Month: September 2023

Shell, Europe’s largest oil company, has quietly shelved the world’s largest corporate plan to develop carbon offsets, after CEO Wael Sawan laid out an updated strategy for the company that included cutting costs and doubling down on profit centers (oil and gas) – which notably omitted any mention of the company’s prior commitment to spend up to $100 million per year to build a ‘pipeline’ of carbon credits as part of the firm’s promise to achieve ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050, Bloomberg reports.

The pullback reflects both Sawan’s renewed commitment to the oil-and-gas business that generates most of Shell’s profits, and an admission that the prior goals were simply unattainable. Over the past two years, Shell barely made a dent. It spent $95 million, less than half of its initial budget, to build or invest in a portfolio of carbon projects from Western Africa to the Brazilian Amazon to Australian farmlands. They’ve generated few if any offsets, and Shell has struggled to find projects that meet its standards for quality.

According to investigations by Bloomberg Green (how cute), many offset programs don’t deliver the environmental benefits they promise. In announcing their now-shelved programs, Shell sought to solve that problem with stringent requirements, deep pockets, and engineering expertise. What they learned was something any idiot could have told you: there’s no effective way to maintain a large enough offset program to make a difference.

“It’s really hard to get scale from high-quality credits,” said Carbon Market Watch’s Gilles Dufrasne. “The two forces,” being volume and quality, “work against each other.”

Shell’s carbon debacle was inspired by a 2017 Nature Conservancy paper which suggested that nature-based solutions would be a cost-effective means to offset carbon.

And – surprise, the academics were wrong again…

For example, four years into a plan to partner with Forestry and Land Scotland to plant over a million trees to generate “pending issuance units” (unborn carbon credits), they’ve accrued less than 0.02% of their initial goal in terms of carbon sequestration.

And in Canada, Shell’s efforts to secure land for credits has turned into a total disaster despite the company bragging about the endeavor on its website. The company has also failed to hit its $100 million investment target, spending only about $69 million last year, which accounts for less than 1% of its total capital expenditure.

Another project to restore mangrove trees in Senegal, which began in 2019 and has been operated by Belgian nonprofit WeForest, won’t even start producing carbon credits until 2025. Shell has also walked away from potential goldmines like the Delta Blue Carbon Project in Pakistan which would cover an area roughly twice the size of London. While the ‘fundamentals were sound,’ per Bloomberg, the company had concerns over the integrity of the project’s local partners, as well as the origins to the land rights.

A spokesperson for Indus Delta Capital, which runs the project, said shareholders and directors in the project have been subjected to rigorous due diligence and the process by which licenses and permissions were granted is “in line with the rules of business” prescribed by both the national and regional governments. -Bloomberg

Shell has also broken ties with a Montana grasslands project run by Vermont-based Native Energy due to disagreements over deal structures and the potential use of credits to label fossil fuels as carbon neutral.

For Native’s part, chief executive officer Jeff Bernicke said it terminated discussions with Shell because “there was not a fit between their plan and Native’s goals and values.” There was also a concern that the credits would be used to label fossil-fuels as carbon-neutral. A spokesman for Shell said the company has a robust due diligence process and it does not comment on specific projects or the contractual agreements.

Shell’s strategy now seems more attuned to secrecy and selective partnership. The company keeps some ventures under wraps, like its involvement in the Peruvian Amazon and an Indonesian forestry venture dubbed “Sun Bird,” perhaps to ward off competition from oil industry peers who are also elbowing their way into the carbon-credit market.

Backup plan?

While Shell’s expensive quagmire into carbon credits may have crashed and burned, the company has a backup plan – appease climate alarmists by simply buying ‘low-quality’ carbon credits to achieve its lofty goals of becoming ‘carbon neutral’ by 2050.

In the words of Adam Matthews, chief responsible investment officer at the Church of England Pensions Board, “They’re no longer aligned with trying to navigate the transition in the same way that we had previously perceived.”

Authored by John R. Lott Jr. via RealClear Wire,

Americans are constantly debating policing and gun control. But to discuss these issues, we have to depend on government crime data. Unfortunately, politics has infected the data handling of agencies such as the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control.

Last year, the CDC became the center of controversy when it removed its estimates of defensive gun uses from its website at the request of gun control organizations. For nearly a decade the CDC cited a 2013 National Academies of Sciences report showing that the annual number of people using guns to stop crime ranged from about 64,000 to 3 million. The CDC website listed the upper figure at 2.5 million.

Mark Bryant, who runs the Gun Violence Archive, wrote to CDC officials after a meeting last year that the 2.5 million number “has been used so often to stop [gun control] legislation.” The CDC’s estimates were subsequently taken down and now lists no numbers.

The FBI is also susceptible to political pressure. Up until January of 2021, I worked in the U.S. Department of Justice as the senior advisor for research and statistics, and part of my job was to evaluate the FBI’s active shooting reports. I showed the bureau that many cases were missing and that others had been misidentified. Yet, the FBI continues to report that armed citizens stopped only 14 of the 302 active shooter incidents that it identified for the period 2014-2022. The correct rate is almost eight times higher. And if we limit the discussion to places where permit holders were allowed to carry, the rate is eleven times higher.

The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area. But it does not include shootings that are deemed related to other criminal activity, such as robbery or fighting over drug turf. Active shootings may involve just one shot being fired at just one target, even if the target isn’t hit. 

