitz said.  “Why was it unethical? … [Trump] said at the end of the speech he wanted people to show their voices patriotically and peacefully. They doctored the tape! They edited those words out. If a prosecutor ever did that they’d be disbarred!

The Obama-era sue-and-settle scam is back.  This is where federal agencies encourage left-wing groups to sue the agency – wink, wink, nod, nod – to get favorable rules imposed without going through the rulemaking process and, oh by the way, hand over huge piles of taxpayer money to the Left – billions in the Obama years.  The Trump administration ended the practice, but the Biden administration brought it back.  The Interior Department agreed to pay the leftist Center for Biological Diversity $140,000 in attorney’s fees in a sue-and-settle maneuver last year.

Speaking of environmental groups, green special interests couldn’t get the Green New Deal through Congress, so now they’re squeezing the private sector to achieve the same ends.  They are:

  • pressuring banks not to lend to fossil fuel companies which supply most of our energy
  • using ESG (environmental, social, and governance) scoring – which some states have moved to outlaw – to withhold capital from fossil fuel companies, and
  • proposing through the SEC that corporations make burdensome climate disclosures, not only about themselves, but about their suppliers, vendors, and shippers, imposing major new laws while bypassing the democratic process.

It gets worse. Environmentalists regularly declare we’re having the ‘hottest year on record’ when they know darn well the earth was warmer during earlier periods of human history – long before industrialization.  They know it was hotter in the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods, just to name two.  They also know there were no catastrophic consequences from warming of the kind they are warning about now.  They’re also faking their data on a regular basis, one recent example being the removal of declining temperatures from the 1962 to 1983 cooling period from datasets in order to set up claims of recent global warming.  [study published here – more on fake data here]  Environmental activists know these temperature fluctuations are caused by the natural activity of the sun, which varies, not human CO2 emissions.

The Left lies about more than climate change.  Abortion activists claimed there was overwhelming public support for Roe v. Wade.  They’ve been lying about public support for abortion since even before Roe.  Today, the fact of the matter is 70 percent of Americans oppose abortion in the second trimester.

What other behavior would you expect from a bunch of liars?  There are any number of stories about abortion clinics trying to hide botched abortions occurring on their premises (here’s one).   The Biden administration is encouraging teenage girls to get secret abortions and hide them from their parents.  A high school in Seattle is forcing students to sign a pledge saying they support abortion or they will not get access to a mentoring program.

These are bad people who have no moral compass for whom winning is the only thing.  To them, the ends justify the means.  It doesn’t matter how much they lie or who they hurt, as long as they win.  But as George Orwell observed, you can’t reach supposedly noble ends with despicable means.  The very process of using evil means will corrupt the people using them, making their ends unattainable, no matter how hard they try.  They end up bad people.  Are you one of them?  I hope not.  If you’ve listened to everything I’ve said and still say to yourself, ‘Go, Team, Go!’, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself how you could have let yourself become so Despicable.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

REPORT: Biden Poised To Declare Climate Emergency To Ram Through Green Agenda thumbnail

REPORT: Biden Poised To Declare Climate Emergency To Ram Through Green Agenda

By The Daily Caller

President Joe Biden could declare a climate emergency as soon as this week, according to The Washington Post, in a bid to implement elements of his environmental agenda as climate legislation has stalled in Congress.

Leading Biden administration officials are debating ways to advance the president’s agenda, and the president is prepared to announce a number of new initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reported the Post, citing three people familiar with the matter. The internal discussions come after Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia told party leaders last week that he opposes the plans to advance this month’s significant economic package that includes billions of dollars toward slashing carbon emissions and promoting green energy.

White House Economic Adviser Jared Bernstein told reporters at a press briefing Monday that Biden would work “aggressively to attack climate change.”

“Realistically there is a lot he can do and there is a lot he will do,” Bernstein stated.

“Unilaterally declaring a climate emergency will not reduce emissions by one molecule,” American Exploration & Production Council CEO, Anne Bradbury said on Twitter Tuesday. “In fact, many of the policies that could follow from declaring a climate emergency would increase emissions while driving up costs for American families.”

