Here we go again, get out your secret decoder ring to try to figure out where this likely ‘new American’ came from and how he got here, but good luck with that!
Every time I am sent a story like this the question I am asked is—is this guy a refugee? And, every time I give an answer like this:
Unless someone slips up in either law enforcement, or some family member steps forward to proclaim the innocence of one of these creeps, you will rarely be told from which country the perp came and which of the MANY legal or illegal pathways the “man” used to get here.
LOL! That information would of course be “perpetuating stereotypes!”
For the refugee question, sometimes if you find out that the person being charged in a crime was from a country that has sent us tens of thousands of their people, you can make an educated guess. For example, if the perp is Somali, Ethiopian, Congolese, Burmese, Iraqi or from Afghanistan, you could guess, and guess correctly, that the “man” in the news is a refugee.
Sometimes you can make an educated guess based on the location of the incident. For instance a “man” with a Somali name committing a crime in Minnesota is likely a refugee. Duh!
So, just as Illegal Alien Crime Reportdoes, call him an “African Migrant.”
African ‘Migrant’ Charged With Sexually Assaulting Convenience Store Clerk
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – On the morning of July 4, police arrested Hakeem Sanusi, 34, after her reportedly sexually assaulted a woman working alone in a convenience store in northwest Oklahoma City. In order to protect the victim’s privacy, the police have not released the store’s exact location.
The crime reporter website then sends us to booking information, but of course no information on whether he is legally or illegally in the country.
Man arrested for alleged sexual assault of Oklahoma City convenience store clerk
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – A northwest Oklahoma City convenience store clerk says she was sexually assaulted by a customer while on the job.
The suspect, 34-year-old Hakeem Sanusi is now facing charges in the alleged attack.
“It was over the weekend that police were made aware of a sexual assault at a convenience store in Northwest Oklahoma City,” said MSgt. Gary Knight with the Oklahoma City Police Department (OKCPD).
“No one was in the store except for an employee,” Knight said.
Police say Sanusi made inappropriate comments to the alleged victim.
The woman telling officers Hakeem is a regular at the store during the overnight hours, and frequently makes inappropriate statements, making her feel uncomfortable.
The woman claims Sanusi told her, quote, “nothing better come of this.”
Not long after – she was able to call the police.
“Officers at the scene were able to look at surveillance video of the man and get him identified very quickly,” Knight said.
Police say Sanusi was located at a nearby neighborhood – and arrested.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that the Chinese regime should pay reparations for the destruction caused by the human coronavirus pandemic, according to a TIPP Poll conducted for the Center for Security Policy.
That number rises from 63 percent to 78 percent if investigations reveal that the Chinese government released the SARS-CoV-19 human coronavirus on purpose.
About half of those surveyed believe that the virus “was developed in a lab,” with a quarter of the public convinced that the Chinese government created it “intentionally” in a lab and released it “intentionally.”
While southerners and Midwesterners are most likely to think that the Chinese government created the virus and is responsible for unleashing the pandemic, people in the more liberal Northeast are the toughest when it comes to making China pay reparations if an investigation reveals an accidental release from a government lab.
These are astonishing numbers. They reveal a powerful narrowing of the gap since the pandemic began a year and a half ago. The American people are taking an increasingly hard line toward the Chinese regime.
The Center’s numbers coincide with Politico-Harvard poll
The Center’s poll results generally coincide with the numbers of a new Politico-Harvard poll, which shows that 52 percent of the public believes that the virus that causes COVID-19 came from a “laboratory leak in China.” The Center for Security Policy poll found that 49 percent believe that the virus “was developed in a lab.”
In the Politico-Harvard poll, 59 percent of Republicans, 52 percent of Democrats, and 47 percent of independents say that the virus came from a Chinese lab.
The Center for Security Policy poll found greater polarization on a similar question: 67 percent of Republicans, 42 percent of Democrats, and 52 percent of independents say it came from a lab. This is important. Politico and Harvard are very liberal institutions, yet their poll results showed greater public agreement with what had been the Center for Security Policy’s position all along.
The Politico-Harvard poll also found that 82 percent of the public thinks it is “important” for the U.S. government to investigate the origins of the virus. 0f that 82 percent, 33 percent said it was “extremely important,” 29 percent called it “very important,” and 20 percent termed it “somewhat important.” That poll did not ask about reparations.
“The poll’s findings show what was once a fringe belief held mainly among some on the political right has become accepted by most Republicans, as well as most Democrats, amid heightened scrutiny of the lab leak theory,” according to Politico.
Center for Security Policy analysts have insisted from the beginning that the virus originated in a Chinese Communist Party-run virology lab in Wuhan, China, calling the plague the “Wuhan Virus.”
“Usually, our polls find a big split between Republicans and Democrats, so this is unique,” Robert Blendon, the Harvard professor of health policy and political analysis, told Politico. “More conservative media have been carrying the ‘lab leak’ issue, and it’s been a Trump talking point from the beginning, so we expected people who lean Democratic would say either ‘It’s not true’ or ‘I don’t know.’ But the belief is bipartisan.”
Even if the release was accidental, 63 percent of those surveyed in the Center’s poll said that China should be “required to compensate” Americans and other victims for the damage.
Here – and consistent with the Politico-Harvard poll pattern about a closing gap between the parties – 71 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Democrats and independents in the Center for Security Policy poll say that China must pay reparations.
This shows that an absolute majority of the Americans polled agree with the Center’s position since the beginning that the Chinese Communist Party must pay for the international death and destruction that it caused.
Americans from the Midwest and South are most likely to suspect that the Chinese regime intentionally released the virus, though people in the more liberal Northeast are the most likely to call for reparations.
In every demographic group except young people age 18-24, more were “not sure” about reparations than were those who opposed reparations.
What if it was found that the Chinese Communist Party intentionally released the killer virus? In all, 78 percent of the public would want reparations.
Here’s the breakdown: CHART 1 CHART 2
Reparations would have a two-fold positive effect: they would compensate American taxpayers and citizens for their personal and financial losses, and they would start the process of taking down the CCP.
In April 2020, the Center issued a Decision Brief titled, “Time to decide how Chinese Communist Party pays reparations for pandemic.”
“Anticipating that the U.S. will hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for the Wuhan Virus pandemic, the U.S. should next decide how to enforce that accountability. The Chinese Communist Party must immediately pay reparations for human and economic damages,” the Decision Brief said.
About the polls
The Center’s poll was conducted by TechnoMetrica, between June 30 and July 2, 2021, and the nationwide study had a sample of 1,424 Americans, 18 or older. TechnoMetrica’s network of panel partners provided the study sample. Upon the study completion, TechnoMetrica weighted the study dataset by gender, age, race, education, and geographical region to mirror known benchmarks such as the U.S. Census. The credibility interval (CI) for the survey is +/- 2.8 percentage points, meaning the study is accurate to within ± 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, had all Americans been surveyed.
The Politico-Harvard poll surveyed 1,009 adults from June 22-27, with a margin of error of 3.8 points. COLUMN BY
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Center For Security Policyhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngCenter For Security Policy2021-07-15 05:53:162021-07-16 18:52:59POLL: Almost Two-thirds of Americans Believe China Should Pay Pandemic Reparations
An old story tells of a big, successful store with a plaque in the employees’ lounge which read:
“Rule #1. The customer’s always right. Rule #2. If you ever think the customer is wrong, reread Rule #1.”