To compile its list, the FBI hired academics at the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. Police departments don’t collect data, so the researchers had to find news stories about these incidents.

It isn’t surprising that people will miss cases or occasionally misidentify them when using news stories, but the FBI was unwilling to fix its errors when I pointed them out. My organization, the Crime Prevention Research Center, has found many more missed cases and is keeping an updated list. Back in 2015, I published a list of missed cases in a criminology publication.

Unfortunately, the news media unquestioningly reports the FBI numbers. After 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken used his legally-carried concealed handgun to stop what would have been a mass public shooting, an Associated Press headline noted: “Rare in US for an active shooter to be stopped by bystander.” A Washington Post headline proclaimed: “Rampage in Indiana a rare instance of armed civilian ending mass shooting.”

The CPRC’s numbers tell a different story: Out of 440 active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2022, an armed citizen stopped 157. We also found that the FBI had misidentified five cases, usually because the person who stopped the attack was incorrectly identified as a security guard.

We found these cases on a budget of just a few thousand dollars. Though we found that armed citizens had stopped eight times as many cases as the FBI claims, I make no assertion that we unearthed all of these stories. It is quite possible that the news media itself never covers many such incidents.

While the FBI claims that just 4.6% of active shootings were stopped by law-abiding citizens carrying guns, the percentage that I found was 35.7%. I am more confident that we have identified a higher share of recent cases, and our figure for 2022 was even higher – 41.3%.

The FBI doesn’t differentiate between law-abiding citizens stopping attacks where guns are banned and where they are allowed, but you can’t expect law-abiding citizens to stop attacks where it is illegal to carry guns. In places where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms, the percentage of active shootings that were stopped is 51%. For 2022, that figure is a remarkable 63.5%.

In order to follow the FBI’s definition, we excluded 27 cases because a law-abiding person with a gun stopped the attacker before he was able to get off a shot.

In an email I received in 2015, a bureau official acknowledged that “the FBI did not come across this incident during its research in 2015, but it does meet the FBI’s active-shooter definition.” The official noted they will miss active-shooter cases because the reports “are limited in scope.” Yet, the FBI database never added the incident.

When the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler reached out to the FBI for comments on our earlier work up through 2021, they emailed: “We have no additional information to provide other than what is provided within the active shooter reports on our website.”

However, a researcher at Texas State University did respond to two of the cases we had identified in our earlier work. He argued that one case involving a shooting at a dentist office was excluded because it involved a domestic dispute and another at a strip club because it was a “retaliation murder.” We list 14 examples where the FBI list includes shooting resulting from domestic disputes and three others where a shooting started after someone was denied entry to a lounge or bar. So why the double standard? Domestic disputes and “retaliation murders” are only included when they don’t involve permit holders stopping the attacks.

The FBI data on active shootings is missing so many defensive gun uses that it’s hard to believe it isn’t intentional. Errors can happen, but the failure to fix past reports shows a troubling disregard for the truth. The reality is that armed, law-abiding citizens are unsung guardian angels.

John R. Lott Jr. is a contributor to RealClearInvestigations, focusing on voting and gun rights. His articles have appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune. Lott is an economist who has held research and/or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice.

A professor who was fired from the University of Southern Maine for challenging COVID-19 mandates has won a critical courtroom victory, after a district judge ruled that her First Amendment lawsuit against the institution can proceed.

Patricia Griffin, who says she was fired for asking valid questions about mask and vaccination policies on campus during the COVID-19 pandemic, was granted the narrow win after the university filed a motion to dismiss the case in part. US District Judge Jon Levy ruled that while Griffin’s First Amendment claim can proceed, other charges were dismissed.

On Aug. 18, 2021, the University of Main announced a mandatory mask policy. Six days later, Griffin took part in a luncheon meeting via Zoom, where the speaker was Glenn Cummings, president of the university. Griffin says Cummings wasn’t wearing a mask at the time.

Later that day she sent an email to the Dean of the College of Management and Human Service, claiming that she had been following “science, data, and evidence” related to the pandemic. Griffin said in the email that she was “searching for anything that will support wearing a mask while indoors as well as vaccinating an entire school population as the optimal method for stopping the transmission of the virus. The reality is that my research has found no evidence to support these measures.“

She attached a document to her email summarizing the results of her research, which did not find “any overwhelming support for the wearing of masks nor the mandating of vaccines, especially since the overall survival rate is 99.7 percent if infected with Covid. And finally, from a legal perspective, asking for my vaccination status is a violation of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act).”

She then met with the Dean in another Zoom meeting, in which she says she never refused to wear a mask, or violate university policy.

Then, her fall semester classes were canceled. In a subsequent disciplinary conference, she was allegedly told that she wouldn’t be allowed to teach her courses 100% online unless she resigned an accepted a part-time position.

On Sept. 8, 2021, she received a letter from Cummings notifying her that she had been suspended, and the university had moved to terminate her. She says the letter falsely stated that she refused to comply with university policy and wouldn’t wear a mask.

She was formally terminated on Sept. 22.

For those who enjoy deep legal dives Jonathan Turley opines further:

We now have a positive ruling for free speech out of the District of Maine where Chief Judge Jon Levy has ruled in favor of a professor terminated by the University of Southern Maine for questioning mask and vaccination policies.