Democratic lawmakers are also calling on Biden to use his powers to enact further climate policies amid failed legislative action and the Supreme Court’s recent decision to limit the regulatory abilities of the Environmental Protection Agency.

On Monday, Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon said it was time for Biden to take massive, unilateral executive actions on climate change, even if the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional.

“There is probably nothing more important for our nation and our world than for the United States to drive a bold, energetic transition in its energy economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy,” Merkley told reporters on Monday, according to the Post.

“This also unchains the president from waiting for Congress to act,” Merkley said, referencing the recent legislative impasse.

Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, said that lawmakers should continue to pursue legislation in a statement on Monday.

“While I strongly support additional executive action by President Biden, we know a flood of Republican lawsuits will follow,” Wyden said, according to the Post.

“Legislation continues to be the best option here,” he added.

AUTHOR

JACK MCEVOY

Contributor.

RELATED TWEET:

WH’s @PressSec: Warm summer weather forcing POTUS to take exec action aimed at stopping the climate from changing pic.twitter.com/X95Zfr8FcT

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) July 19, 2022

RELATED ARTICLE: Joe Manchin Drives A Stake Through Democrats’ Economic Package

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Author Who Warned Us Against Blindly Trusting ‘The Science’ thumbnail

The Author Who Warned Us Against Blindly Trusting ‘The Science’

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” revealed why we should not confuse scientists with science.


“Attacks on me are, quite frankly, attacks on science,” said Anthony Fauci to widespread ridicule or approval, depending upon which side you are on. If you doubt his judgment personally, you must not believe in “the science.” Fauci went on to claim that all of the “things he’s talked about” were “fundamentally based on science.”

Let’s put the weasel words aside and recognize that what he wants you to believe – that all his official policy recommendations (“all the things I’ve talked about”) were firmly proven effective through application of the scientific method – is demonstrably false. The most rigorous, most scientific studies show precisely the opposite.

Fauci was a proponent of what has become to be known as “lockdowns,” the widespread closure of businesses and/or stay-at-home orders for the general population. Dozens of studies show this had no demonstrable effect on the spread of Covid-19. As one after another came out, Fauci went on talking about lockdowns as if this evidence did not exist.

Now, there are studies being conducted every day on this or that aspect of Covid-19 and I’m sure Fauci and his supporters can produce links to some that support lockdowns. While there are no absolutes, here is a general observation: the most scientific studies – the randomized controlled trial studies with large sample sizes measuring results in the real world – tend to point towards the inefficacy of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). NPIs include (anti)social distancing, masks, and lockdowns.

Less scientific studies – those with small sample sizes or based on laboratory experiments rather than experience in the real world – tend to point towards efficacy. Remember the experiment on mannequins wearing masks? You get the picture.

Let’s not forget that early in 2020 Fauci said a study based on a single case of asymptomatic spread of Covid-19 “lays the question to rest.” And guess what? It turned out the patient documented in the case had never been asked if she had symptoms. When it turned out she was symptomatic at the time of transmission, the study was unpublished. Subsequent studies failed to prove asymptomatic spread was significant. A December 2020 study looking at secondary attack rates within the same household – published right on the NIH (Fauci’s agency) website – says it’s miniscule if it exists at all.

Yet, Fauci goes on talking as if this study doesn’t exist. He has no choice. Without asymptomatic spread, there is no justification for lockdowns or mandating masks for asymptomatic people.

On a rare occasion where the largely useless national media confronted Fauci with a question about how Texas could be doing so well four weeks after abandoning all Covid restrictions, he had no answer. “Maybe they’re doing more outside,” he mused. Then, he went on recommending the same policies as if the question had never been posed.

Fauci wasn’t alone. When White House coronavirus advisor Anthony Slavitt was asked why locked down and masked California and restriction-free Florida were having similar results in terms of Covid spread, he began his answer with perhaps the only honest words that have escaped a public health official’s mouth: “There is so much of this virus that we think we understand, that we think we can predict, that is just a little bit beyond our explanation.” But then, in literally the same breath, he said we do know masking and social distancing work.