I bring this up because the public school education establishment (to be distinguished from the rank and file teachers, many of whom are dedicated public servants), often treat their customers as if they’re wrong and as if the education elites know better than the dumb parents.
School choice is the ultimate answer to America’s education crisis, and there ought to be bipartisan agreement on it. School competition makes education better, and gives all parents more options for their children. But the Left opposes it adamantly, though even a liberal newspaper surprisingly spoke out recently in favor of school choice. Foxnews.com reports (7/9/2021):
“The liberal Washington Post editorial board on Thursday broke rank with the left and pondered why Democrats are so opposed to giving poor children a choice in schooling.”
The Washington Post opined,
“For 17 years, a federally funded K-12 scholarship program has given thousands of poor children in D.C. the opportunity to attend private schools and the chance to go on to college. And for many of those 17 years, the program has been in the crosshairs of unions and other opponents of private school vouchers…Their relentless efforts unfortunately may now finally succeed with House Democrats and the Biden administration quietly laying the groundwork to kill off this worthy program.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Jerry Newcombehttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngJerry Newcombe2021-07-15 05:42:072021-07-16 18:52:59The Time for School Choice Is Past Due
During the recent CPAC meeting held last weekend in Texas, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R) was one of the conservative speakers (7/11/21). During her talk, she made a passing reference to “The 1776 Pledge to Save Our Schools.” Being unaware of the pledge, I decided to look it up. It was developed by a group called, “1776 Action,” an organization dedicated to “Stopping the Anti-American Indoctrination of our Children and Grandchildren.”
I am told, this is a by-product of the “1776 Commission” as established by President Trump to support “Patriotic Education.” The Commission was quickly dissolved following the inauguration of President Biden.
There are actually two pledges listed in the “1776 Action” web site; one for citizens and one for candidates, such as school board members. CITIZEN PLEDGE
As a citizen, I believe that:
The United States of America is an exceptional nation whose people have always strived to form a more perfect union based upon our founding principles.
Our Founding Fathers – including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson – as well as leaders like Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. were among the greatest Americans to ever live, and they deserve to be honored as heroes.
Our children and grandchildren should be taught to take pride in their country, to respect our founding principles of liberty and equality, and to have a sense of American history that is both truthful and inspiring.
Civics education should focus on the serious study of our founding documents and principles – not coerce students into engaging in extracurricular political action on behalf of contemporary policy positions.
Our young people should be taught to view one another not according to race or gender, but as individuals made in the image of God.
Teaching children to hate their country and each other is immoral and deeply harmful to our society and must be stopped.
THEREFORE, I PLEDGE to help replace elected officials, school board members, education commissioners, principals, deans, and university presidents who promote a false, divisive, and radical view of America and our fellow citizens with new leaders who respect our history, our values, our rights, and the God-given dignity of every person. CANDIDATE PLEDGE
THEREFORE, I PLEDGE to the voters of (enter District/location name) that I will take concrete steps to do the following in our K-12 public schools:
Restore honest, patriotic education that cultivates in our children a profound love for our country.
Promote a curriculum that teaches that all children are created equal, have equal moral value under God, our Constitution, and the law, and are members of a national community united by our founding principles.
Prohibit any curriculum that pits students against one another on the basis of race or sex.
Prevent schools from politicizing education by prohibiting any curriculum that requires students to protest and lobby during or after school.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Tim Brycehttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngTim Bryce2021-07-15 05:29:112021-07-16 18:52:59PODCAST: Take ‘The 1776 Pledge’ To Save Our Schools
By: The Right Scoop, Jul. 13, 2021:
A new report is out today detailing massive voter fraud in Fulton County, which is outlined below by Liz Harrington:
“The error reporting rate in Fulton’s hand count audit is a whopping 60%”
"at least 36 batches of mail-in ballots with 4,255 total extra votes were redundantly added into Fulton Co. audit results for the November election. These illicit votes include 3,390 extra votes for Joe Biden, 865 extra votes for Donald Trump and 43 extra votes for Jo Jorgenson."
The full report from VoterGA, which is just one page, is below: CLICK HERE FOR FULL REPORT
It’s pretty incredible the outright, intentional fraud they found from the AUDIT process. And yet Biden today claimed the 2020 election was the best election ever or something.
Is it any wonder why the state of Georgia is taking over Fulton County elections?
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Pamela Gellerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngPamela Geller2021-07-15 04:51:252021-07-16 18:53:00‘Biden’ Admin to Desperate Cubans: You Are Not Welcome Here!
A MURAL OF THE LATE BLACK LIVES MATTER ICON GEORGE FLOYD HAS BEEN STRUCK BY LIGHTNING AND HAS COLLAPSED. EYEWITNESSES CONFIRMED THAT NOBODY WAS NEAR THE MURAL WHEN IT WAS STRUCK NOR WHEN ITS PIECES FELL TO THE GROUND.
The Toledo mural, completed in June 2020, was struck by lightning in the middle of the day on Tuesday, leaving a charred wall where Floyd’s face was before. It was a direct hit; artwork to the left and right of the mural appeared unblemished.
WTVG reported their Doppler Radar did show a lightning strike on the same block as the George Floyd mural at 4:30 the same afternoon.
The lightning strike, which hit directly on George Floyd’s face, reduced the mural to a pile of bricks.
Toledo police were seen outside the building, which used to house the Mugshots Bar, setting up tape around the pile of bricks that once formed the artwork.
The mural was painted almost one year to the date of its collapse last July.
Here’s what the George Floyd shrine looked like last summer before God sent a bolt down and reduced it to rubble (notice it directly hit Floyd’s face):
Community outreach with @Guttadave working on a mural in north Toledo Ohio in memories of George Floyd and all the people who died from Police brutality! ! pic.twitter.com/cpG1LoSg5f
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Pamela Gellerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngPamela Geller2021-07-15 04:43:432021-07-16 18:53:00THE BIG GUY HAS SPOKEN: George Floyd Mural Struck by Lightning, Crumbles to the Ground
Watch former President Trump adviser KT McFarland’s and Senator Tom Cotton’s analysis below. A woke U.S military will not be able to deter or defeat China. This alarming report commissioned by members of Congress on the U.S Navy, should frighten every American who cares about the stability of the world.
Naval officers are losing confidence in our Navy’s surface warfare component, which has suffered a string of mistakes, including several incidents involving warships like the McCain.
I broke some news in @WSJopinion about an important report commissioned by @SenCotton et al. on the culture of the U.S. Navy. Every American has a stake in making sure the fleet is focused on the next fight. A thread w/ additional details and analysis: 1/xhttps://t.co/rln8MWae6g
Members of Congress commissioned the report on issues in the surface Navy
Came in response to fire on ship in San Diego and two ship collisions in Pacific
Retired Marine general and Navy admiral spoke with current and former officers
They identified a number of disturbing trends in Navy leadership and training
Many officers said that diversity training took precedence over warfighting
They claimed combat readiness had become a ‘box-checking’ exercise
A scathing new report commissioned by members of Congress has claimed that the Navy’s surface warfare forces have systemic training and leadership issues, including a focus on diversity that overshadows basic readiness skills.