Judge Levy’s decision in Griffin v. University of Maine System is balanced and fair. He does not offer a full-throated endorsement of the claim by Professor Patricia Griffin, but rules that she has a right to a trial on the free speech claim.

Here are the basic facts.

On August 18, 2021, the Chancellor of the University of Maine System announced a mandatory mask policy.  On August 24, University President Glenn Cummings held a a luncheon meeting via Zoom. Notably, Cummings was not wearing a mask. After the meeting, Griffin sent an email to the Dean of the College of Management and Human Service that read in part:

“I first want to say how much I love teaching at [the University of Southern Maine] as well as working with such a great faculty. It really has been the highlight of my career and I owe a lot to you for sticking with me. The reason for this email is because I have been following the science, data, and evidence regarding SARS-CoV-2 and searching for anything that will support wearing a mask while indoors as well as vaccinating an entire school population as the optimal method for stopping the transmission of the virus. The reality is that my research has found no evidence to support these measures. I wanted to share the information I gathered and relied upon when making my decision regarding these mandates before the start of classes next Monday to see that my decisions are science, evidence, and data based. However, I do not want to cause any issues, especially for you, if I come to campus on Monday morning to teach my one face to face class so I wanted to give you enough time.”

Griffin attached a letter addressed to the Dean on her own research and objections to the policies. She concluded:

“In conclusion, I have followed the science, data, and evidence and cannot find any overwhelming support for the wearing of masks nor the mandating of vaccines, especially since the overall survival rate is 99.7% if infected with Covid. And finally, from a legal perspective, asking for my vaccination status is a violation of HIPAA.

My expectation is the University of Southern Maine will appreciate a faculty member who embraces critical thinking and applies both inductive and deductive reasoning rather than emotions when making decisions. I am teaching three courses this fall, two online and one face to face. I welcome any evidence you can provide to the contrary of what I have found which will convince me that my conclusions about the efficacy of wearing a mask and vaccinating an entire population are wrong.”

What followed quickly went from bad to worse for Griffin, who met with the Dean and again asked for the data supporting the University’s Policy and vaccination requirement.  While universities attacked academics who questioned these policies as opposed to “the science,” they largely refused to share the basis for the policies.

Despite the firing or sanctioning of academics who questioned pandemic policies, many have recently admitted that the efficacy of masks (particularly the common surgical masks) were radically overstated and unsupported. Moreover, studies have shown that critics were right in claiming that natural immunities from prior bouts with Covid offered as good or better protection than the vaccine. Nevertheless, the media participated in the demonization of these experts who were disciplined at universities and denied key positions in their fields.

In this case, Griffin alleged that immediately following the Zoom meeting, her fall semester courses were removed from the fall class list. She still did not back down and continued to ask for the data. She alleged that school officials then told her that she would not be allowed to teach courses 100% online unless she resigned and accepted a part-time position. On September 8, 2021, Cummings sent a letter to Griffin suspending her and informing her that the University would be moving to terminate her employment. Griffin alleges that the letter falsely asserted that she had refused to comply with the policies and included other false assertions.

The issue for the court was whether Griffin was speaking as a public employee or as a citizen.

“The “threshold inquiry” to determine whether a public employee engaged in protected speech is “whether [the employee] spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” O’Connell v. Marrero-Recio, 724 F.3d 117, 123 (1st Cir. 2013). If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment retaliation claim. If the answer is yes, then the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006). “In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need not conclusively establish that her speech was made as a citizen; ‘it is sufficient that the complaint alleges facts that plausibly set forth citizen speech.’” Cannell v. Corizon, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-405-NT, 2015 WL 8664209, at *8 (D. Me. Dec. 11, 2015) (quoting Decotiis v. Whittemore, 635 F.3d 22, 34-35 (1st Cir. 2011)).”

The court found that there were factors under the relevant tests that cut both ways on whether Griffin was speaking as an employee or a citizen. However, given the governing standard for review, JudgeLevy read this evidence in her favor and the right to a trial on free speech claims (though he curtailed other aspects of her complaint):

Here, Griffin has pleaded sufficient facts to make it more than merely possible that once fully developed, the facts will support the conclusion that although Griffin’s speech related to her official duties as a public employee, the subject matter of her speech pertained to a matter of great public concern and was outside the scope of her duties as a professor of marketing. Whether the same conclusion may be true after the parties have completed discovery is another matter for another day. “[I]t is entirely possible that additional facts might show” that Griffin is not entitled to the relief that she seeks, but “absent factual development, dismissal is unwarranted” at this stage….

Putting aside the merits for trial, what should be clear is that, if the underlying facts are proven, the university acted in an abusive and capricious manner. Faced with a dissenting faculty member, the school opted to seek her termination rather than defend its policies or allow a dialogue on these measures.

As a public university, the Maine legislature should take note of this case and the need to reinforce free speech protections in the system. The level of intolerance for opposing views alleged in this complaint is chilling. If these facts are proven, there were grounds for termination but it was not the termination of Professor Griffin.

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

A pastor in Florida was forcibly removed from a school board meeting when he attempted to read aloud pornographic passages from a book that was available to children.

The man was one of around 30 parents at the Monday meeting at the Indian River County School Board.

