Reader’s Links for December 16th, 2023

Posted on by

Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.

This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.

So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.

This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.

For those interested, please check out https://vladtepesblog.substack.com/ as an another avenue of expression.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

40 Replies to “Reader’s Links for December 16th, 2023”

  2. Last night I posted this in response to Richard. I thought it over and decided it’s worth a second look.

    Inflation or deflation? So many experts, so many opinions. Much like politics, you may not care about economics, but sooner or later in knocks on every door, and usually not with a happy face.

    Dowd says M2 money supply is contracting more than it has since The Great Depression. I think he is correct because I have seen this documented elsewhere. This means deflation.

    Mcleod says the Fed can’t allow deflation because then it can’t sell bonds to finance itself. It must keep rates up. Rates up, dollar up, and so on…

    It spins the head. In the end I think both opinions can be correct once we add in the time factor. Market actions will be simultaneous, but also sequential.

    The current period of disinflation (and only in some sectors) will prompt an event that will provide the required excuse to print more money. An excuse is needed to cover the malfeasance of mismanaging the economy.

    Dowd thinks Covid-19 was timed to cover the 2019 repo market disaster that was cooking in banking. I agree because I brought that event here, back then, to show everyone.

    Dowd observes economic events growing in amplitude and frequency. The next money-printing excuse will have to be massive in order to cover the massive debts. War is not enough. The alien invasion is, like, stupid ’cause, like, everybody knows aliens have little stick legs so they can’t chase us around, like.

    So they will intentionally crash the economy and have everyone begging to fix it. Then we get CBDCs–back to what has become square ONE in the conspiratorial realm.

    https://youtu.be/PCyUcyUVmEA?si=kez4yX1Wse5fkn8d

  4. Breaking: Georgia Elections Board “Continues” Investigation into 17,000 Ballot Images Missing from 2020 Presidential Election
    by Guest Contributor Dec. 16, 2023 9:30 am49 Comments

    The Georgia State Board of Elections (SEB) was scheduled to cover the results of investigation (SEB2023-25) at its meeting this week. The investigation into the 2020 Election has been labeled “violations found”. Yesterday the SEB reported that this investigation has been reclassified as “continued” and will not be discussed at this week’s meetings.

    The whole story behind this case and two others was outlined in this post.

    The Georgia State Board of Elections (SEB) was scheduled to cover the results of investigation (SEB2023-25) at its meeting this week. The investigation into the 2020 Election has been labeled “violations found”. Yesterday the SEB reported that this investigation has been reclassified as “continued” and will not be discussed at this week’s meetings.

    The whole story behind this case and two others was outlined in this post.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/breaking-georgia-elections-board-continues-investigation-17000-ballot/

    =====================================================================

    The Georgia State Elections Board will decide next week whether to move forward with investigation into corrupt Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger after his Chief Counsel threatened a Georgia official and judge.

    As we previously reported the 2020 Election in Georgia never should have been certified. The results were uncertifiable.

    Per an audit of the Dominion systems used in Georgia, the systems were determined to not be secure. Bad actors could hack into them and flip an election.

    The processes surrounding the 2020 Election were a mess as well. Ballots were counted after hours behind closed doors with no supervisors present. An individual hired was hired by the state to review the mess in Fulton County based on prior election failures. He reported that the place was a mess. “Order is starting to breakdown”, Carter Jones wrote after reviewing the operations in Fulton County on election night. “Ralph newly re-scanned some ballots that had already been processed by Shaye.”

    https://joehoft.com/breaking-exclusive-at-last-minute-georgia-elections-board-continues-reporting-of-investigation-into-17000-ballot-images-missing-from-2020-election/

  5. Radical Michigan Imam Calls for Muslims to Wage Jihad in US (Video)
    by Margaret Flavin Dec. 16, 2023 9:00 am418 Comments

    Ahmad Musa Jibril, a Michigan Islamist preacher, has called on American Muslims to wage Jihad against the “infidel West” and declared Muslims in the US should start “normalizing” Jihad.

    An X account associated with the radical imam shared several clips, including one that labels Joe Biden a “terrorist” for his administration’s policy toward Israel.

    “You have seen that senile Pharaoh of our time, he has lost his mind of everything, except his loyalty and support for Jewish occupiers is more to blame for the genocide in Palestine that the occupying Jews.”

    “Yes, there is holy war in Islam, it is Jihad. This may be a surprise to many who grew up in the West, especially those who were born or grew up post 9/11, because of the growing number of hypocrites, who are spreading the American-Zionist Islam, and it has nothing to do with Islam, that version of Islam is and Islam that suits the enemies.”

    “If you can’t raise your child telling him you want him to be mujahid and martyr, then you are the root of the problem.”

    Jibril suggested that in the time following the October 7 attack by Hamas terrorists on Israeli civilians, young Muslims should understand that “the infidel West, particularly the US, are the enemies of Muslims.”

    He also urged Muslim mothers to “nurse their infants with the love of Jihad and the ambition to become a mujahid and a martyr.”

    According to The New York Post, Jibril has a history of inciting those in his community. He called for young people to travel to Syria to fight alongside the barbarians of ISIS, and he faxed an ugly fan letter to CNN after a terror bombing in Riyadh in 1995.

    A perpetrator in the London Bridge 2017 terror attack was also reportedly a listener of Jibril.

    Alberto Fernandez, vice president of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), told Fox News Digital, “You have pretty radicalizing, extreme content happening. This is stuff they uploaded on social media. It’s there for everybody to see.”

    “If that’s the stuff that they’re saying openly, what are they saying that is not open?” Fernandez said.
    Sponsored

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/radical-michigan-imam-calls-muslims-wage-jihad-us/

  6. Maligned by the MSM, Argentina’s Javier Milei Is Not Joking Around: Gets Rid of ‘Ministry of Culture’ Along With 8 Others, to the Dismay of Libs Worldwide
    by Paul Serran Dec. 16, 2023 8:30 am144 Comments

    The Javier Milei government in Argentina kicks off with very meaningful economic measures, under the dishonest microscope of the media.

    While the outgoing liberal Peronists destroyed Argentina’s economy, took the country to hyperinflation, and sent 40% of the once-proud population below the poverty line, it is for some reason Milei who is painted in the MSM as the ‘danger’, as an extremely risky bet made by a desperate populace.

    Also, the Peronists are the political heirs of the brutal military dictatorship of Juan Domingo Perón – hence the name – but it is somehow Milei who is accused of ‘ultra-right’ or even, in a far-left ‘Foreign Policy’ meltdown, as a ‘wannabe fascist’.

    In this scenario, independent journalists worldwide make it a point to be doing a play-by-play of the new president’s moves, trying to dismantle the ‘cascade effects’ and the outright lies.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/maligned-msm-argentinas-javier-milei-is-not-joking/

  7. EXCLUSIVE: Rudy Giuliani Speaks to Gateway Pundit Following “UnAmerican” Trial in DC Court, Says He Will Appeal $148 MILLION Ruling – Still Stands by His Statements About the 2020 Election
    by Jordan Conradson Dec. 16, 2023 8:00 am109 Comments

    America’s Mayor Rudy Giuliani spoke to The Gateway Pundit exclusively on Friday night to share his thoughts and plans to appeal the DC Court’s finding that he defamed Georgia 2020 election workers.

    The DC jury ruled that Rudy Giuliani owes plaintiffs $148 MILLION in Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss’ lawsuit against him for alleged defamation after he claimed the two women contributed to voter fraud in Georgia’s 2020 election.

    At the time of the 2020 election, the two women made little money. Shaye Moss’s annual salary was reportedly about $35,000 as an interim supervisor at the elections department. However, one document from the plaintiff’s exhibits showed that Moss’s pre-tax income was $259,000 during at least one of the years since the 2020 election. Freeman and Moss were elevated to the level of heroes in the mainstream media after the election and by Joe Biden earlier this year when he awarded them both Presidential Citizens Medals for their “exemplary contributions to our democracy surrounding January 6, 2021.”