The report prepared by Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle and Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, both retired, came in response to recent Naval disasters, including the burning of the USS Bonhomme Richard in San Diego, two collisions involving Navy ships in the Pacific and the surrender of two small craft to Iran.
The authors conducted hour-long interviews with 77 current and retired Navy officers, offering them anonymity to identify issues they wouldn’t feel comfortable raising in the chain of command.
The report found that a staggering 94 percent of the subjects believed the recent Naval disasters were ‘part of a broader problem in Navy culture or leadership.’
‘I guarantee you every unit in the Navy is up to speed on their diversity training. I’m sorry that I can’t say the same of their ship handling training,’ said one recently retired senior enlisted leader.
The report focused on issued within the Navy’s surface warfare forces, as opposed to submarine and aviation, and suggested that issues in the surface fleet could be unique due to better funding and training for submarine and aviation units.
One of the key issues raised by the officers interviewed for the report was a concern that Navy leaders spend more time focusing on diversity training than on developing warfighting capacity and key operational skills.
‘Sometimes I think we care more about whether we have enough diversity officers than if we’ll survive a fight with the Chinese navy,’ lamented one lieutenant currently on active duty.
‘It’s criminal. They think my only value is as a black woman. But you cut our ship open with a missile and we’ll all bleed the same color,’ she added.
One recent destroyer captain said: ‘where someone puts their time shows what their priorities are. And we’ve got so many messages about X, Y, Z appreciation month, or sexual assault prevention, or you name it. We don’t even have close to that same level of emphasis on actual warfighting.’
‘While programs to encourage diversity, human sex trafficking prevention, suicide prevention, sexual assault prevention, and others are appropriate, they come with a cost,’ the report’s authors wrote.
‘The non-combat curricula consume Navy resources, clog inboxes, create administrative quagmires, and monopolize precious training time. By weighing down sailors with non-combat related training and administrative burdens, both Congress and Navy leaders risk sending them into battle less prepared and less focused than their opponents,’ the report added.
Navy seizes thousands of weapons hidden on ship ‘sailing to Yemen’
Some of the respondents expressed concerns that when combat lethality and warfighting are emphasized, they are treated in a box-checking manner that can seem indistinguishable from non-combat related exercises.
‘The Navy treats warfighting readiness as a compliance issue,’ said one career commander. ‘You might even use the term compliance-centered warfare as opposed to adversary-centered warfare or warfighter-centered warfare.’
One junior surface warfare officer, still on active duty, confessed: ‘I don’t think that the [surface community] see themselves as people who are engaged in a fight.’
Commander Bryan McGrath, a retired surface warfare officer who agreed to be interviewed on the record, notably dissented on the question of whether excess requirements were distracting sailors from their primary mission, argued that the main issue was was too few surface ships.
‘[The ships] are very busy,’ he said. ‘I think there are too few of them for what is being asked,’ he argued. ‘The operational requirements squeeze out maintenance, they squeeze out some training.’
‘When you’re on the ship,’ McGrath said, the ‘sexual assault and victim stuff, all that stuff just seems like a burden. It just seems like it’s never-ending…[But] the further I get from it, the more I understand why it’s important and why there does have to be very clear signals sent to deck plate sailors that they’re, you know, that issues that are important to them are important to leadership.’
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Pamela Gellerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngPamela Geller2021-07-15 04:32:302021-07-16 18:53:00VIDEO REPORT: U.S. Navy NOT FIT FOR WAR Because of Risk Averse, Politically Correct, Control-Freak Top Brass
What bad timing. Just as the party of Marx, Lenin, Alinsky and Obama thinks it’s finally poised to flip America to the side of the hammer and sickle, the Cuban people have taken to the streets and are risking their lives to shed the yoke of communist tyranny. According to the Associated Press, protestors are being arrested and taken away in police vans. Some will never be seen again. Such is the price often paid for dissent in communist countries.
As reported by Yahoo News, anti-government freedom fighters in cities and towns across Cuba are waving U.S. flags as they protest the brutal regime that unleashed 60 years of Marxist oppression on the Cuban people. That remarkable display of appreciation of America comes on the heels of high profile Democrats in this country, including Barack Obama, giving a wink and a nod as Biden voters burned the American flag, trashed it as a symbol of hate and oppression, compared it to the Confederate flag, and turned their backs on it at the U.S. Olympic trials.
In March 2016, when Obama no longer faced re-election, and with senior officials of Castro’s ruthless communist regime standing at his side, he defiantly posed in front of a six-story likeness of one of communism’s most revered heroes, the mass murdering Marxist revolutionary, Ernesto “Che” Guevara. To those who question Obama’s patriotism, posing in front of a six-story likeness of Guevara is tantamount to posing in front of a massive likeness of Stalin, Hitler or Mao.
With invaluable help from a fawning media that helped him conceal his true ideological beliefs, America’s first Marxist president was swept into the White House with the enthusiastic endorsement of the American people. Five days before he was elected, Obama vowed to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” See10-sec. video of that vow here. When Obama was first elected, few people who voted for him had any idea of the kind of radical “transformation” he had in mind.
Once in office, he legitimized Castro’s murderous regime by normalizing relations between the United States and Cuba, a move that must have demoralized the Cuban masses, people who had suffered crushing oppression under the boot of the hammer and sickle. In a Feb. 2020 American Thinker article titled “The Crumbling of Cuba’s Grand Socialist Experiment”, I described that suffering:
John Alpert is an American photojournalist whose work is featured in the Netflix documentary, Cuba and the Cameraman (trailer). Alpert first went to the island nation in 1972, a little more than a decade after Castro seized power. Over the next 45 years, he returned to Cuba, each time taking pictures of its towns and cities and people. The images he took are a timeline that chronicles how disastrously Castro’s socialist revolution played out for the Cuban people over time.
A disarmingly polite young photojournalist at the time, Alpert was one of the few Americans granted face-to-face meetings with Castro. With the U.S. media curious about the grand socialist experiment unfolding in Cuba, Alpert was invited to appear on TV programming to discuss his conversations with Cuba’s communist dictator. Alpert was quite impressed when Castro said he was taking concrete measures to make life better for the Cuban people, citing as evidence a free health care system, free schools, free higher education, and shiny new and rent-free housing projects. When Alpert first visited Cuba, the shelves of grocery stores and other retail establishments were filled with consumer goods of every description.
To the young and idealistic photojournalist, socialism seemed to portend a bright future for Cuba. With its people happy and well taken care of by a paternalistic government, things were going well. But as time moved on, Cuba’s house-of-cards communist system imploded. The free goods and services given to the Cuban people were funded not by the country’s failed collectivist economy, but by a massive infusion of hard cash, gasoline, food, and other provisions from the Soviet Union. When the Soviets eventually pulled the plug as their own socialist economy was crumbling, the day-to-day lives of the Cuban people fell on hard times, a stark reminder of Margaret Thatcher’s observation that the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people’s money.