Pastor John K. Amanchukwu Sr. began to read from the book titled 13 Reasons Why by Jay Asher, but he only got one sentence in before the board shut him down.

“As if letting him finger me was going to cure all my problems,” the pastor read, prompting one board member to yell into the microphone “Sir, I’ll stop you there.”

Amanchukwu’s mic was then cut off and security was called as he attempted to continue to read.

Watch:

GRAPHIC: A citizen read from a pornographic book available to students in @IRCSchools and was SHUT DOWN by the board then REMOVED by security.

Too graphic for the board to hear but perfectly ok for middle schoolers!

Make it make sense pic.twitter.com/Zof0JuJgcU

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 29, 2023

As Fox News reports, other parents at the meeting were also cut off when reading from different books, all available to school children.

However, Governor Ron DeSantis instituted a rule earlier in the year that that states parents “shall have the right to read passages from any material that is subject to an objection.”

The rule also decrees that if parents are prevented from doing so then the materials they are objecting to must be immediately removed and discontinued from use in the school.

BREAKING: Florida school voted to remove dozens of pornographic books after parents read from these books out loud and one was even escorted out by security. Huge W https://t.co/0ltfLD47Y5 pic.twitter.com/np52UoPUJq

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 1, 2023

Indian River County School Board member Jacqueline Rosario told Fox News that she was the only member to vote to remove the books last year and that until the new rule was instantiated, other board members ignored laws on pornographic, obscene, or sexually explicit content and continued to make the books available in school libraries. 

“The difference now is, HB 1069 has allowed parents to read explicit books at board meetings. And if they get shut down, then the book is immediately removed. This is a good thing,” Rosario noted.

“It is the litmus test for acceptable age appropriate and standards driven library books. If you can’t read them at a board meeting, then you can’t have them in our schools. All that is needed now is for a “passage” to be read and the book can be removed immediately,” she continued.

Rosario added that “The superintendent and board members refused to acknowledge the gross content made available to kids until now. Finally, they don’t have a choice. It’s about time the truth be made known. Explicit, sexually graphic, pornographic, and obscene material does not belong in any school.”

Related:

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.  We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Summit Vitamins – super charge your health and well being.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

Rare Breed Triggers (RBT), originally from Florida and currently headquartered in Fargo, North Dakota, along with the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), secured a “major victory” in their legal battle against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in the case National Association for Gun Rights vs. Garland in federal court in the Northern District of Texas.

On Thursday, federal Judge Reed O’Connor issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against President Biden’s ATF’s attempt to classify Forced Reset Trigger (FRT-15) as an illegal machine gun. RBT’s email about the judge’s ruling said:

“Federal Judge, Reed O’Connor issues a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the DOJ/ATF related to their tyrannical overreach of the FRT-15 and other Forced Reset Triggers.”

Judge O’Connor stated, “[T]he court finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits… It is substantially likely that the ATF’s regulation containing a broadened definition of ‘machinegun’ exceeds the scope of its authority under the GCA [Gun Control Act of 1968].”

The TRO is maintained until “either September 27, 2023, or such time that the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 22), whichever is earlier,” according to the court.

NAGR argued that the 5th Circuit’s recent ruling ‘bump stocks are not machine guns‘ should be applicable here. O’Connor agreed with NAGR: 

“The Fifth Circuit’s recent analysis of the exact statutory language at issue here shows that Plaintiffs [NAGR] are very likely to succeed on the merits… Because FRTs do not enable a weapon to automatically fire multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger itself, the court finds that FRTs most likely are not machineguns under Cargill’s reasoning.”

Owner of RBT, Lawrence DeMonico, explained in a video response: “If we win on forced reset triggers — we also win on pistol braces, bump stocks, 80% lowers, so-called assault weapons, and just about everything else the ATF is trying to ban by executive fiat right now.” 

DeMonico continued, “It’s no secret that Joe Biden and his ATF want to persecute and prosecute every person that has purchased an FRT trigger.” 

He noted the TRO only applies to the three plaintiffs in the case, adding, “Based on the language of the TRO — I think our chances are extremely good to get this extended to a full preliminary injunction that would protect all of NAGR’s members.” 

DeMonico said NAGR is suing on behalf of its members, which means if the court grants a preliminary injunction — anyone who is a member (and owns an FRT-15) “should have civil and or criminal protection from the federal government until a final decision is made in this case.”

We got a RESTRAINING ORDER against the ATF!

Lawrence DeMonico of Rare Breed Triggers is here to tell you about the temporary restraining order against the ATF in the lawsuit with NAGR against their unconstitutional ban on FRTs.

Join the fight: https://t.co/Wg7fIHdqs8 pic.twitter.com/upUBktWLU0

— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) August 31, 2023

Commenting on NAGR’s case is Defense Distributed, which also has a case in the 5th Circuit for ‘ghost guns’ said:

After the Fifth Circuit’s “Cargill” and “VanDerStok” decisions, this court and others have been able to sharply limit the ATF’s power to invent new regulations. This is a personal vindication for Mr. DeMonico as well, who has had to suffer DOJ’s weaponization of the courts against him and FRT innovation in New York.