    The Gateway Pundit reported on the shocking news that the DC jury awarded Ruby and Shaye $100 million more than their attorneys asked for. The $148 million total will be split between the mother and daughter.

    Last night, Giuliani told The Gateway Pundit, “My next steps are going to be to appeal it.” He continued, “It is going to take a while because there’s so much to appeal.”

    Immediately after the jury came in with their verdict, Giuliani also addressed the leftist media outside of the DC Court and said, “I have no doubt that my comments were made, and they were supportable and are supportable today. I just did not have an opportunity to present the evidence that we offered.”

    As The Gateway Pundit and Politico reported, Judge Beryl Howell decided that Rudy Giuliani was legally liable for defaming Ruby and Shaye because he was unable to produce evidence requested by the election workers’ attorneys. This evidence was taken by the FBI, says Rudy. “The FBI took every electronic device in my apartment and my law office,” said Giuliani. “I don’t delete things.” It also appears the FBI may have lost or even destroyed a significant portion of the information that was turned over, as has happened before. When asked about these rumors, Giuliani told The Gateway Pundit he could not comment “right now.”

    “This decision should be reversed, as Mayor Giuliani is wrongly accused of not preserving electronic evidence that was seized and held by the FBI,” Giuliani advisor Ted Goodman previously said.

    Giuliani was not allowed to present his own evidence in court or to defend himself in the public square. After multiple warnings from the judge about statements he made outside of the courtroom, he was effectively muzzled from speaking about the plaintiffs. Giuliani says this is why he did not testify, telling The Gateway Pundit he worried he would be held in contempt and jailed for speaking his mind.

    Throughout the trial, attorneys for Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss referenced the security footage of vote-counting actions at the State Farm Arena and the alleged handoff of what many alleged was a thumb drive.

    However, they did not play any footage for the jury, only providing extremely vague screenshots of the incident, and told the jury that the alleged thumb drive in question was actually a ginger mint candy.

    “As Freeman took the stand, her attorney entered a ginger mint into evidence — and Freeman passed the judge a ginger mint, too,” ABC reports. The judge, who gave no appearance of impartiality throughout the trial, happily accepted Ruby’s gift.

    Anybody in that courtroom could see from Judge Howell’s body language, attitude, actions, and rulings that she held utter contempt for Mayor Giuliani and his counsel but esteem for plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss and their attorneys. During closing arguments, plaintiffs’ attorneys laughed, and Howell smirked along with them as Giuliani’s attorney tried to convince the jury that he is “a good man,” citing his service to New York City and history as a bestselling author.

    Also, in closing arguments, attorney Michael Gottlieb, representing Freeman and Moss, showed jurors the poorly timed photo below while depicting the great Rudy Giuliani as a madman who “offer[ed] defenseless civil servants to a public mob in order to overturn an election.” These same “defenseless” women came to court with countless expensive attorneys advising and attaining them a nearly 150 million dollar verdict.

    Ruby and Shaye are represented by Protect Democracy, a large far-left and Soros-tied nonprofit that also worked tirelessly and petitioned the DOJ to shut down the Arizona 2020 election audit, as well as Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and DuBose Miller LLC. “They’re tied into the Biden Machine,” Rudy Giuliani said of the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

    Before the jury was brought in to hear closing arguments Thursday morning, this reporter observed Ruby and Shaye snickering, laughing, and gossiping like high schoolers at the lunch table. In this reporter’s eyes, they looked like they were having fun, not like they were defenseless or fearful of a public mob. Shaye even looked back at someone in the gallery with a huge smile on her face at one point. However, after the jury was brought in, they looked angry, and Shaye appeared to be wiping tears and fanning her face with a tissue.

    “It’s just not a coincidence,” says Giuliani, that Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP attorney Michael Gottlieb is a former law partner of Hunter Biden at Boies Schiller and is reportedly implicated in Hunter’s foreign business dealings with a Romanian businessman and the Burisma scandal. This is coupled with a rabidly anti-Trump Obama judge who recently went on an unhinged rant during a speech, suggesting that the country is creeping towards authoritarianism — not because of her uber-partisan actions as a lawless judge but because Donald Trump is a tyrant. The DC jury that delivered a verdict was just the cherry on top to make this a three-against-one competition.

    “Let’s face it, a Trump person is not going to win in front of the DC jury. It’s just not possible,” Giuliani noted.

    Giuliani spoke to The Gateway Pundit correspondent Jordan Conradson just hours after the verdict came in to share his reaction and next steps. Read his remarks below:

    Giuliani: My next steps are going to be to appeal it. It is going to take a while because there’s so much to appeal.

    I don’t think it could even be described as a trial, because the trial allows you to offer evidence in your defense. I was prohibited from doing that. I was even sort of subtly threatened with jail if I did it, of being held in contempt. So, there are many points on appeal: the fact that she found liability based on a failure of discovery when there were thousands of documents discovered, and I did a deposition, full and complete, without taking the Fifth Amendment and answered all their questions. I’ve never heard of you find somebody guilty based on they didn’t turn over a document. And of this magnitude. I guess the simplest way to put it is at no point did I have an opportunity to offer any evidence in my defense. There was no trial on the merits; she decided it peremptorily. And then, when I tried to do it to mitigate the damages, I was told that I would be contradicting what she had found, and I’d be in contempt of the orders.

    Conradson: Don’t you think they should have seen that video of Ruby and Shaye, the actual video footage of what happened?

    Giuliani: Well, of course, I do. Everybody else has seen it. They’re the only ones who haven’t seen. The people who rendered that unbelievably, incredibly large verdict against me, obviously, were very angry because they heard nothing in my defense. I mean, everybody else can take a look at that and make up their own mind about it. I think it’s pretty easy to figure out what’s going on. It doesn’t take a genius. And it sure would have made a very big difference, of course.

    Conradson: Why exactly was the trial in DC? Why not a different jurisdiction?

    Giuliani: Let’s face it, a Trump person is not going to win in front of the DC jury. It’s just not possible. I mean, my lawyer told me that, every lawyer tells you that. Maybe some of them lie because they don’t want to get the judges angry. But the judges have rendered DC, such an unfair and biased place that why go to trial? I don’t know what else you’d do. Maybe 1/1000 times, you’d get an aberration. But I’ve never seen anything as bad as this, where it is impossible to get a fair trial. And I’ve never seen a case where liability was decided on a rather Picayune point of discovery. Maybe if they had gotten no discovery? My God, I gave everything I had. In fact, their discovery, we complained, was overbroad and harassing. And I think a fair judge would have agreed with us because they were doing discovery for other cases. Look, let’s face it, they’re tied into the Biden machine. Gottlieb is a former law partner of Hunter Biden from Boies Schiller, and he worked on the Burisma case. Do you think that’s a coincidence? I don’t.

    She should have recused herself. Maybe we made a mistake not recusing her, but I didn’t realize until the end all the different comments that she’s made that indicate such bias. Nor did I know about this speech until today that she made. But when you consider that she basically scolded the prosecutors for not bringing strong enough charges against the J6 defendants; I’ve never heard a judge telling prosecutors what to charge, ever. If that isn’t misconduct, I don’t know what the hell is. It’s not our job to tell prosecutors what to recommend. Isn’t that a separation of powers? And doesn’t it show somebody who has too much of a bias to be involved in these cases, like mine? But had I known about the speech, I sure as hell would have moved for her to recuse herself. And we’ll probably use that on appeal too.