The once-vibrant island nation is but another place where socialism added to its unbroken trail of failure. The country’s capital, Havana, was once an international tourist destination. Known as the “Jewel of the Caribbean,” Havana was a glamorous city with beautiful homes and modern vehicles. After six decades of socialism, only the communist rulers and their cronies live in upscale homes, and the country’s pot-holed roads are traveled by junker cars built in the middle of the last century.
Last year, four Millennial photojournalists affiliated with Turning Point USA (TPUSA) recorded their observations during a trip to Cuba. What they found is a police state that rigidly controls a society that’s in an advanced stage of decay and depravation. In 2019, the Cuban government announced nationwide rationing of chicken, eggs, rice, beans, soap and other basic products. According to a report I heard yesterday on the radio, Cubans are allotted only three eggs per month. Such chronic shortages are documented in “Everything You’ve Ever Seen About Cuba is a Lie,” a short video produced by the TPUSA photojournalists. Their video is worthy of being shared with K-12 and college students in this country, millions of whom are being spoon-fed a steady diet of Democrat propaganda about how wonderful socialism is … and what a rotten place America is.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00John Eidsonhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngJohn Eidson2021-07-14 15:09:502021-07-16 18:53:00BUMMER: Cuba’s Freedom Uprising Couldn’t Come at a Worse Time for the Party of Marx, Lenin, Alinsky & Obama
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00The Babylon Beehttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThe Babylon Bee2021-07-14 14:56:382021-07-16 18:53:00‘You Just Don’t Understand Socialism Like I Do,’ Says College Freshman To Man Who Escaped Socialism On A Raft
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00National Families in Actionhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngNational Families in Action2021-07-14 14:46:542021-07-16 18:53:00Marijuana And Other Drugs Can Kill Babies In First Year Of Life
Here are FEE, we predicted from the beginning of the pandemic that Congress’s decision to create an unemployment benefits system paying most individuals more on welfare than they earned by working would backfire. We weren’t the only ones. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office similarly cautioned that this move would cause unemployment and hurt the economy.
The system has offered many unemployed households the equivalent of $25/hour in benefits for staying home. It was always obviously illogical, based on the work disincentive it creates. However, in the year and a half since, there has been an enormous, concentrated, politically motivated effort to deny that the excessively generous welfare benefits are playing any role at all in joblessness.
A new poll makes this continued denial impossible.
For context, we currently have 1.2 unemployed people for every unfilled job opening. Small businesses are also reporting massive shortages of willing workers, even as they raise wages.
So, Morning Consultsurveyed unemployed Americans and asked them why they turned down job offers. About 13 percent openly admitted their reason for not returning to work was “I receive enough money from unemployment insurance without having to work.” If this representative sample is extrapolated across the entire unemployed population, that equates to 1.8 million Americans who admitted to declining to go back to work because they could earn more on welfare.
Meanwhile, another 12.1 percent said that they were not offered enough money to return to work. This subjective determination is likely also influenced by the generous benefits as a fall-back option. Click here for a graph fromAxios showing the full results.
Here we have solid confirmation that millions of people have remained unemployed because of the federal government’s reckless expansion of the welfare state. This is, on its face, even more vindication for the many conservative-leaning states that canceled the benefits early. And it offers even more compelling weight to the argument that the federal welfare expansion ought to be allowed to lapse in September as scheduled. (There will undoubtedly be a push to extend it; the “temporary” program has already been extended several times.)
But the Morning Consult poll results are also, most likely, a wild underestimate.
Just think about it: Would you admit, if a pollster called you up, that you’re lazily staying on benefits because it pays more than working? Probably not. There’s a very real phenomenon in polling results where people, quite naturally, skew toward offering answers that are more flattering to them than the unadulterated truth. We can’t know the full extent, but I think it’s safe to assume that the real figure is much higher than 1.8 million.
Of course, we never should have needed poll results to tell us that disincentivizing work would lead to fewer people working. That’s what basic economics taught us all along. COLUMN BY
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2021-07-14 14:36:462021-07-16 18:53:00At Least 1.8 Million People Refused to Return to Work Because of Generous Welfare Benefits, Poll Shows
Cuba has made less educational and health care progress than most Latin American countries over the last 60 years, data show.
On CBS’s 60 Minutes, Senator Bernie Sanders recently praised the achievements of communist Cuba. An interviewer asked him about his 1985 comments that Cubans supported communist dictator Fidel Castro because he “educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society.” In response, Sanders defended those comments, by stating that when “Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program.”
But Castro did not give Cubans literacy. Cuba already had one of the highest literacy rates in Latin America by 1950, nearly a decade before Castro took power, according to United Nations data (statistics from UNESCO). In 2016, the Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler debunked a politician’s claim that Castro’s rule significantly improved Cuban healthcare and education.
In today’s Cuba, children are taught by poorly paid teachers in dilapidated schools. Cuba has made less educational progress than most Latin American countries over the last 60 years.
According to UNESCO, Cuba had about the same literacy rate as Costa Rica and Chile in 1950 (close to 80 percent). And it has almost the same literacy rate as they do today (close to 100 percent).
Meanwhile, Latin American countries that were largely illiterate in 1950—such as Peru, Brazil, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic—are largely literate today, closing much of the gap with Cuba. El Salvador had a less than 40 percent literacy rate in 1950, but has an 88 percent literacy rate today. Brazil and Peru had a less than 50 percent literacy rate in 1950, but today, Peru has a 94.5 percent literacy rate, and Brazil a 92.6 percent literacy rate. The Dominican Republic’s rate rose from a little over 40 percent to 91.8 percent. While Cuba made substantial progress in reducing illiteracy in Castro’s first years in power, its educational system has stagnated since, even as much of Latin America improved.
Contrary to Sanders’ claim that Castro “gave” Cubans healthcare, they already had access to healthcare before he seized power. Doctors frequently provided free healthcare to those who couldn’t afford it. As the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler noted:
As for health care and education, Cuba was already near the top of the heap before the revolution. Cuba’s low infant mortality rate is often lauded, but it already led the region on this key measure in 1953-1958, according to data collected by Carmelo Mesa-Lago, a Cuba specialist and professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh.
Cuba led virtually all countries in Latin America in life expectancy in 1959, before Castro’s communists seized power. But by 2012, right after Castro stepped down as Communist Party leader, Chileans and Costa Ricans lived slightly longer than Cubans. Back in 1960, Chileans had a life span seven years shorter than Cubans, and Costa Ricans lived more than two years less than Cubans on average. In 1960, Mexicans lived seven years shorter than Cubans; by 2012, the gap had shrunk to just two years.
(Today, life spans are virtually the same in Cuba as more prosperous Chile and Costa Rica—if you accept the rosy official statistics put out by Cuba’s communist government, which many people do not. Cuba has been credibly accused of hiding infant deaths, and exaggerating the life spans of its citizens. If these accusations are true, Cubans die sooner than Chileans or Costa Ricans).
Cuba has made less progress in health care and life expectancy than most of Latin America in recent years, due to its decrepit health care system. “Hospitals in the island’s capital are literally falling apart.” Sometimes, patients ”have to bring everything with them, because the hospital provides nothing. Pillows, sheets, medicine: everything.”