For the last few years, we’ve thoroughly covered the ATF’s battle against RBT’s FRT-15 triggers that were once legally sold as a drop-in trigger for the AR-15-style rifle that forces the trigger to reset at such a high speed that it increases the weapon’s fire rate. However, the ATF felt it was necessary to arbitrarily label them as ‘machine guns’. 

• ATF Now Labels FRT-15 A Machine Gun, Turning Law-Abiding Citizens Into Criminals
• Rare Breed Triggers Fires Back At ATF, Says “Will Not Comply” ​​​​
• Rare Breed Triggers Responds To Alleged Leaked ATF Memo To Seize FRT-15s From Dealers
• ATF Declares Some FRT-15 Triggers “Prohibited Machineguns”
• Rare Breed Triggers Cancels Customers’ Orders After “ATF Raided Vendor”

Even to the extent that ATF agents were showing up at the homes of RBT customers to seize the trigger. 

Remember last summer when this video went viral after ATF agents tried to conduct an inventory audit of a man who legally bought firearms? 

ATF agents and a #Delaware state officer showed up to a man’s house without a warrant demanding to see his #firearms. #2A pic.twitter.com/DKuRd8UtKt

— Sarah Fields (@SarahisCensored) July 20, 2022

NAGR’s donation page for funding the lawsuit said, “At the request of Rare Breed Triggers, your donation will initially go towards counting you as an NAGR and NFGR member if we get an injunction against this Trigger Ban.”

They added: “We’re helping to defend our friends at Rare Breed Triggers with a lawsuit against the ATF to protect our members and supporters who own FRTs from the ATF’s reign of terror.” 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is an interesting free speech ruling in Texas in favor of the adult entertainment site, Pornhub. Senior U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled that a Texas law requiring age-verification and warning labels about the alleged dangers of porn contravenes the First Amendment.

Pornography sites have long been a target for politicians with a unique alliance of religious conservatives and feminists seeking to ban or limit access to material.

In American Booksellers Association, Inc., et al. v. Hudnut, 771 F. 2nd 323 (1985), the Seventh Circuit issued an important ruling striking down an Indianapolis ordinance that was the product of one such campaign by feminist scholars who argued that pornography leads to violence and denigration of women.

The ordinance declared such films as obscene due to “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women, whether in pictures or in words.”

On the other side, there is obviously a sizable number of citizens.

Pornhub and Xvideos are ranked in the top ten most visited sites. However, the huge number of consumers for these sites are the least likely to publicly oppose efforts to curtail or bar their availability to the general public.

The lawsuit challenged the Texas law, which was set to go into effect Sept. 1, 2023, and would have required sites to use “reasonable age verification methods” to “verify that an individual attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older.” In addition, pornography sites would have been forced to display a “Texas Health and Human Services Warning” in at least 14-point font. One of those warnings reads, “Pornography increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography.” The warning must be accompanied by a national toll-free number for people with mental health disorders.

Judge Ezra ruled that “H.B. 1181 is unconstitutional on its face.” The court found that “the statute is not narrowly tailored and chills the speech of Plaintiffs and adults who wish to access sexual materials . . .  [it] is not narrowly tailored because it substantially regulates protected speech, is severely underinclusive, and uses overly restrictive enforcement methods.”

Notably, the court recognizes that “the state has a legitimate goal in protecting children from sexually explicit material online.” Moreover, the court accepts that there are “viable and constitutional means to achieve Texas’s goal, and nothing in this order prevents the state from pursuing those means.”

The decision is well analyzed and well supported. While the age verification presents a closer question, I am particularly concerned over the compelled speech element of the warnings. Notably, many conservatives supported the challenge in 303 Creative v. Elenis, where the state of Colorado required a website design to not only offer services to same-sex couples but to remove a statement on her website that was not consistent with the state’s views. Just as religious persons have free speech rights in refusing to adhere to certain policies, non-religious or secular persons (or companies) have free speech rights in pursuing their own counter values. Here businesses are being told to express views with which they disagree. Indeed, these statements have been contested for years.

The court also addresses the continued use of vague obscenity standards to curtail adult material. While pornography is not the preferred subject for free speech advocates, it is an area that has long raised free speech issues. Governments often target the least popular forms of speech. While these sites appear very popular, few want to be publicly seen as supporting sites widely seen as sinful or sexist.

I do view this law as containing unconstitutional elements. However, this is likely to be just the start to a long series of challenges and appeals. These laws have been enacted in other states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia and Utah.

Here is the opinion: Free Speech Coalition v. Colmenero

Cook County, the home of the city of Chicago and Hyde Park township, voted with an astonishing 74% of the population in favor of the Democrat Party in the last presidential election.  The city has also been what progressives describe as a “sanctuary city” since at least 1985, which means that the city government refuses to enforce national immigration laws and often actively tries to interfere with federal agencies like ICE when they seek to detain illegal immigrants.  In this way, leftist governments have sought to undermine US border security by incentivizing migrants to enter the country without going through the proper vetting process.

For decades conservatives and even some moderates have warned that the open border policies of the political left would lead to social and economic disaster.  Democrats happily ignored these arguments and chose instead to dismiss criticisms of illegal immigration as “racism.”  The reasons why are varied.  Some leftists believe that opening the borders is just a precursor to a sweeping amnesty for illegals who will then become a dedicated voting block for Democrats.  Others see the US as a “white patriarchy” that needs to be dismantled and replaced using a Cloward-Piven approach.  Others just want to see America burn.   