    The only thing more absurd than the verdict is the trial. The verdict is the best indication; the verdict is completely irrational, and it’s the product of an unfair, unAmerican, irrational trial. This is the kind of trial that you would expect to have in a fascist country where you don’t get to put in a defense, technical discovery things they use to find you guilty, every objection your lawyer makes is overruled, everything he wants to put in evidence is excluded and the jury comes back with a wacky number because it was a wacky trial. I think the number, being so far out of the realm of rationality, very quickly proves, what then a lot more study definitely proves, that the trial in almost every respect was an unfair trial and an embarrassment to the DC court. But there has been more than one of those lately.

    Somebody has to figure out how they start to become fair and impartial judges, again. Keeping those people in jail for 20 months, 25 months, I mean, I feel lucky that, you know, I got to pay a price for this, we all have to pay a price for freedom, but my price was not nearly as high as those people that were kept in jail for all that time. I mean, some of those people committed suicide! Also, you can tell it was a political prosecution of this case. These people didn’t have the money for these lawyers. This is funded by the Bidens. The lawyer, I mean, I’m telling you, it’s just not a coincidence that the guy was a friend of Hunter’s, a law partner of Hunter’s, comes from Boies Schiller and worked on Burisma. What else do we need?

    We have become a one-party country, where we have people who are in the Golden Circle and get favored. And then we have the people who oppose the regime. And the reality is they feel free to do anything to them that they can and take anything they want from them, and it’s becoming worse and worse. We’re not going to have to stop our country from becoming a Socialist Fascist country. At least in certain places, where the Biden regime, and Soros DAs, and progressive Democrats rule, we already are. That’s what happens in a country where people are treated differently, and there is no rule of law.

    We thank Rudy Giuliani for his time and pray for him and our country this Christmas season.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/exclusive-rudy-giuliani-speaks-gateway-pundit-following-unamerican/

  8. Abortion Ruling Keeps Texas Doctors Afraid of Prosecution
    December 13, 2023
    in News

    Texas doctors, women and lawyers have been asking the state for nearly two years to clarify what is and what is not allowed understrict, overlapping abortion bans. Lawmakers passed a bill this year that makes some exceptions to the bans clearer, but it wasn’t enough to help doctors decide whether they could legally give a Dallas woman, Kate Cox, an abortion.

    Ms. Cox sought permission to end her pregnancy after she learned that her fetus had a fatal genetic condition. A district court judge said she qualified for a medical exception to the bans, but Texas Supreme Court overturned that decision this week.

    Before the court ruled, Ms. Cox left the state for the procedure, as thousands of Texas women had already done. Her case reveals the dynamics of abortion politics in Texas: For abortion opponents, including the state’s Republican leaders, confusion and fear among doctors has succeeded in preventing nearly all abortions, even in cases of serious pregnancy complications, and there is little incentive to change course.

    Texas has publicly reported only 34 abortions so far this year, down from more than 50,000 in 2020, before the first of the severe restrictions went into effect.

    That steep decline has occurred even though there have not yet been any prosecutions under the state bans, nor any significant lawsuits against doctors or hospitals. The mere threat of ruinous civil litigation or a lifetime in prison has been enough.

    “Essentially, what we have is that no one will take responsibility,” said Molly Duane, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights who represented Ms. Cox and her doctor. “The court isn’t taking responsibility. The medical board isn’t taking responsibility. And in the meantime, doctors are more afraid than ever, and real patients’ lives hang in the balance.”

    Amy O’Donnell, a spokeswoman for Texas Alliance for Life, an anti-abortion group, said in a statement that the fact that dozens of abortions have been performed in the state this year showed that the medical exceptions to the bans, while limited, were working.

    “No physician has been prosecuted or disciplined for anything related to those abortions,” she said, adding that her group was grateful to the Texas Supreme Court for ruling in favor of protecting Ms. Cox’s unborn child.

    In its ruling, the Texas Supreme Court sided with the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, who argued that exceptions to the bans were legal only when the health or life of the mother was seriously threatened, and Ms. Cox’s case did not appear to meet that standard, based on the arguments presented.

    The court said that the law allowed for abortions based on a doctor’s “reasonable medical judgment.” If doctors remained confused, the court said, the Texas Medical Board could step in with guidelines.

    But doctors have said that the risk of performing an abortion that they believed to be necessary but that could later be questioned by the state presented them with a stark choice: Go ahead with the procedure and risk felony prosecution, or wait until a woman’s health deteriorates to the point that no one would question the medical need.

    This week’s ruling, which applied only to Ms. Cox’s current pregnancy, provided little solace for abortion rights advocates who are waiting for the court, whose nine elected members are all Republicans, to rule in a separate but related case.

    That case, Zurawski v. Texas, is aimed at resolving confusion about medical exceptions more generally, and at allowing doctors to perform abortions that they deem medically necessary, and within the bounds of the law, without the fear of civil or criminal punishment.

    Most of the 34 abortions reported in Texas in 2023 in were performed by medication, the method typically used in the earliest stages of pregnancy, according to state data. Only two were surgical “dilation and evacuation” procedures of the type Ms. Cox sought, which are performed in the second trimester, after 13 weeks of pregnancy. In 2020, there were nearly 2,500 such procedures in Texas.

    Doctors and legal experts said the lack of clarity in the law had deterred doctors from performing abortions that they believed were necessary to preserve the health of the woman. The court found that the law does not require an imminent threat to the mother’s life, but doctors said that in practice, those were the only situations in which abortions have been performed.

    “In Texas, you have to wait until the patient gets sick,” said Dr. Alireza A. Shamshirsaz, an obstetrician and fetal surgeon who left Texas for Boston last year. “But that is a dangerous game. Wait, wait, wait, while the mom gets sick, and then you do it.”

    Dr. Shamshirsaz said the problem was concern about legal action, especially among hospital administrators. “Our hospital was very clear that you cannot even talk about abortion,” he said of a hospital where he had worked in Texas. “Because they don’t want to deal with the state at all. Or the courts.”

    Last year, a study of patients in two Dallas hospitals found that after a restrictive Texas law went into effect in 2021, limiting most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, women facing serious complications later in pregnancy suffered because they were not allowed to end their pregnancies.

    The state and its experts have argued that patients are harmed not by the state law, but by doctors’ unwillingness to perform abortions that are allowed under the law.

    “A lot of the confusion and the potentially substandard care that is occurring is because the doctors have misinterpreted the law,” said Dr. Ingrid Skop, an obstetrician-gynecologist, in a deposition in the Zurawski case. “Unfortunately there has not been much guidance from the organizations that, in other less politically charged issues, have given them guidance.”

    Ms. Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two young children who said she wanted a large family, brought her case after her fetus was diagnosed with trisomy 18, a genetic disorder that is fatal in all but rare cases.

    She was believed to be the first pregnant women to seek a court-ordered abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year. Shortly after her case was filed, a pregnant Kentucky woman sued to overturn that state’s bans.

    Texas law does not permit abortions based on the viability or nonviability of the fetus. But Ms. Cox’s doctor, Damla Karsan, determined that carrying the pregnancy to term would threaten Ms. Cox’s health and future fertility, particularly because Ms. Cox would probably need a cesarean section, which would be her third.

    One aspect of Ms. Cox’s case could end up deepening concern among doctors: how quick Mr. Paxton was to threaten Dr. Karsan with prosecution in an open letter.

    The court’s ruling — which was unsigned, issued “from the court,” and included no dissents — appeared to endorse Mr. Paxton’s action, according to Laura Portuondo, a University of Houston law professor who specializes in constitutional and reproductive rights. “It permits and green-lights precisely the kind of intimidation campaign that you saw Ken Paxton doing here,” she said.

    Doctors have been asking the Texas Medical Board for guidance on the medical exception issue since last year. So far, the board has not taken any action. A spokesman for the board did not respond to a request for comment.