As The Washington Post’s Kessler noted:
Reporters have also documented that Cuban hospitals are ill-equipped. A 2004 series on Cuba’s health-care system in Canada’s National Post said pharmacies stock very little and antibiotics are available only on the black market. “One of the myths Canadians harbor about Cuba is that its people may be poor and living under a repressive government, but they have access to quality health and education facilities,” the Post said. “It’s a portrait encouraged by the government, but the reality is sharply different.”
Under communism, Cuba has also fallen behind on more general measures of human development. As the progressive economist Brad DeLong pointed out:
Cuba in 1957—was a developed country. Cuba in 1957 had lower infant mortality than France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Cuba in 1957 had doctors and nurses: as many doctors and nurses per capita as the Netherlands, and more than Britain or Finland. Cuba in 1957 had as many vehicles per capita as Uruguay, Italy, or Portugal. Cuba in 1957 had 45 TVs per 1000 people—fifth highest in the world …Today? Today the UN puts Cuba’s HDI [Human Development indicators] in the range of … Mexico. (And Carmelo Mesa-Lago thinks the UN’s calculations are seriously flawed: that Cuba’s right HDI peers today are places like China, Tunisia, Iran, and South Africa.) Thus I don’t understand lefties who talk about the achievements of the Cuban Revolution: ‘…to have better health care, housing, education.’
A United Nations (UNESCO) report in 1957 noted that the Cuban economy included proportionally more workers who were unionized than in the U.S. The report also stated that average wages for an eight hour day were higher in Cuba than in “Belgium, Denmark, France, and Germany.”…PBS explained in a 2004 retrospective, that
“Havana [prior to Castro] was a glittering and dynamic city. Cuba ranked fifth in the hemisphere in per capita income, third in life expectancy, second in per capita ownership of automobiles and telephones, first in the number of television sets per inhabitant. The literacy rate, 76%, was the fourth highest in Latin America. Cuba ranked 11th in the world in the number of doctors per capita. Many private clinics and hospitals provided services for the poor. Cuba’s income distribution compared favorably with that of other Latin American societies. A thriving middle class held the promise of prosperity and social mobility.”
Castro’s destruction of Cuba cannot be over dramatized. He looted, murdered, and destroyed the nation from the ground up. Just one factoid explains it all; Cubans once enjoyed one of the highest consumption of proteins in the Americas, yet in 1962 Castro had to introduce ration cards (meat, 2 ounces daily), as food consumption per person crashed to levels not seen since the 1800s.
Hunger became so widespread that a visiting Swedish doctor, Hans Rosling, had to warn Cuba’s dictator in 1992 about widespread protein deficiency among Cubans. Roughly 40,000 Cubans had been reported to have been experiencing “visual blurring and severe numbness in their legs.” Rosling investigated at the invitation of the Cuban embassy in Sweden, and with the approval of Castro himself. Rosling travelled to the heart of the outbreak, in the western province of Pinar del Río. It turned out that those stricken with the disorder all suffered from protein deficiency. The government was rationing meat, and adults had sacrificed their portion to nourish children, pregnant women and the elderly. Dr. Rosling told Fidel Castro about this.
During this period of widespread hunger, Bernie Sanders was peddling the myth that hunger was non-existent in Cuba. In 1989, he published a newspaper column claiming that Fidel Castro’s Cuba had “no hunger, is educating all of its children and is providing high quality, free health care.” This article was reprinted with permission from Liberty Unyielding. COLUMN BY
Hans Bader practices law in Washington, D.C. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law. RELATED ARTICLES: My Visit to Cuba — An American in Havana
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2021-07-14 06:55:342021-07-16 18:53:01No, Fidel Castro Didn’t Improve Health Care or Education in Cuba
Most people were shocked when the president wanted to go door-to-door with his vaccine campaign — but that’s only the half of it. According to a Pentagon spokesman, the White House is also planning to go barracks to barracks — requiring the men and women of our voluntary military to involuntarily surrender their freedom and take an unproven shot some of them don’t want.
Frankly, Obama Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told CNN, “I think the president ought to issue an order requiring everybody in the military to get a COVID-19 shot — period. That’s an issue involving our national security,” he argued. “The last d— thing you need is to have those in the military that are our warriors unable to respond to a mission because they’ve gotten COVID-19. There’s no excuse for that.” Interesting, considering that the same military leadership has been cheerleading the troops’ gender reassignment surgery, which renders patients completely undeployable for months. Apparently, it’s no problem if you skip out on your job for the extreme LGBT cause. But if you have a personal objection to the vaccine, well then, a handful of potential sick days is unacceptable.
Republicans, who’ve been absolutely outraged at the government’s heavy-handedness, introduced a bill to stop the Pentagon from forcing the shots, which have not yet received final FDA approval, on our troops. Although the vaccination rates are high across every branch, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) says he’s been contacted by members of the military who vow to quit if the COVID shots are forced on them. And it’s no wonder, Congressman Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) explains. “Keep in mind,” he told listeners on “Washington Watch,” “it’s not received final approval from anybody.” And there are enough new red flags with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to make young people think twice.
As deadly as the virus has been, Brooks points out, certain age groups are in more danger than others. “That’s not to say there’s no risk, but it is substantially lesser [for] the people who are serving in our military. So right now, I very much prefer that our military personnel have the right to choose for themselves, exercise their free will, exercise their liberty to decide for themselves which risk they want to accept” — whether that’s the risk of the virus or the vaccine. “I hope that they’ll make the right decision,” Brooks added, “but it ought to be their decision. Because it is a life and death one.”
In the Marines, where I got more immunizations than I could count, no one was ever ordered to get a flu shot. And essentially, that’s what this is. It’s not a vaccine in the traditional sense, because it won’t protect people from the virus forever. That’s not to say it doesn’t have value — it offers protections to people, especially in the high-risk categories. But the fact that the Defense Department has its fingers on the trigger of a mandate, as they alluded in the last few days, ought to be concerning to everyone. Brooks says he finds it “disconcerting” that the military would have this kind of order “already drafted and ready to unleash, particularly insofar as it relates to a vaccine that has not been thoroughly vetted and tested.” When the FDA gives its blessing, that’s one thing. But there’s still the issue, he points out, of “taking the vaccine versus the risk associated with the youth catching COVID. And I much prefer that we defer that to the liberty and freedom and good judgment of our military personnel, all of whom are adults. And I believe that they are mature enough to be able to make that decision for themselves.”
Regardless, this idea that the government feels entitled to dictate what’s best for us ought to sound all kinds of alarm bells. Just this week, the White House doubled down on the idea of vaccine mandates, arguing that it’s the “right” of local officials and employers to demand it. As for Biden’s widely panned door-to-door intimidation campaign, Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) warned over the weekend where it could lead. “Think about what those mechanisms could be used for. They could go door-to-door to take your guns. They could go door-to-door and take your Bibles.”
That’s also crossed the mind of former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (and FRC Board Chairman), who told Fox News on Saturday that every American should go out and buy a “No Trespassing” sign at their local hardware store “because the government has zero business to do this. Zero. And what they’re wanting all of us to do is to check our Bill of Rights, our civil liberties, at the door.” The whole point of this country, she argued, “is based upon the fact that we have rights against the government. And they want us, just as a matter of idea, [to] give up all of our [freedoms].” Don’t be deceived, she warned. “There will be a database — and everybody will be in that database. And it’s not just vaccine status, it will be your entire medical history. It will be connected to your finances. This is going to get bigger, bigger, bigger, so stop it now, and don’t give any information to the government official at your door.”