Now, you don’t have to be a trained journalist for the obvious follow-up question to occur to you: “No, Mr. Slavitt, the question I just posed to you suggests we don’t know masking and social distancing work because we are seeing equivalent results in states that are and are not following those policies.”

Of course, that follow-up was not put to Slavitt. And you really have to ask yourself why.

The failure of scientists to be scientific is not a new phenomenon. Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) dealt directly with the tendency of scientists to reject evidence that contradicts the prevailing theory or “paradigm.”

“Part of the answer, as obvious as it is important,” wrote Kuhn, a Harvard educated philosopher of science, “can be discovered by noting first what scientists never do when confronted by even severe and prolonged anomalies. Though they may begin to lose faith and then to consider alternatives, they do not renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis.”

Kuhn’s overall thesis challenged the prevailing understanding at the time that science proceeds in a linear fashion, with new discoveries incrementally adding to the accumulated knowledge that preceded them. Instead, argued Kuhn, science throughout history has featured a series of revolutions, where paradigms like the geocentric theory of the solar system or Newtonian physics collapsed under the weight of “anomalies” (evidence which contradicted the theory) and made way for new paradigms like the heliocentric theory of the solar system and Einsteinian physics.

There is much nuance in Kuhn’s argument which his critics have tended to ignore, but one takeaway that we’re seeing proved in real time is that these scientific revolutions are only revolutionary because of the tendency for scientists to cling to a theory regardless of evidence that refutes it. Kuhn argues that scientists will not abandon a disproven theory until a new theory is presented that they are convinced explains the evidence better than the old.

What makes the New Normal so strange is that a scientific revolution occurred with no anomalies. It was firmly established by a century of scientific research that suggested nonpharmaceutical interventions weren’t effective in combating respiratory viruses. Indeed, Fauci himself initially repeated the established scientific consensus that lockdowns and mask mandates were not effective policy responses. He even discouraged people from voluntarily wearing masks.

Then, he and the rest of the government scientists did a complete about face. There was no new evidence that motivated this. They simply abandoned the prevailing scientific consensus based on a desire to do something – even though the scientific evidence before, during, and after the outbreak of Covid-19 said what they wanted to do wouldn’t work. As a result, there is now a New Normal paradigm based on…nothing.

It should be noted that there were plenty of non-government scientists protesting vehemently right from the beginning. The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration were already loudly protesting lockdowns as early as April 2020. Others contested asymptomatic spread, the mortality rate initially reported (they were right), and the efficacy of masks.

Here is the problem. This New Normal paradigm can’t collapse in the face of anomalies, no matter how numerous they are, because the anomalies are now simply ignored. Anyone who calls attention to them, no matter how credentialed or qualified, is systematically discredited.

In such an environment, unsubstantiated assertions like “Covid-19 spreads asymptomatically” and “lockdowns and mask mandates work” continue to form the basis of policy. The same goes for vaccine mandates.

It’s not that evidence against New Normal science can no longer be found. Much of it is available right on the websites of the government agencies denying it. It is simply a matter of saying “no” when governments and media demand you refuse to believe your lying eyes and obey.

Obedience has a price. We will be feeling the economic effects of lockdowns for many years. An entire generation of children will suffer psychological damage from being forced to wear masks during their most formative years. The damage to society as a whole from lockdowns, mask mandates, and (anti)social distancing policies may be immeasurable.

Neither can you simply go along to get along until things “get back to normal.” If and when the COVID Crisis finally ends, there is a Climate Crisis already teed up to begin as surely as night follows day. It will feature the same breathless media propaganda and ignoring of contrary evidence as did the COVID Crisis. The cost this time will be a significantly and permanently lower standard of living for you and your children.

That’s the price of obedience. Are you willing to pay it?

This article was reprinted with permission from tommullen.net.

AUTHOR

Tom Mullen

Tom Mullen hosts the Tom Mullen Talks Freedom podcast and is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. His podcast episodes and writing can be found at www.tommullentalksfreedom.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Poised To Declare Climate Emergency To Ram Through Green Agenda: REPORT

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.