While often holding up the cause of “empathy” for “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” the progressive position always smelled of opportunism and dishonesty.  Now we have the proof.  With all the pontificating about how “asylum is not illegal” and “America is a melting pot”, leftist regions are finally beginning to face the consequences of their own weaponization of the border, and they really don’t like it.   

Chicago appears to be the next in line to get a dose of karma.  Former mayor Lori Lightfoot attacked Texas Governor Greg Abbot over his relocation of migrants to the city in May, calling the move “inhumane” and “dangerous.”  Lightfoot cited a “lack of communication” with the city government, with buses of illegals arriving unannounced.  She did not seem to grasp the irony; open border policies and broad asylum regulations mean red states are constantly under siege with no way of knowing how many migrants are coming at an given time.  Federal government interference means states have limited tools to “legally” react to the invasion.  

Cook County has been hit with at least 13,500 migrants in the past year, with hundreds being housed in Hyde Park neighborhoods, increasing tensions in an already crime addled metropolis.  The thing is, this is what residents voted for.  The Utopian fantasy of an open border society that is still able to maintain its economy and its inherent cultural structures is naive at best.  All those virtuous feelings go out the window once their neighborhoods are overrun and their city welfare programs are tapped out.  Soon, those same compassionate progressives are threatening violence.

Woodlawn, Chicago residents blow up over illegals in the neighborhood:

“They disrespect us, rob us, harass us”

“We’re gonna take over. Nobody is gonna be able to stop us from what we’re gonna to do them.” pic.twitter.com/8bO5u86WSX

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 27, 2023

New York City and Washington DC have faced similar results.  While border towns deal with millions of migrants per year (2.79 million in 2022 alone), all it took was 10,000 – 15,000 migrants to grind NY and DC into a panic.  In July, NY Mayor Eric Adams warned that the city was “out of room” and that migrant housing costs could exceed $12 billion.  DC Mayor Muriel Bowser declared a state of public emergency.  The bottom line?  These sanctuary cities don’t want any more migrants, and neither do the residents, but they continue to keep the same old policies in place. 

So where does that leave them?  In a self perpetuating death spiral.  They’ll never admit their ideological views were unrealistic because that would be admitting conservatives were right.  So, they will continue taking in migrants and destroying their own local economy and security.  They will ride this atomic bomb all the way to ground zero.     

Authored by Matt McGregor via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A woman has filed a lawsuit against a Virginia school district alleging its clandestine support of her daughter’s decision to change her gender identity resulted in her being threatened, bullied, and ultimately trafficked by sexual predators.

Michele Blair, biological grandmother and adoptive mother of 16-year-old Sage Blair, alleges in the lawsuit (pdf) filed in August that staff at the Appomattox County High School directed Sage—who has a history of mental health issues and early childhood trauma—to change her name and pronouns and to use the boys’ bathroom, all the while keeping it a secret from Mrs. Blair.

While attending school identifying as a boy named “Draco,” Sage faced abuse from the other students because of the actions of the staff to transition her, Mrs. Blair told The Epoch Times.

“She was being verbally, physically, and sexually harassed, with constant threats of rape from the male students, and despite this, the school still encouraged her to use the boys’ bathroom,” Mrs. Blair said.

Among the defendants named in the lawsuit are two counselors—Dena Olsen and Avery Via—and Maryland public defender Aneesa Khan.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Olsen and Mr. Via played a key role in deliberately concealing Sage’s transition while engaging in inappropriate psychotherapy methods to facilitate Sage’s belief that she was a boy, which later led to increased trauma and her decision to run away in August 2021.

Sage—identified as “S.B.” in the lawsuit—was kidnapped, drugged, and raped by an adult male who later drove her to Washington, where she was left with two brothers who drugged and raped her again before driving her to Maryland, where she was then left with a registered sex offender who kept her in a locked room only to be trafficked to other men, the lawsuit states.

After Sage had gone, law enforcement found a note she left for her parents which read, “You’ve done your job, Jesus loves you. … I’m afraid of what is to come if I stayed. Be on your guard. There are bad people around here. … All my love,” the complaint states.

‘An Ideological Agenda’

Though law enforcement rescued Sage on Sept. 2, 2021, Mrs. Blair was not allowed to take her home because Ms. Khan, who was assigned as Sage’s public offender, alleged neglect at home, an allegation that was supported by Ms. Olsen and Mr. Via based on the supposition that Mrs. Blair and her husband weren’t acknowledging Sage as a male.

“She went with her own ideological agenda because of her belief that I was not adequately supporting Sage,” Mrs. Blair said. “We got into a courtroom, and she came up on a big Zoom screen. I called her name, saying, ‘I love you, Sage,’ and she replied, ‘I love you, Nana,’ and that was it. The public defender shut it down and convinced the judge that I was abusive because I didn’t call her by her boy name.”

Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Robert Kershaw at one point had Mrs. Blair’s husband removed from the courtroom for forgetting to use Sage’s masculine pronouns, she said, and the judge refused to acknowledge Sage’s need for trauma care, Mrs. Blair said.

Ms. Khan, with the assistance of Ms. Olsen and Mr. Via, had successfully convinced Judge Kershaw to have Sage put in the custody of the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) where, at Ms. Khan’s insistence, she was housed with high-risk adolescent males who, again, sexually assaulted her, the lawsuit states.