And yet, Dr. Anthony Fauci insists that Americans should have less personal choice. “… I do believe, at the local level, there should be more mandates,” he insisted. “… We have got to put aside this ideological difference thinking that somebody is forcing you to do something… Vaccinations have nothing to do with politics.” Tell that to 2020’s Democrats, who spent months sowing doubts about the shots, just because they were created while Donald Trump was president. At one point Biden openly questioned whether a vaccine approved by Trump’s agencies would be safe. They are the ones who stoked fears and undermined the scientific progress. Now, suddenly, they want to flip a switch, undo that damage, and blame all of the hesitancy on conservatives. You can’t have it both ways. It was their politicking that put people’s lives at risk. And now, their heavy-handedness threatens to do the same — to our freedoms. COLUMN BY
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Family Research Councilhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngFamily Research Council2021-07-14 06:35:562021-07-16 18:53:01‘I’m from the Government, and I’m Here to Vaccinate’
Ouch! The Biden Administration’s out-of-control tax-and-spend policies are driving up inflation to levels that we have not seen since the Great Recession of 2008. Watch your wallet, America.
Making every dollar you earn and you spend worth measurably less. Never would have happened under Trump.
Biden has turned his back on American workers. So far he:
*cancelled the Keystone pipeline & thousands of blue-collar jobs *led a boycott of Georgia, crushing small businesses *has no plan to address skyrocketing inflation & gas prices hurting hard-working families
By Hannity.com, July 13, 2021
The inflation rate in the United States jumped to 5.4% in June as prices for consumer goods soared; posting the fastest pace since 2008 while the economy struggles to recover from the COVID-19 shutdown.
“The Labor Department said last month’s consumer-price index increased 5.4% from a year ago, the highest 12-month rate since August 2008. The so-called core price index, which excludes the often-volatile categories of food and energy, rose 4.5% from a year before,” reports the Wall Street Journal.
U.S. consumer prices rose 5.4% in June from a year ago, keeping inflation at the highest annual rate in 13 years as the economic recovery gained steam https://t.co/HbP9VXcWMp
“The index measures what consumers pay for goods and services, including clothes, groceries, restaurant meals, recreational activities and vehicles. It increased a seasonally adjusted 0.9% in June from May, the largest one-month change since June 2008. Prices for used cars and trucks leapt 10.5% from the previous month, driving one-third of the rise in the overall index, the department said. The indexes for airline fares and apparel also rose sharply in June,” adds the newspaper.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Pamela Gellerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngPamela Geller2021-07-14 06:28:322021-07-16 18:53:01BIDEN’S INFLATION NATION: Inflation Rate Jumps, Highest Since 2008, Prices Up 5.4% in June
By Warner Todd Huston, Flag and Cross, July 13, 2021:
Last week, black U.S. Olympic hammer thrower Gwen Berry raised eyebrows by refusing to stand at attention during the national anthem, but a new poll finds that most blacks don’t agree with such actions.
A new I&I/TIPP poll finds that Americans overwhelmingly reject athletes showing disrespect for the American flag at the Olympics.
The poll found that 79% of respondents say it’s important “for professional athletes to publicly respect the American flag on the international level,” while 60% say it is “very important.”
However, only 16% of the adults surveyed think it’s not important.
But even when broken down by gender, race, party and the like, the anthem protesters have little support.
Per Issues & Insights:
This sentiment was true across the board, with majorities in almost every demographic group broken out by the I&I/TIPP poll saying it was important for U.S. athletes to show respect for the flag when competing against athletes from other nations. That includes nearly two-thirds (61%) of black people surveyed and 69% of Hispanics.
By party breakdown, 93% of Republicans say showing respect is important, compared with 72% of Democrats. Support for showing respect increases with education as well – going from 73% of those with a high-school education to 81% of those with some college, and 83% of college graduates. Other breakdowns are shown in the nearby table.
Only young people don’t care if athletes respect the flag. Just 49% of those aged 18-24 say respect for the flag is important, while 39% say it’s not. Last week’s I&I/TIPP poll report showed members of this same age group were least likely to say they are proud to be an American: Just 36% said they are “very” or “extremely” proud of their nationality.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Pamela Gellerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngPamela Geller2021-07-14 06:19:372021-07-16 18:53:01POLL: 61% of Black People Oppose Protests During National Anthem at the Olympics
by Dan Claxton, KRCG, July 12, 2021:
NEW BLOOMFIELD — A Versailles man is in custody in the Morgan County jail charged with Making a Terroristic Threat by allegedly telling two co-workers on July 8 that he was going to blow up their workplace.
According to court documents, 33-year-old Yassine Bouyassine told a co-worker “when I come back I’ll blow it up.” Asked what he meant, he replied “Gates,” meaning Gates Corporation in Versailles, where Bouyassine works. He made a few more comments about “blowing up” and “shooting up” the facility, at one point asking co-workers how fast they thought he could do it.
The two employees who heard the comments then told their supervisor, who reported the incident to police.
Morgan County Prosecutor Dustin Dunklee charged Bouyassine with one count of Making a Terroristic Threat in the Second Degree. Missouri law defines that crime in part as communicating “an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life.”…
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Robert Spencerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngRobert Spencer2021-07-14 05:52:462021-07-16 18:53:01MISSOURI: Muslim Threatens to Blow Up and Shoot Up Factory Where He Works
Meanwhile, they were sitting down with Biden’s handlers to demand the end of sanctions. The mullahs know that there is nothing they can do that will make Biden’s handlers not want to give them everything they want.
by Benjamin Weiser, New York Times, July 13, 2021:
An Iranian American journalist living in Brooklyn was the target of an international kidnapping plot orchestrated by an Iranian intelligence network, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.
In an indictment unsealed in federal court in Manhattan, four Iranians were charged with conspiring to kidnap the journalist and author, Masih Alinejad, who has long been a staunch critic of the Iranian government.
Ms. Alinejad was not identified by prosecutors, but confirmed in an interview that she was the intended target of the plot. Last year, Ms. Alinejad wrote in a newspaper article that Iranian government officials had unleashed a social media campaign calling for her abduction.
The four defendants all live in Iran, the prosecutors said, identifying one of them, Alireza Shavaroghi Farahani, as an Iranian intelligence official and the three others as “Iranian intelligence assets.” A fifth defendant, accused of supporting the plot but not participating in the kidnapping conspiracy, was arrested in California.
A federal indictment describes a plot that included attempts to lure Ms. Alinejad to a third country to capture her and forcibly render her to Iran. The intelligence official, Mr. Farahani, and his network used private investigators to surveil, photograph and video record Ms. Alinejad and members of her household in Brooklyn, the government said.
The extensive surveillance that Mr. Farahani’s network procured included the use of a live, high-definition video feed depicting Ms. Alinejad’s home, prosecutors said.
“This is not some far-fetched movie plot,” William F. Sweeney Jr., the head of the F.B.I.’s New York office, said in a statement.