    “We don’t have clarity from this Cox ruling,” said Dr. Rick W. Snyder II, the president of the Texas Medical Association, who added that getting guidance from the medical board would not be enough. “We’re going to want legislative clarity,” he said. “We’re trying to protect physicians, so they don’t have to go to court.”

    The state legislature added some legal protections this year for doctors in certain limited cases, but Dr. Snyder said that much more was needed. At the same time, he said, Ms. Cox “clearly was not” in a medical emergency. “I understand how the Supreme Court ruled the way they did, in not wanting to legislate from the bench,” he said.

    Lawyers for the Center for Reproductive Rights have pushed courts in several states to adopt a “good faith” standard for assessing a doctor’s decision that a medical exception applies. Under that standard, it could be more difficult to challenge an abortion legally, experts said, because doing so would involve having to show that the doctor did not act in good faith.

    The Texas law says doctors must rely on “reasonable medical judgment,” a standard that allows their decisions to be challenged more easily, by presenting testimony about what another “reasonable” doctor would do in the situation, the legal experts said. Mr. Paxton’s attorneys did just that in Ms. Cox’s case, citing Dr. Skop as an expert witness who believed that Ms. Cox’s condition did not meet the requirement for a medical exception.

    “The reason that the difference matters is that it opens up the gate for bringing in competing expert witnesses,” said Ms. Portuondo, the law professor. “The state has its Rolodex of pro-life physicians who will say ‘I don’t think it is reasonable to perform this abortion.’”

    The post Abortion Ruling Keeps Texas Doctors Afraid of Prosecution appeared first on New York Times.

    https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fdnyuz.com%2F2023%2F12%2F13%2Fabortion-ruling-keeps-texas-doctors-afraid-of-prosecution%2F

  9. Report: Hunter Biden Threatens to ‘Flee’ America if Donald Trump Reelected

    Hunter Biden reportedly threatened to take extreme action and flee the United States of America if voters reelect former President Donald Trump.

    The threat represents the often neurotic nature of the president’s son, 53, who faces 42 years in prison for tax and gun charges in an ongoing investigation.

    “In recent conversations with family friends, he [Hunter] has worried that he might have to flee the country if Trump were to be elected president again,” two people who spoke with Hunter told Politico’s Jonathan Lemire.

    Recent polling shows Trump leading President Joe Biden in state and nationwide polling:

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/12/15/report-hunter-biden-threatens-to-flee-america-if-donald-trump-reelected/

  10. Jewish Alumni Group: Harvard Aims to Reduce Jews to 1-2% of Student Population

    Harvard University may intend to reduce the proportion of Jews in its student body to 1-2%, roughly the Jewish share of the U.S. population, according to a newsletter published by a new group of Jewish alumni of the institution.

    In a “December update,” the newly-formed “Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance” reported Friday (original emphasis):

    We have seen data that suggest that the Jewish population at the College has declined from 20-25% in the 1990s-2000s to 5-7% today, but that almost all that decline occurred in recent years. We have heard from multiple sources at the University that it is the official, undisclosed policy of the school to drive down Jewish admissions to 1-2% of the student body, proportionately matching Jews’ percentage of the U.S. population. This violates basic meritocratic principles and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. Like the shameful Jewish quotas in Harvard’s past, current limits mimic the Soviets, who used similar tactics to limit Jewish access to education.

    The purported 2% quota would go much further than the 15% Jewish quota then-Harvard President Abbott Lowell tried to impose a century ago, when the proportion of Jewish students at Harvard was over 20%.

    The idea of imposing quotas on Jews has ideological roots in Nazi Germany, via apartheid South Africa.

    Hendrik Verwoerd, an Afrikaner nationalist who later became a prime minister of South Africa, and was regarded as the architect of apartheid, had studied in Germany during the 1920s and was sympathetic to Nazi Germany.

    In the 1930s, he opposed the admission of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany to South Africa. He also argued that Jewish participation in the South African economy should be limited to the Jewish proportion of the population. He argued that “by legislation it must be ensured, gradually but deliberately, that each White population group, as far as possible, has a share in each of the most important occupations, in accordance with the proportion it forms of the White population as a whole.”

    South Africa never adopted such laws against Jews, but — ironically — the principle of population “representivity” persists, notably in that country’s aggressive affirmative action laws.

    Harvard has been the subject of criticism for the last few months, following an outbreak of radical anti-Israel rhetoric on campus, and several instances of antisemitism.

    Earlier this year, Harvard’s affirmative action policies were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Quotas are also unlawful under Supreme Court precedent.

    https://www.breitbart.com/education/2023/12/15/jewish-alumni-group-harvard-aims-to-reduce-jews-to-1-2-of-student-population/

  12. Why is S.F. spending $113,000 per cabin for homeless? Nonprofit says it could build for much less
    By Aldo Toledo, Noah ArroyoDec 15, 2023

    When the nonprofit Dignity Moves opened 70 homes for the homeless on a vacant lot in near San Francisco Civic Center in 2022, unhoused residents who moved into the village praised it as a dignified, caring place to get a second chance. Elected officials celebrated the site, saying they wanted to replicate it throughout the city as a cost-effective, fast and humane solution to getting people off the streets.
    By all accounts the project was a success.
    Dignity Moves got permits in under three weeks thanks to emergency rules under the 2019 Shelter Crisis Ordinance and used state funds to quickly erect modular tiny homes. Volunteers and donations of furniture and bedding helped lower costs. The cabins cost about $34,000 to build and were open in a matter of months.

    https://archive.is/Ao2KD#selection-1067.0-1083.316

  13. Leftists And The ‘Imperial Presidency’
    By Ted Noel

    The Constitution created a chief executive who was supposed to have very few powers. His remit was foreign policy. Individual states weren’t allowed to deal directly with foreign powers, so that was left to the President. No police power exists in the Constitution, so disputes between the states would be dealt with by the Courts. The powers of the Congress were originally limited to a series of specific acts beginning with “To borrow money…” in Article I, Section 8. This didn’t leave a lot of room for a pen and a phone.

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided to ignore that original meaning in 1936, when it ruled in United States v. Butler that “general welfare” was a separate power. The net effect of that decision was that Congress was no longer limited in its spending. Literally everything was on the table, and it hasn’t yet been possible to put that genie back in the bottle. The Court whisked away James Madison’s original argument that the phrase “provide for the general welfare” simply explained how the list of enumerated powers should be understood.

    FDR enjoyed that freedom in implementing his New Deal programs, including Social Security (which is neither). But perhaps the Greatest Leap Forward came with Barack Obama.

    Obama asserted that because Congress wouldn’t do the things he wanted on immigration, he’d do his own thing. Montblanc to the rescue! DACA got dropped on America. Regrettably, since he was granting a benefit to illegal aliens, he wasn’t directly injuring any Americans.

    This created a real problem. How do you get in front of a Federal Judge? Article 3 says that the judicial power extends to “controversies…at…law and equity.” The Supreme Court made it clear in 1992 that “As the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, respondents bear the burden of showing standing by establishing, inter alia, that they have suffered an injury in fact, i.e., a concrete and particularized, actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest.”

    In plain English, this means you must show how the government directly injured you. Spending on unconstitutional stuff (goodies for Guatemalans) doesn’t cut it. I may have to pay more taxes because of the spending but showing that I personally suffered is just a bit difficult. If I get into court, I’ll be thrown out because the dollars I paid went for the Army or some other legitimate purpose.

    I’ll get in front of a judge when I claim that the National Firearms Act of 1934 impairs my Constitutional right to have a silencer. That’s a “concrete, particularized, injury” because infringement of any protected right is defined as an injury that grants standing. Otherwise, the Feds can get away with almost anything. General or widespread injuries do not, by themselves, get you in the courtroom door.

    It took a state attorney general to find a concrete injury due to DACA. And eventually, after many twists and turns, DACA has lost. But the Supreme Court hasn’t told anyone how to manage the fallout. DACA is illegal, but DACA beneficiaries are still here.