“I just don’t understand why he went along with it,” Mrs. Blair said.

A month later in November, Sage fled to Texas to meet someone she’d met online who she believed was 16, but the person turned out to be another sex trafficker.

This time, Texas authorities were able to intervene and get her back to Mrs. Blair, where she remains after having been away from home for over a year.

“This all could have been avoided if the school had informed me of what was going on instead of keeping me in the dark,” Mrs. Blair said. “Sage would not have a lifetime complex PTSD diagnosis she will struggle with the rest of her life.”

Sage had already spent several months in the foster care system before she was adopted by the Blairs when she was 2 years old after her father died and her mother was unable to care for her.

“She had a history of mental health issues from early childhood trauma,” Mrs. Blair said.

Sage has good days and bad days, Mrs. Blair said.

“It’s a long road, but where there’s life, there’s hope, and I’m so grateful she’s alive,” she said.

The Lawsuit

Mary McAlister, senior litigation counsel with Child & Parental Rights Campaign, the firm representing Mrs. Blair, told The Epoch Times that they are suing school staff and the public defender for several causes of action, the first being the violation of the fundamental parental right of a parent to direct the upbringing of the child and a second being a violation of civil rights.

“By depriving Plaintiff of critical information regarding S.B.’s gender identity and sexual harassment and assaults at school, Defendants Olsen and Via have infringed Plaintiff’s fundamental right to direct S.B.’s upbringing in that Plaintiff did not have the information necessary to make reasoned decisions regarding how to respond to S.B.’s announcement of a male gender identity and the sexual harassment she suffered in the way most appropriate for protecting S.B.’s mental health and keeping her safe,” the complaint states.

They are suing for violation of Title IX for “deliberate indifference to sexual harassment” because, according to the complaint, school staff failed to take corrective measures when Sage reported she was being sexually assaulted.

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the severe, pervasive and objectively offensive sexual harassment suffered by S.B.,” the lawsuit states, Sage will “continue to suffer significant physical and psychological trauma, educational disruption, and emotional distress.”

The lawsuit alleges that Ms. Olsen, Mr. Via, and Ms. Khan violated Mrs. Blair’s fundamental right to custody of Sage because of a “perceived viewpoint about affirming an incongruent gender identity in her daughter.”

“Mrs. Blair is informed and believes that while S.B. was in custody in Baltimore Ms. Khan asked S.B. whether S.B.’s parents called her a boy at home, to which S.B. answered no,” the complaint states. “Upon hearing that answer, Ms. Khan determined, without taking into account any of S.B.’s mental health history or life circumstances and without having any contact with Mrs. Blair, that Mrs. Blair had an unfavorable viewpoint of S.B.’s assertion of a male gender identity, and that her perceived viewpoint constituted abuse and neglect.”

Alleged Abuse

According to the complaint, Ms. Khan met with Ms. Olsen and Mr. Via and determined that Mrs. Blair was guilty of abuse, though they never discussed Sage’s gender identity with Mrs. Blair.

“Despite only speaking with Mrs. Blair briefly on two occasions in August 2021, and not about S.B.’s asserted male gender identity, Mr. Via presented false sworn testimony that Mrs. Blair and her husband had been verbally abusive, emotionally abusive, and unsupportive to S.B.,” the lawsuit states. “Mr. Via also acted to provide Ms. Khan with mental health records for S.B., including the August 5, 2021 psychiatric evaluation showing a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, a diagnosis of which Mrs. Blair was not aware.”

Mrs. Blair is additionally suing Ms. Khan for legal malpractice.

“Ms. Khan knowingly and intentionally presented that false testimony to the Maryland court to secure an order of temporary custody with Maryland DJS so as to prevent Mrs. Blair from regaining custody and returning S.B. to Virginia,” the lawsuit states.

The Epoch Times contacted the Maryland Office of the Public Defender for comment.

‘Sage’s Law’

To see that this doesn’t happen to any more parents, Mrs. Blair got involved in telling her story to push for legislation titled “Sage’s law,” which would prohibit school staff from hiding gender identity choices from the parents.

In January, Mrs. Blair gave her testimony before the Pre-K-12 Subcommittee of the Virginia House of Delegates, where she advocated for the passage of the bill.

Ms. McAlister said after the bill was introduced in the 2023 legislative session, it passed the Republican-controlled House of Delegates, but when it got to the Democrat-controlled Senate, it died.

“Every Democrat serving in the General Assembly voted against it, which is a sad commentary,” Ms. McAlister said. “But Virginia is having elections this November and the entire General Assembly is up for reelection, so if the makeup of the Legislature changes to be more Republican, then there’s great hope this law could be passed, and we’re certain Gov. [Glenn] Youngkin will sign it.”

Since telling her story, Mrs. Blair said she’s discovered she’s not alone.

Government agendas to separate children from their parents based on gender ideologies have ramped up since 2020, but it’s the job of the parents to be the voice of reason for their children, Mrs. Blair said.

“We are the ones to make important personal and mental health decisions for our children,” Mrs. Blair said. “That’s not the role of the school.”

Now, Mrs. Blair is telling other parents that they’re not alone.

“Keep fighting for your children because we love them more than any school or court system ever could,” she said.