In a 2018 essay in The New York Times, Ms. Alinejad described her decision to leave Iran a decade earlier.
“As a journalist in Iran, I often got into trouble exposing the regime’s mismanagement and corruption until, eventually, my press pass was revoked,” she wrote. “I was often threatened with arrest or worse for writing articles critical of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ultimately, I was forced to flee my homeland in 2009.”…
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00Robert Spencerhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngRobert Spencer2021-07-14 05:39:582021-07-16 18:53:02Islamic Republic of Iran Sent Goons to Kidnap Iranian Freedom Activist in NYC and Take Her Back to Iran
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a signal moment in America’s constitutional history.
For the first time in a generation and a half — nearly 30 years — there is a realistic chance that the Supreme Court might overrule Roe v. Wade, the Court’s 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. The Court has agreed to hear a case next fall that presents a direct challenge to the foundations and validity of Roe.
This is a signal moment in America’s constitutional history. One of the most notorious decisions in the Court’s history is likely either to be repudiated and overruled — discarded, finally and definitively — or else reaffirmed and entrenched, perhaps permanently. The case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. And the stakes could not possibly be higher.
My discussion of Dobbs proceeds in two parts. In this article, I explain why Dobbs is the most important abortion case to reach the Court in nearly thirty years — since Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the case in which a splintered Court, by the narrowest of 5-4 margins, reaffirmed Roe, not because a majority of the justices thought Roe was right, but on the basis of the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis.” Dobbs is important because it frames a direct challenge to Roe and Casey, forcing the Court to confront the legal indefensibility and radicalism of the Court’s pro-abortion jurisprudence. Dobbs poses the enormously important question whether Roe and Casey, two of the worst constitutional decisions of all time, were wrongly decided and should now, finally, be overruled. On the merits, I submit, the answer must be yes.
Later on, I will take up the somewhat peculiar-sounding question whether the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis” — the (inconsistent) judicial practice of generally adhering to precedents — can properly require the Court deliberately to reaffirm precedents that it is persuaded are egregiously and atrociously wrong. That, I maintain today, is the only true question remaining at issue in Dobbs. And the answer is emphatically no.
Start with Roe v. Wade. Roe is regarded, rightly, as one of the most consequential and controversial — and one of the very worst — constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court in its history.
In simplest terms, Roe created a constitutional right to abortion of the life of a living human fetus. That result, and Roe’s reasoning in support of it, are indefensible from a legal standpoint. No plausible argument from the constitutional text, no rule or principle fairly derived from its structure or internal logic or deducible from other propositions contained therein, and no credible argument from historical understanding or intention remotely supports the abortion right created in Roe. Roe v. Wade is simply a lawless decision. I know of no serious constitutional scholar who defends Roe’s result as a faithful interpretation of the Constitution’s language, understood according to its natural and original meaning, as understood at the time of its adoption, or as consistent with the original intent of its adopters in 1868.
To be sure, a small cottage industry of legal academics has grown up around the enterprise of attempting to concoct “alternative” legal theories to support the result in Roe. These theories range from the merely strained and historically insupportable — the claim that abortion restrictions constitute sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the most common — to the comically absurd and outlandish.
The latter include wild assertions that abortion laws violate the Constitution’s prohibition of slavery or interfere with the guarantee to women of the right to vote. (I address and refute these theories in a book chapter of a volume collecting many of the most “creative” such contrivances, and also in an academic article.)
The Court has never adopted any of these alternative theories for abortion as a constitutional right. Nor has it come anywhere close to doing so. Instead, it has left the right to abortion where Roe purported to find it, in the guarantee that government not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property “without due process of law.”
That’s the same bogus legal reasoning on which the Supreme Court had rested its infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857, holding unconstitutional Congress’s law prohibiting the introduction of slavery into federal territories. This reasoning, if one can call it that, goes by the oxymoronic label “substantive due process.” It is gibberish, as most sensible people recognize.
In Casey, the Court, while nominally reaffirming Roe’s substantive due process holding, could not bring itself actually to embrace Roe’s reasoning as correct. Indeed, a majority of justices seemed to indicate they believed that the case was wrongly decided. Casey left Roe in place almost purely on the basis of the doctrine of stare decisis. In other words, the justices concluded the Court should stick to Roe “whether or not mistaken,” simply because it was a precedent on which the Court had staked its authority, and it might look bad if it were to reverse itself.
In tomorrow’s essay, I will attack this craven, unprincipled reasoning. For now, my point is simpler: Roe is a relic of abandoned reasoning that almost no one — including the Court itself — any longer thinks correct on its own terms. If Roe retains any legitimacy at all, it is only because it is a precedent and for no reason moored to the text of the Constitution.
It is important to grasp this. Roe v. Wade’s rule no longer rests on any provision of the Constitution. It rests on Roe’s rule being Roe’s rule. The constitutional right to abortion has been cut loose from any tether to the Constitution’s text. It now depends, essentially entirely, on the force of Roe’s status as a precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis. Roe’s indefensibility as a matter of faithful constitutional interpretation is, frankly, almost no longer a matter of serious dispute. The incorrectness of Roe as a matter of first principles is practically a point of common ground, certainly so for the principled constitutional conservatives that now compose the majority of the justices on the Court. Bluntly put: Roe is as wrong as wrong can be, and everybody knows it.
Roe’s extremism and its human consequences
Roe’s formulation of the abortion right is also quite extreme. In a nutshell, Roe established a constitutional right to abortion of a living human fetus for essentially any reason that a pregnant woman chooses. Under the Court’s decisions, the right to abort exists throughout all nine months of pregnancy, albeit in slightly varying forms depending on the stage of pregnancy.
Prior to fetal “viability” — that is, the point when the child could live outside his or her mother’s womb, now around twenty-four weeks — the right to abort is explicitly plenary. There is no ground on which states may prohibit an abortion from being obtained. This includes, as I have recently written, eugenic reasons — aborting an unborn child because of his or her race or sex, or on account of disability.
After viability, an abortion may be had for any “health” reason, but “health” is defined broadly (and misleadingly) to embrace emotional, psychological, age, or “familial” considerations. This loophole is big enough to make the right to abortion functionally absolute, even when the child could live outside the womb.
The Court’s opinions concerning “partial-birth” abortion, in 2000 and 2007, bear this out. They uphold a right to kill a fetus capable of living independently of the mother, under the rubric of the need to permit late abortions on “health” grounds. Thus, partial-birth abortion — the gruesome technique of inducing labour, delivering all of the body except the head, puncturing the skull and vacuuming out the child’s brain, collapsing the head, and then completing removal of the dead child — can be prohibited as an abortion method, even after viability, only if there is available some equally safe (to the pregnant woman) alternative method for killing the fetus.
The right to abortion is thus essentially absolute. This is especially clear for pre-viability abortions. State governments may adopt certain informed consent and waiting-period requirements, and they may enforce some (but not many) regulations of abortion clinics. But they may not prohibit abortion itself, for any reason, prior to viability. Planned Parenthood v. Casey tinkered slightly with Roe’s framework but did not alter its essentials. It retained the absolute right to pre-viability abortion and it retained the “health” right to abortion of even viable unborn babies.