    Leftist legal analysts have no problems with any of Obama or Biden’s executive orders. These have spent money, instituted rules, and generally advanced the growth of government. The analysts aren’t wrong that EOs can be lawful. But the purpose of EOs is to deal with executive branch organization and function. They aren’t supposed to be used for creating laws like DACA or permanent Emergency Declarations. Yet this is exactly what Obama (276) and Biden (126 to date) have done. In spades.

    By raw number, Donald Trump (220) is in the same league, but his were largely devoted to foreign policy, reducing regulations, and border security. Obama and Biden devoted large swaths of their penmanship to Social (in!)Justice, “Equity,” “Gender Identity,” the Green New Deal, and other woke projects. All of these were designed to increase government control over society in favor of anointed groups. Any of these where plaintiffs have been able to establish standing have been overturned. But many remain and hope of legal review is slim. The system is stacked against it.

    So why are Lefty legal analysts apoplectic over the possibility that Trump may win his appeal of Jack Smith’s prosecution at the Supreme Court? Is Trump a threat to be an imperial president? I think the record is exactly the opposite. Democrat Presidents have vigorously pressed the boundaries of Presidential power, while Trump actively dismantled much of that. And that is the crux of the matter.

    At present, Trump seems likely to run roughshod over Biden in the general election. Once inaugurated, his first actions will be to undo much of what the Left has accomplished. Panic would be too mild a description for that prospect.

    So, every lie and mischaracterization is brought to bear. Somehow, a court that upholds the law is legitimizing an imperial presidency. The Supreme Court must now declare that acts that were lawful as President become unlawful once his address changes.

    This is exactly what Judge Tanya Chutkan said. She ruled that the Constitution does not grant a president “absolute immunity from criminal process for actions performed within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility while he served as president of the United States….”

    Let’s translate that. Trump did things to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Art II, Sect 3). Those extend all the way to the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibility. They are necessarily lawful. But! Once he leaves office, that stuff he did in the Oval Office can now be re-interpreted as violating one law or another. His immunity disappears! We can send him to jail!

    Of course, the Left never looks one step ahead of themselves. The same rule could be applied to their guys, with similarly disastrous results. No President would ever have any immunity once he stepped outside the White House. Fortunately, the law doesn’t work that way.

    President Trump tried very hard to challenge the election results through the Courts. There is a colorable argument that this is part of being sure that the laws be faithfully executed. Several states had obvious major questions regarding whether they had followed their own laws in conducting the election.

    When the Courts refused to deal with the merits of his argument, he turned to his own Vice-President, Mike Pence. Using a legal argument I first published in AT, Trump’s legal team suggested that Pence should send the challenged electoral votes back to their respective legislatures for a final determination. That’s not trying to overturn anything. That’s dotting the “i”s and crossing the “t”s.

    Like every legal action he took as President, Trump was trying to follow the law to its limits. Unlike some wild-eyed pundits on the Right, he wasn’t setting the Army up to keep him in and Biden out.

    The Left demands compliance. We demand freedom. The Left hates freedom because they can’t control you if you’re free, and they’re afraid of you. If you vote them out, their lives are over. At least, that’s how they see it.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/12/leftists_and_the_imperial_presidency.html

    • Bill Clinton was the first Imperial President in modern history, once he discovered Executive Orders he went crazy doing things that Congress would never approve. Obama was much worse in all three of his terms as President. The vast majority of things that were done by Executive Orders by both Clinton and Obama are not allowed by the US Constitution, but no one on the left is paying attention to the Constitution anymore. Obama has succeeded in fundamentally changing the US, the change was for the worse and the future generations will cuss the Dems for their Imperial Dreams.

      The Ancient Greeks thought that governments runs in cycles, Democracy that turns into a Dictatorship, Dictatorship that turns into Monarchy, Monarchy that turns into Democracy. The US Constitution is an attempt to break that cycle, the big question is will we be able to end the Dem attempt at Dictatorship and return us to a Representative Republic? The question will be answered after the Civil War turns kinetic and the trained people both those on active duty and the retired vets decide which side wins he war, once that happens we will discover what is going to happen to our Government.

      I have heard calls to establish the Government that Robert Heinlein created for his novel “Starship Troopers” where only vets could vote or serve in the government. I have heard calls for modifying that so that only people who signed up for the draft can vote or serve in office. Both ideas are attempting to ensure that only people who care for the nation and are willing to risk their lives for it are allowed to decide what the nation is going to do.

      Something will have to be done to stop the massive Governmental Overreach that the Dems have been pushing since 1932, I just don’t know what that will be.

      • In other words, you gotta have skin in the game. The lesser version of this is owning property in order to vote.

  14. (Richard: David Carlin is right but doesn’t go back far enough, the inevitable slide into Barbarism started when Jimmy Carter refused to drill and pump our own oil and set a national speed limit of 55 miles per hour. The vast majority of people ignored this law every chance they got, this let to the younger generations growing up seeing their parents holding the law in contempt. Once you hold one law in contempt you end up holding all laws in contempt. During the Obama administration we saw the President always jumping to the conclusion that the Police were at fault when a Black Man was killed, this led to the Police being held in contempt. Add in how for generations the left has gone out of their way to sow contempt for our Federal Police Officers and the Military this has resulted in the left taking over both groups (at least at the top) and turning them into private Left Wing enforcement organizations. After all of this is there any expectation that we will be anything besides a Barbaric Nation that has a multi tiered legal system and political violence during and after elections? The latter was shown during and after the 2016 election and will occur in more violent actions during and after the 2020 election.)

    Barbarism, Ho!
    By David R. Carlin

    Decades ago, when abortion first began winning public approval in the USA, I worried that if abortion were to be generally approved, it would lead to further grim consequences. Abortion being what it is, namely the unjust killing of a guiltless human being, I feared that once society accepts the premise that it is morally permissible in certain circumstances to kill an innocent human being, other forms of unjust killing will gradually win public approval, e.g., euthanasia and political murder. After all, if you accept a wicked premise, sooner or later you will have to accept the wicked conclusions that follow from that premise.

    Well, here we are, more than fifty years since I began worrying about such things, and ten states plus D.C. have legalized physician-assisted suicide, a kind of voluntary euthanasia. As for political murder, that’s what Hamas did in Israel on October 7 of 2023, and a day or two later great numbers of young Americans were applauding these murders. Who can doubt that euthanasia will grow in popularity? And who will be surprised when American political figures are shot down by fellow Americans?

    Though I personally find Donald Trump an obnoxious individual, I fear what may be the outcome of the charge repeated every day by many of his fiercest enemies — I mean the charge that he will, if elected in 2024, attempt to abolish democracy and make himself a dictator. I fear that some impressionable person, driven half mad by this charge, will decide to play Brutus or Cassius to Trump’s Caesar. People who make this charge are inspired, not (as they self-righteously claim) by a patriotic love of democracy and republicanism; rather, by a wish to inspire widespread hatred of Trump.

    It is worth noting that it is people who never tire of denouncing hate and recommending brotherly love — it is precisely those people who are the greatest Trump-haters. Of course they will tell us that what they feel for Trump is not hatred; no, it is righteous indignation. Really? Well, you could have fooled me.

    In any case, what I did not appreciate till recently is that the growth of pro-abortion attitudes in the 1960s and ‘70s would eventually lead to scenes I have recently seen on TV news programs — scenes of young men descending in gangs on stores where they make “smash and grab” acts of thievery. If it’s a jewelry store, they steal lots of expensive jewelry. If it’s a clothing store, they steal lots of expensive clothing. If it’s a neighborhood convenience store, they steal lots of beer and pretzels. Rarely do these thieves get arrested and punished. Even more rarely do they get punished to the degree they ought to be punished.