Despite the worst housing affordability crisis in decades and a frozen housing market, the latest migration data reveals a clear pattern: Americans continue to ditch California’s urban centers, Chicago, and Northeastern cities, flocking to Sun Belt and Southwest US cities. 

A new report from John Burns Real Estate Consulting shows Houston, Jacksonville, Charlotte, San Antonia, Fort Worth, and Nashville still had strong inbound migration, while the eastern region of the San Francisco Bay Area, Orange County, San Diego, San Jose, Miami, Washington, DC, Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco had very negative outbound migration flows. 

To determine migration trends, the team analyzed current postal address change forms within a few months, explaining that this data “has given us far more conviction in expressing” migration trends nationwide. 

Here’s a snapshot of the report:

The winners: Strong housing demand

Strong migration continues in:

1. Houston
2. Jacksonville
3. Charlotte
4. San Antonio
5. Fort Worth
6. Nashville

Previously strong migration is now trending less strong than one year ago in:

1. Dallas
2. Atlanta
3. Tampa
4. Boise
5. Orlando
6. Raleigh-Durham

Previously strong migration is now trending to barely positive migration in:

1. Phoenix
2. Austin
3. Las Vegas

The losers: Weak housing demand

Previously strong in-migration is now trending negatively in:

1. Sacramento
2. Riverside-San Bernardino

Previously small out-migration is now trending as a big out-migration in:

1. Denver
2. Salt Lake
3. Philadelphia
4. Seattle

Very negative domestic out-migration continues, which is likely somewhat offset by strong international migration, in:

1. East Bay Area
2. Orange County
3. San Diego
4. San Jose
5. Miami
6. Washington, DC
7. Boston
8. Chicago
9. San Francisco

The team noted the data excludes international migration. There was no mention of specific drivers pushing people out of metros, such as San Francisco, Chicago, and other Northeast cities. However, one can only assume that out-of-control violent crime and soaring shelter costs have something to do with it. 

Migration patterns that took root in the Covid era remain persistent. We expect once the 30-year fixed mortgage rate, now hovering over 7%, hits its peak and reverses due to a worsening economic outlook or a potential U-turn in the Fed’s hiking strategy, the frozen housing market might come alive once more, resulting in even more Americans exiting progressive-run cities that have become nothing more than crime-infested hellholes. 

Some Americans are ditching metro areas all together: Americans Panic Search “Live Off Grid” As Housing Crisis Worsens And Democrat Cities Implode. 

Via Middle East Eye

A US lawmaker from the state of Arizona has introduced legislation in Congress that would impose a 300 percent tax on the sale of water-intensive crops grown by foreign companies in the state, in a bid to curb the extensive use of water in the drought-stricken state.

The bill, titled the Domestic Water Protection Act of 2023, was introduced by Ruben Gallego, a Democrat who in a press release announcing the measure directly called out Saudi Arabia.

“Arizona’s water and crops belong in Arizona, not Saudi Arabia,” Gallego said in his statement. “No longer should foreign governments and companies be given sweetheart deals that leave Arizonans worse off.”

“I’m proud to lead the Domestic Water Protection Act to stop these entities from stealing our state’s water.”

Arizona has been leasing farmland to a Saudi company called Fondomonte, which uses the state’s groundwater to grow alfalfa, which is then exported to feed cows in the country.

There is no firm data on exactly how much water the company uses, but a State Land Department report states that Fondomonte is estimated to be using as much as 18,000 acre-feet (22 million cubic metres) each year, which is enough water to supply 54,000 single-family homes.

The estimated cost of that much water is between three to four million dollars a year.

In one area, the Butler Valley in Arizona, Fondomonte pays only $25 per acre for the water that it uses, which is one-sixth of the market price for the land, Middle East Eye reported in November, citing a realtor in the area.

In addition to Saudi Arabia’s Fondomonte, the United Arab Emirates company al-Dahra grows 30,000 acres (12,000 hectares) of alfalfa, garlic and onion in Arizona and California, according to the company’s website.

The exporting of “virtual water” – water embedded in products such as produce and crops – also has a huge environmental impact on the local communities.

And as Saudi and Emirati companies continue to pump out water from aquifers, scientists worry that they are pumping at such a rate that they will not be able to be replenished. Amid the massive drought the region is facing, with dwindling surface water supplies, these aquifers are the area’s last option for water.

Arizona’s water and crops belong in Arizona–not Saudi Arabia.

That’s why I introduced the Domestic Water Protection Act so foreign companies stop stealing our state’s resources.https://t.co/YvXZQMdWjz

— Ruben Gallego (@RubenGallego) August 30, 2023

A 2020 Arizona Department of Water Resources report found that groundwater levels in the Willcox basin in southeastern Arizona dropped roughly 2.5 metres a year in some areas from 2008 to 2018. A 2018 report estimated that at least roughly 221.8 billion litres were drawn out of the aquifer each year from 1995 to 2015.

“As our communities in Arizona feel the intense effects of the climate crisis and prolonged drought, we are simultaneously being stripped by Saudi-owned companies of our most precious resource – our water,” Raul Grijalva, a cosponsor of the legislation, said in a press release.

Recently, leaders in the state of Arizona have signalled their intentions to end the lease with Fondomonte, which would effectively stop the company from pumping more groundwater.