It is worth pausing briefly to reflect on just how radical the Roe–Casey abortion-rights legal construct is. It is no cautious “balance” of interests. It is almost unreservedly pro-abortion. It adopts one of the most extremely lenient pro-abortion legal regimes anywhere in the world. It fails to recognise any legal rights of the unborn human fetal children, in any respect, at any stage of pregnancy.
It does not recognise them as legal persons in their own right, entitled to the equal protection of the laws from private violence (a debatable but infinitely more plausible legal understanding of the common law and of the Constitution’s guarantees than is Roe’s creation of a constitutional right to abortion). Nor, short of that, does it recognise the unborn as members of the human species meriting protection by the state, whether or not they possess a constitutionally recognised legal “right to life” of their own. The living human fetus is treated, absurdly, as “potential life.”
In short, if Roe were an act of legislation, a bill passed by a legislature, it would be extremist pro-abortion legislation. And, not to put too fine a point on it, Roeis an act of legislation. (As is Casey — a modest, friendly amendment to Roe.) That Roe and Casey are acts of extremist legislation, adopted by a runaway judiciary, only makes matters worse.
The most important point about Roe’s extremism is, of course, its human toll. Roe’s practical and moral consequences have been truly stunning. Roe sanctioned, and Casey perpetuated, in the name of our fundamental law, the killing of over sixty million human beings.
This is not rhetorical overstatement but simple description. That abortion kills should not be a controversial proposition. There is no doubt that abortion results in the death of a distinct living being — an organism that was alive before is now dead. And there is no doubt that the living being killed by abortion is a human living being, distinct from the mother.
Abortion thus ends a human life. To be sure, it is a human life at an early and vulnerable stage in its development. But it is the same human life it will be at all stages of its life cycle, as an embryo, fetus, infant, child, and adult. Roe created a right of some human beings to kill other human beings. It is important to be clear about that. Since Roe, the running human death toll from abortion in America has exceeded that of the Nazi Holocaust, Stalin’s purges, and the Rwandan genocide combined. Our familiarity with Roe has led to a strange acceptance of, or numbness to, its shocking, murderous radicalism and the scale of its havoc. Roe is both a constitutional monstrosity and a moral atrocity. As I wrote in these pages nearly a decade ago, Roe is simply unbearably wrong. It is time — long past time — to overrule Roe v. Wade.
The Dobbs case
That brings us to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Dobbs case poses a direct, head-on challenge to Roe’s framework and, by necessary implication, its legitimacy. Here’s how: As noted, Roe and Casey hold that abortion cannot be banned for any reason before the point of fetal viability, when the child would be capable of living outside his or her mother’s womb, currently at about twenty-four weeks of pregnancy. Dobbs involves a legal challenge to a Mississippi law forbidding abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy. This is more than two months before the point of viability. Simply put, if Roe is right, Mississippi’s law is “unconstitutional” (to accede, for purposes of argument, to an inaccurate characterisation). And conversely, for Mississippi’s law to be upheld, Roe and Casey must be rejected.
The Dobbs case thus squarely presents the issue of whether Roe v. Wade is wrong and should be overruled. Given what Roe and subsequent abortion decisions hold, and what the Mississippi law in question provides, the issue is practically unavoidable. And the Court’s order granting review shows no desire to avoid it. The legal question on which the justices granted review was stated as follows: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” That’s another way of asking whether Roe v. Wade is rightly or wrongly decided and should remain the operative legal rule.
What will the Court do? A solid majority of justices now on the Supreme Court clearly believes that Roe is unequivocally wrongly decided, as flagrant a departure from constitutional text, structure, and history as any precedent in the Court’s history.
There is no doubt in my mind that six of the nine sitting justices firmly believe Roe is wrong. They are, in rough order of certainty: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts.
In truth, I believe Justice Elena Kagan in her heart of hearts is unpersuaded of Roe’s legal correctness, too. But she and fellow liberals Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor can be counted on to vote for unrestricted abortion rights no matter what.
The stakes and snare of “stare decisis”
Everything — everything — thus depends on the Court’s treatment of the legal doctrine of “stare decisis.” “Stare decisis” is a fragment of the Latin phrase taken to stand for the general rule of practice and judicial policy, drawn from the common law, that courts tend to follow their own precedents unless they have a good and sufficient legal justification for departing from them.
Significantly, the doctrine has never been thought to be constitutionally required. It is a rule of judicial policy and usual practice only. Nor has the doctrine ever been thought absolute. There are literally hundreds of examples of cases that have been overruled. Even at common law, courts could overrule prior decisions demonstrated to be unsound.
Moreover, the doctrine’s roots in common-law adjudication — where the law actually consists of general principles discerned from the overall course of judicial decisions — mean that it does not transpose neatly (if at all) to constitutional interpretation, where the relevant law consists of an authoritative, written legal text.
Simply put, if the text is the touchstone, judicial precedents contrary to the text are simply not faithful understandings of the relevant law. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in constitutional cases has consistently affirmed that core principle, leading the Court repeatedly to emphasise that adherence to precedent is “not an inexorable command.”
Nonetheless, the doctrine retains some intuitive appeal, especially for “conservatives,” as it purports to advance conservative-sounding values of stability, predictability, consistency, humility, and restraint. And it does advance these values, at least to some extent. But the doctrine is slippery, deceptive, and readily manipulated.
In practice, the doctrine often disserves the very policies it claims to serve, undermining predictability and stability and disguising judicial discretion. There is a strong claim that it is not “conservative” at all — that faithful adherence to the Constitution requires just that: faithful adherence to the Constitution, not to faithless departures from its text, structure, history, and original meaning.
Ironically, the staunchest defenders of stare decisis today are liberal, activist judges, who invoke it selectively and perhaps a bit cynically, as a tool for entrenching liberal decisions that are not defensible under the Constitution. That is, they invoke stare decisis precisely to preserve such faithless departures from the text itself.
Like the apple in the Garden, then, the doctrine of stare decisis can be deceptively enticing. Dangled by the devil for evil purposes, the doctrine has an enormous capacity to mislead and deceive. Some nominally “conservative” members of the Court have succumbed to its appeal in the past, including in abortion cases, substituting a corrupted version of the doctrine for constitutional principle.
That is what happened in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision in which a 5-4 majority of the Court voted to reaffirm Roe v. Wade on the supposed basis of the doctrine of stare decisis — even while changing Roe’s standards and framework and overruling two cases.
Is there a risk that something like this could happen again in Dobbs? Is there a risk of another Casey? Might the Court hold, in the name of stare decisis, that Roe and Casey should be upheld, no matter how wrong they were, how extreme they are, and how atrocious their consequences, simply because they were decided before?
I take up that question next: Does the doctrine of stare decisis require adherence to an egregiously wrong, legally indefensible precedent, in conflict with a proper understanding of the Constitution, simply because it is a precedent?
Republished with permission from The Public Discourse. COLUMN BY
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2021-07-14 05:19:512021-07-16 18:53:02Repudiating Roe: The Most Important Abortion Case in 30 Years
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00The Babylon Beehttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThe Babylon Bee2021-07-14 05:08:222021-07-16 18:53:02‘Vaccines Should Be Mandatory,’ Says Woman Wearing My Body, My Choice T-Shirt
Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.