    But wait! What does abortion have to do with wholesale thievery? We may remember that we were told a few years ago that abortion lowered the crime rate by making sure that boys who are likely to be bad never get born, boys who, if allowed to be born, would grow up in a crime-ridden neighborhood.

    Well, it may not have been abortion itself that led directly to “smash and grab” operations. It was, rather, the common justification offered for abortion. I mean the justification that asserts that moral beliefs are matters of opinion, quite unlike mathematical or scientific beliefs. “You say abortion is wrong. I say it’s right. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion.”

    That was an argument deployed at the earliest stages of the sexual revolution. “You say it’s wrong to go to bed with one’s boyfriend. I say it’s right. It’s a matter of opinion.” And so on. It’s a useful argument whenever one is inclined to break with conventional morality.

    It is an argument that can also be deployed in a hundred (or a thousand) other circumstances. “You think shoplifting is wrong. I think it is right. It is a matter of opinion. This is a free country, isn’t it? Aren’t we all entitled to our own opinions?”

    Of course, that’s not the only argument the thieves have. They also have that old standby: “The people who own the store are very rich. They can easily afford the loss of a few hundred or a few thousand dollars.” And if the thieves have been ideologically instructed in the “correct” way, they may add a somewhat more fashionable justification: “Besides, the wealth of these rich owners was obtained unjustly over many generations. My theft is nothing more than the repossession of a small portion of the property stolen from my ancestors. Call it reparations if you like.”

    My point is that the widespread triumph of abortion coincided with the widespread breakdown of the old idea we find in the Bible and in the writings of Cicero: (a) that there are certain objective and immutable rules of morality and (b) that we have a kind of natural or intuitive knowledge of these rules — rules like “do not lie” and “do not steal” and “do not commit murder.” Once we get rid of that “old idea” we, like Pandora with her box, are opening the door to a multitude of evils, “smash and grab” operations being the least of them.

    As a wise man once said, “Ideas govern the world” — both good ideas and bad ideas. Civilization depends on the prevalence of good ideas. Barbarism depends on the prevalence of bad ideas.

    The triumph of abortion half a century ago put the USA, I fear, on the slow but slippery slope that leads in the direction of barbarism.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/12/barbarism_ho.html

  15. This is How Bad Guys Get Guns
    By Tom Knighton | 8:29 AM on December 16, 2023
    This is How Bad Guys Get Guns
    Image by MikeGunner from Pixabay

    The news is always filled with people pushing for gun control. They want to regulate guns because, they claim, if we do that then bad guys won’t be able to get them.
    Advertisement

    Now, they all tell us that they don’t want to interfere with our right to keep and bear arms and that they don’t want to take our guns or take away our right to have them.

    Which means, if they’re honest, then they won’t stop us from having all the guns we want, even if it takes us longer to get them or something.

    Yet, how do bad guys get guns?

    Well, there’s stuff like this.

    Orange County’s Sheriff and the District Attorney made nine arrests in a crime ring they said has been breaking into homes, stealing more than half a million dollars in cash and other luxury items throughout the county for more than a year.

    “This is a dangerous, prolific crew and the announcement today is to do everything in our power as government officials and leaders to put them out of business,” Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said in a press conference Thursday.

    The OC Sheriff’s Department, with the help of 19 police departments, linked 34 burglaries to one group of at least 20 people — all from Los Angeles. Nineteen of the home burglaries occurred in Fullerton and three of them took place when people were home.

    The DA is charging 15 adults and five teens in total with crimes including breaking into homes and stealing more than half a million dollars in cash, guns, jewelry, and more. In one case, Sheriff Don Barnes said the thieves stole a Range Rover.

    Now, remember that this is California. They’ve got things like universal background checks, supposedly meant to stop bad guys from getting guns.

    What do you want to bet this crew didn’t fill out Form 4473s on these guns, then undergo a background check before stealing these?

    The problem is that even if this crew had no interest in the guns for their own use, they absolutely knew people who would buy them. Whether it was a black market dealer or just other criminals who wanted them for personal use, they were going to end up in the hands of someone who shouldn’t have them.

    So how is gun control supposed to stop these guys without inhibiting our right to keep and bear arms?

    Even if I believed they meant it, which I don’t, it’s just not remotely possible. The bad guys are criminals for a reason. By definition, they break laws.

    Passing more laws for them to break won’t actually stop them. At some point, this would have to restrict our right to keep and bear arms to the point that no, we couldn’t have what guns we wanted or as many as we wanted.

    Even then, the bad guys will find a way.

    Unfortunately, the people who most need to understand this either do and don’t care or they just won’t listen. Nothing about that should be surprising, though.

    https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2023/12/16/bad-guys-get-guns-n78488

  16. ‘Nobody’s Going to Help You Here’: St. Louis Assault Highlights the Danger of Gun-Free Zones
    By Cam Edwards | 4:01 PM on December 15, 2023
    ‘Nobody’s Going to Help You Here’: St. Louis Assault Highlights the Danger of Gun-Free Zones
    (AP Photo/David Goldman)

    Though Missouri is generally pretty good when it comes to the Second Amendment, there’s still room for improvement. The Missouri House of Representatives, for example, approved HB 282 earlier this year, which would have repealed the prohibition on lawful concealed carry on public transportation, but the bill failed to receive a vote on the Senate floor before the session gaveled to a close; keeping the “gun-free zones” in place for at least another year.
    Advertisement

    The problem is that these supposedly sensitive places don’t come with extra security to ensure the safety of riders, and crimes involving firearms still take place despite the “no guns allowed” policies in St. Louis and Kansas City. The most recent incident happened earlier this week, when a man assaulted a passenger on a city bus.

    According to the FBI, the unknown suspect violently attacked and pointed a gun at a transgender victim at about 3:30 p.m. on April 13 aboard a MetroBus at Chippewa Street and Grand Boulevard in St. Louis’ Dutchtown neighborhood.

    Surveillance video showed the suspect taking a seat near the back of the bus and begin talking to the victim who was already aboard, according to the FBI. Minutes later, the suspect got up from his seat and began kicking and punching the victim nearly two dozen times. He also pointed a gun at the victim.

    The victim, Sydney Masie, spoke to the Riverfront Times about the assault, and the paper also reached out to Kevin Scott, general manager of security for Bistate Development, which runs the city’s MetroTransit system, who basically admitted that the “gun-free zone” operates on the honor system.

    When asked if there were any security measures in place that could have prevented Maisie’s assault, particularly in regard to the assailant’s gun, Scott says it’s not possible to “scan” riders at all 59 bus routes in MetroTransit’s three-jurisdiction scope.

    But the agency does has employ public safety personnel who patrol bus routes and transit centers and respond to calls for help. Security guards and police officers, including some from SLMPD, according to Scott, ride the buses.

    “We can’t have a police officer on every bus, but we try to create a dynamic where police officers in overtime and off-duty capacity ride some of our buses for visibility and comfort,” Scott says.

    There wasn’t a security guard or police officer on Maisie’s bus, and it bus kept traveling its route while Maisie was attacked.

    Even through the chaos of it all, Maisie says she remembers questioning why it seemed as if no one else on the packed bus reacted. “Why were there no turning heads?” She remembers kicking back and screaming “Somebody help me!”

    “Nobody’s going to help you here!” Maisie says the man said as he pulled out his gun.

    …

    Maisie is a staunch supporter of public transit, and still uses it exclusively. Even so, she wonders if things would have been different if St. Louis’ system was safer or more efficient.

    “It shows how big of a failure public transit is in St. Louis,” Maisie says. “It’s not safe. Like nobody should have a gun on the bus. But he did.”

    I don’t know if this shows how big of a failure St. Louis’s public transportation is, but it definitely shows how ineffective labeling a place a “gun-free zone” is when it comes to keeping guns away. MetroTransit prohibits anyone from carrying a gun on their property, but has no way of ensuring that the policy is being followed. The result is a system that disarms the law-abiding, while empowering violent offenders to carry out their attacks in a target-rich environment.

    If nobody should have a gun on a bus, but Maisie’s attacker did, then why shouldn’t Maisie be able to carry a firearm for self-defense? Why shouldn’t any lawful gun owner be able to do the same? The city can’t protect riders, so why are they not able to protect themselves?

    The carry ban on public transportation not only prevents lawful gun owners from bringing their firearms on buses and light rail, but disarms patrons who rely on public transportation as they go about their daily routine. Even if MetroTransit officials contend these attacks within the system are rare, violent crime in St. Louis is unfortunately all too common. Yet those residents dependent on using the transit network have to make a choice; violate the law and bring their firearm with them, or follow the law and be disarmed and defenseless throughout the day.
    Advertisement

    I sincerely hope that legislation mirroring HB 282 will be introduced in the Missouri legislature again next year, and that state senators will have the intestinal fortitude to approve the bill alongside their House counterparts. Public transit in the state is “gun-free” in name only, and it’s high time to ensure that patrons don’t have to give up their right to armed self-defense in exchange for a ride.

    https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2023/12/15/nobodys-going-to-help-you-here-st-louis-assault-highlights-the-danger-of-gun-free-zones-n78494

  17. LA Times Discovers the Relationship Between Gun Stores and Violent Crime Not So Simple After All
    By Cam Edwards | 10:01 AM on December 15, 2023
    LA Times Discovers the Relationship Between Gun Stores and Violent Crime Not So Simple After All
    AP Photo/Marco Garcia, File

    The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel isn’t the only paper that’s been running a multi-part series on guns and gun owners in recent days. The Los Angeles Times has its own series called Arming America that “explores gun access in the United States with a tilt toward California,” and while the two series are looking at different aspects of the right to keep and bear arms, it does look like there’s one commonality between the two; a realization on the part of the reporters that the issue they’re exploring isn’t as simple as gun control activists would have us believe.

    As Journal-Sentinel reporter John Diedrich told me, his series “Behind the Gun” was originally meant to be a deep dive into gun-involved deaths in Wisconsin, and as he started to learn more about the issue he began to appreciate the complexity surrounding the issue.

    “I guess what we leaned into is when you see simple narratives, you know, beware,” Diedrich said on Bearing Arms Cam & Co. “It’s more complicated, and the world is more complicated than those little soundbites. And you know, social media does that really well. It simplifies things. It flattens people too. It flattens people’s stories and doesn’t show the complexity within them.”

    It sounds like the Los Angeles Times reporters had a similar experience as they were working on Arming America. As Times deputy director for data and graphics George Levines writes, when the writers “set out to determine the relationship between gun dealers and gun violence”, they started with the hypothesis that more gun stores would equate to more violent crime, but they were confronted with a much more complicated reality.

    With few exceptions, data reporter Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee found a small, inconsistent relationship between increased presence of gun dealers and gun violence. The underwhelming national result surprised her and investigative and enterprise reporter Connor Sheets.

    It took the reporters months to get to that conclusion and it upended most of their future reporting.

    The findings required new questions and a better understanding of how the business and its regulators operate. We started with some version of “how does an increase in gun dealers impact gun violence?” and an assumption that we’d show readers a simple map connecting the most violent areas to the most gun dealers. We ended with more questions that were increasingly difficult to answer:

    Given the limited effect, why is there an ongoing push to restrict dealers in California?
    How do guns travel from manufacturers to crime scenes?
    Where are regulations failing?
    Can we prove any of this with data?

    The Times reporters still assert that their data shows a 4.8 percent increase in gun-involved homicides from “one additional dealer per 100 square miles in a county and neighboring counties”. I’m reluctant to accept that at face value given the variable nature of homicide rates, but even if we do accept that premise for the sake of argument, Levines says that figure makes it difficult, if not impossible, to curb gun-involved crime by targeting federally licensed firearm retailers.

    In the end, one finding stood out to me in particular: Significantly reducing gun violence by reducing gun dealers would require unprecedented levels of regulatory coordination across city, county and perhaps even state lines — so unprecedented that it is probably not realistic.

    In Los Angeles County, for example, it would mean more than 160 cities across the county and four neighboring counties combining efforts to dramatically reduce the number of gun retailers in the region, nearly 35,000 square miles.

    That “unprecedented coordination” Levines talks about would lead to a 1 percent reduction in homicides, according to the data compiled by the Times; a figure that is statistically insignificant and well within their study’s margin of error.

    This leads to all kinds of questions that challenge the gun control narrative that more guns (and more gun stores) equals more crime, and that cracking down on legal gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms is the only real way to improve public safety. It remains to be seen just how willing the Times will be at confronting that narrative, but at the very least the reporters are informing their readers that making Los Angeles a safer place is far more complicated than going after gun shops and lawful commerce in arms. That’s a start, and I’m curious to see where the Los Angeles Times will go from here.

    https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2023/12/15/la-times-discovers-the-relationship-between-gun-stores-and-violent-crime-not-so-simple-after-all-n78481

  20. Use Gas-Powered Lawn Mower, Go to Jail, Dems Demand
    by Guest Contributor Dec. 16, 2023 11:00 am485 Comments

    Guest by post by Bob Unruh

    Claim garden tools are hurting ‘public health’

    Democrats have launched a proposal in the state of Washington to put in jail those who use gasoline-powered lawn mowers.

    Slay News reports the plan from state Reps. Amy Walen and Liz Berry specifies jail for those “law-abiding citizens” if they are caught using gas-powered gardening tools.

    They say that will help in their fight against “climate change,” a political agenda that a coalition of some 1,600 scientists has described as not being any emergency.

    The lawmakers’ plan, House Bill 1868, demands no more emissions “from outdoor power equipment.”

    Those tools actually emit “a host of air pollutants,” the lawmakers have claimed. And those pollutants are hurting “public health.”

    They say Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency blames those lawn machines for 5% of the nation’s air pollution, and the federal agency says 17 million gallons of gasoline are “spilled” each year while refueling them.

    “Nationally, the Department of Transportation data shows that one hour of running a gas lawnmower can contribute as much smog-forming pollution as driving a passenger car 300 miles,” they charge. “One hour of running a gas leaf blower can contribute as much smog-forming pollution as driving a passenger car 1,100 miles.”

    Besides, they say, the noise also is a nuisance.

    They have decided to tell consumers they are “ready” to transition to electric machines whether they are or not.

    Targeted, with only a few exceptions, are “lawnmowers, strimmers, hedge trimmers, chainsaws, leaf blowers, augers, wood chippers, pressure washers, snowblowers, and many other tools.”

    The offense would be considered by the courts to be a gross misdemeanor carrying the possibility of jail time up to 364 days, or a fine of up to $10,000.

    Or both.

    ZeroHedge commented on the plan, and it was not to praise the idea.

    The report noted Jason Rantz of MyNorthwest concluded the Democrats actually are targeting minorities with their plan.

    The report said, “Though Democrats argue their legislation should be viewed through an equity lens, this ban has a disproportionate impact on Latino and black business owners. Nationwide data stated 22.8% of landscaping companies are owned by Hispanics and 14.7% are owned by blacks.”

    The report explained, “The cost to transition to zero-emission alternatives is burdensome, too, even with financial assistance provided in the bill. For some businesses, it could still be prohibitively expensive. This financial burden could disproportionately affect minority-owned businesses, potentially leading to a reduction in diversity within the industry, if Democrat talking points are to be believed.”

    Further, the plan is “anti-business,” as small businesses would struggle with the demands.

    “It’s also worth considering the current limitations of electric landscaping equipment, such as battery life and power, which can’t meet the demands of larger or more intensive landscaping projects. Even with tax credits, will they last long enough to cover the constant need to upgrade to better and more efficient technology?”

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/use-gas-powered-lawn-mower-go-jail-dems/

  21. NYC: Woman Throws Soup at Kosher Restaurant Employees During Tirade
    by Margaret Flavin Dec. 16, 2023 10:40 am322 Comments

    Employees at the kosher restaurant Hummus Kitchen on New York City’s Upper East Side filmed a woman attempting to tear down an Israel/US flag outside the establishment before launching into a tirade.

    Caught in the act, the woman began shouting at the employees and then hurled soup at one employee.

    She flipped over tables and chairs, shouting, “You are all Murderers!”

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/nyc-woman-throws-soup-kosher-restaurant-employees-during/

  22. Luton captain Tom Lockyer ‘alert and responsive’ in hospital after suffering a cardiac arrest against Bournemouth… with the Premier League match abandoned after players decided not to carry on

    Tom Lockyer is in a ‘stable’ condition in hospital after suffering a cardiac arrest on the pitch during the game between Luton and Bournemouth.

    The game was abandoned shortly after with both sets of players ‘in no state of mind to continue.’

    A minute after Bournemouth had equalised in the second half, the Luton captain collapsed in his own half, while the play was going on in the other half.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12871681/Luton-captain-Tom-Lockyer-collapses-against-Bournemouth.html

  23. Capitol Police Investigating Porn Video Shot in Senate Committee Room

    U.S. Capitol Police is investigating the shocking videotape of two men having sex in public in what appears the Senate large hearing room in the Hart Senate Office Building. The room is familiar to many citizens from Supreme Court confirmations to impeachment proceedings. Indeed, I have testified repeatedly in the room and argued much of the Porteous impeachment case in that space. First reported on a conservative site, the video of two men having sex has led to unconfirmed reports that one of the individuals is a staffer for Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.).

    The video shows one of the men hunched over the dais at the center of the seating for senators in Senate room Hart 216.

    The video was reportedly shared on the Internet on gay sites.

    Obviously, the videotape will result in the termination of any staffers involved. However, the question is any possible criminal charge. We have previously discussed porn videos shot in churches or other locations. Such porn shoots in church have also raised calls for prosecutions in other countries.

    Staffers have access into such rooms, but the question is whether this unofficial use would constitute trespass. It also uses an official area for personal purposes, though it is not clear if there were any commercial benefits garnered from the video found on various sites.

    One obvious criminal provision under the D.C. code is Section 22-1312 for lewd, indecent, or obscene acts:

    “It is unlawful for a person, in public, to make an obscene or indecent exposure of his or her genitalia or anus, to engage in masturbation, or to engage in a sexual act as defined in § 22-3001(8). It is unlawful for a person to make an obscene or indecent sexual proposal to a minor. A person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisoned for not more than 90 days, or both.”

    The question is whether this is “in public” in a locked committee room — any more than sex in a congressional office after hours would be viewed as “in public.”

    There are also provisions concerning the misuse or damaging of government property such as Section 1361, which protects “any property” of the United States from willful depredation or attempted depredation. “Depredation” is defined as the act of plundering, robbing, pillaging or laying waste. However, mere possession of such property is not viewed as depredation. United States v. Jenkins, 554 F.2d 783, 786 (6th Cir. 1977).

    There is also 18 U.S.C. 641 on the misuse of public money, property, or records:

    “Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

    Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

    The Capitol police could argue that this constitutes purloining or using government property for personal purposes.

    The key factor is the fact that this videotape was made with the apparent intent to publish or show others. Sex in congressional offices — by both members and staff — have long been known to occur on Capitol Hill. Yet, this was a public hearing room, albeit closed at the time, and a tape made for what appears public viewing.

    That brings us back to trespass. The question may be whether this was access under legal authority for a staffer. The Capitol police can argue that access to a staff position does not mean a license for entry for any purpose. Under 18 U.S.C. 1752, trespass covers anyone who “knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so.”

    Does a staffer have legal authority to enter any hearing room for any purpose? That could be a defense raised by counsel, but it would seem likely that any access is premised on an official function.

    The pressure on the Capitol police is likely to be considerable in the coming days. Only recently, House members Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rep. Jamie Raskin claimed that house rules were broken by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene showing Hunter Biden and a woman in a revealing picture, though he was purportedly wearing a swimsuit. Raskin objected that it would constitute “pornographic exhibits that might not be suitable for children watching.”

    While this was not a public hearing, those objections now seem almost puritanical in light what just occurred over in the Senate hearing room.

    https://jonathanturley.org/2023/12/16/capitol-police-investigating-porn-video-shot-in-senate-committee-room/

  24. Migrants reject ‘bad’ sandwiches, pancakes, donuts and chicken dishes at NYC shelters

    Several migrants confessed to The Post Friday the meals served up at New York City asylum seeker shelters are so “bad” they often just trash them — with some opting to sneakily cook in their rooms instead.

    Their claims of terrible food came a day after it was revealed thousands of uneaten, taxpayer-funded meals prepared for asylum seekers are tossed each day.

    “No one likes the food,” Jesus Alberto, 31, from Venezuela, told The Post outside the Roosevelt Hotel — the Big Apple’s main migrant intake center.

    “Without lying, it’s bad, bad.”

    Meals served to the migrants include pancakes and Quecas, a type of fried tortilla, for breakfast; sandwiches for lunch and dinners including chicken alfredo and chicken with spaghetti.

    https://nypost.com/2023/12/15/metro/migrants-reject-sandwiches-chicken-dishes-at-nyc-shelters/

  25. Whats her face

    Daily Wire’s NEW film! Christmas is TOO White?! + More
    WHF Entertainment
    46.1K subscribers

    • 3D printing has destroyed gun control, a fact the wanna be Dictators are lying about and trying to suppress.

  29. DEVELOPING: Suspicious Package Found Near U.S. Capitol as News Breaks of Democrat Senate Staffer Making Porno Video in Capitol Office Building
    by Jordan Conradson Dec. 16, 2023 1:20 pm80 Comments

    Is this a psyop?

    Capitol police are currently investigating a “suspicious package” near the U.S. Capitol building, according to local reports and public safety warnings.

    This comes one day after sexually deviant behavior shook the halls of Congress.

    As The Gateway Pundit reported last night, a young male staffer for Maryland Senator Ben Cardin engaged in and filmed multiple graphic sex acts with his older boyfriend in the Hart Senate Office Building.

    The staffer has reportedly been fired for his lewd and lascivious behavior. However, Cardin’s office refuses to acknowledge the reason the staffer was fired. No doubt Cardin’s office is hoping the story dies a quiet death.

    Conservative activist Greg Price was the first to report the story approximately one hour before the news broke of the suspicious package.

    Even worse for the Democrats, the fired staffer appeared in an ad for Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign. Biden is likely also hoping Americans will just forget about this, and his Democrat media allies won’t ask about it.

    But moments ago, the Senate was seen trending at number 10 in the United States on X.

    Seemingly, whenever an incident or topic that is damning to the Regime garners nationwide attention on Capitol Hill, something comes and steals the spotlight.

    Such as a suspicious package near the legislature? What impeccable timing for the Dems!

    About an hour ago, Fox 5 D.C. reported,

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Capitol Police are investigating a suspicious package near the East Front Plaza of the U.S. Capitol Building.

    Staff and other personnel are directed to avoid this area until further notice. There are no reported injuries at this time.

    Drivers and individuals are advised to use alternative routes.

    This continues to be an ongoing investigation.

    Is this like the alleged pipe bomber on January 6 who was caught on video but never caught by the FBI – the greatest intelligence service in the world! Interestingly, The FBI still can’t find the person three years later. How far are these people willing to take propaganda operations?

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/developing-suspicious-package-found-near-u-s-capitol/