The number of euthanasia cases continues to rise in Canada, according to the latest official report on the topic, raising further alarm, particularly among disability rights groups. Even some early supporters of ‘Medical Assistance in Dying’ (MAID) are now voicing concerns. In 2023, 15,343 Canadians died by euthanasia or assisted suicide, according to the ‘Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying’. This marks a 15.8pc increase over 2022 and represents 4.7pc of all deaths in 2023. Since its legalisation in 2016, there have been 60,301 cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia cases in Canada that we know of. Adding to these frightening figures, 2,906 individuals died last year before their euthanasia requests could be fulfilled. Meanwhile, 496 individuals withdrew their requests. Canada allows both assisted suicide, where the patient self-administers lethal drugs (except in Quebec), and euthanasia, which is administered by a doctor or nurse. Self-administration is extremely rare, with fewer than five cases reported last year, showing that people are scared to take a poison themselves. Dementia was cited as a medical condition in 241 euthanasia recipients in 2023, and in 106 of these cases, dementia was their sole condition. Not all those who received euthanasia were terminally ill. In 622 cases, natural death was not deemed “reasonably foreseeable.” This category, called Track 2, allows euthanasia for non-terminal patients. Some could have lived for a decade or longer but chose euthanasia due to isolation or feeling like a burden. Euthanasia can be requested when someone experiences “physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them.” This is another example of the slippery slope in action. Isolation or loneliness was significantly more common among Track 2 patients (47.1pc) compared to Track 1 patients (those within six months of death) at 21.1pc, but we can still see feeling isolated was significant. Crucially, 45.1pc of Track 1 and 49.2pc of Track 2 patients cited feeling like a “burden on family, friends or caregivers” as a key reason for their suffering. Among Track 2 recipients, where death was not foreseeable, women constituted 58.5pc of cases. These patients were typically younger and had lived with their conditions for much longer. Perhaps this is also a function of the fact that women typically live longer than men and are more likely to be widowed and therefore living alone. The percentage of disabled individuals among non-terminal euthanasia recipients was significantly higher: 58.3pc compared to 33.5pc among those within six months of death. They are heavily over-represented in Canada’s euthanasia statistics. “When other people express loneliness or a loss of dignity or a desire to die, we usually respond with support or prevention. But with people with disabilities, we respond with an offer for MAID,” said Isabel Grant, a law professor at the University of British Columbia. This same group of non-terminal patients had, on average, lived with a disability for a fifth of their lifespan. According to the report, 594 individuals received euthanasia under a waiver of final consent arrangement due to a loss of capacity. This means they were euthanised based on a prior request, even though they could no longer give consent. Euthanasia was legalised in Canada in 2016 following a case brought by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA). However, the regime has become so permissive that even the BCCLA has raised concerns, particularly about euthanasia for prisoners and disabled individuals. The organisation has highlighted reports of people accessing MAID due to intolerable social circumstances or being offered it in cases that may not meet legal requirements. “Of particular concern are reports of MAID being used in prisons while incarcerated individuals were shackled to their beds, the programme’s lack of legal oversight, disproportionate representation of impoverished people receiving assisted suicide, and healthcare practitioners offering MAID when patients sought support for living,” the BCCLA stated.

Without exception, I have never stayed up to watch election results. For me, they aren’t important. I will eat the same breakfast, drive on the same roads, and reach out to folks to perform whatever job I find myself doing, regardless of who is in the White House. Certainly, I have watched some people I voted for win, and I have watched some lose. Like most Americans, I think that my candidates deserve to win, but I also know that I hold a biased opinion of what matters. I have personal experiences with exactly one US President in their residence (it wasn’t a good one), three congressmen (one Democrat and two Republicans, and I liked all three of them), and ZERO senators. I may have more first-hand experiences than most, but I am certain that my perspective is incomplete, at best. Since the last election ended, I have found myself watching an appalling display of sore losers and failure to be human. I observed an embarrassing dialog of people who cut and pasted each other’s opinions, such as Yelp reviews of a restaurant. I appreciate those Americans who are excited to see the USA flex its might and act like the most powerful country in the world for the first time in a long time. And the world is bending its knees in fear, with only its citizens in denial that this is happening. Yet, the same people are also oblivious and are turning a cheek at evil acts. Like all elections, some people are depressed as they see change evoked at near-warp speed by someone they didn’t vote for. They lament, thinking that it wasn’t the American electorate that made that happen; it was the act of a single, evil titan. I don’t care, but it leaves me thinking that I want to say something to inspire the rest of you who are looking for a pathway forward so you can wake up, work, and live a productive life that doesn’t include cutting and pasting some ideology that isn’t really one you will die for. I have yet to meet anyone who is protesting the death of DEI cuts who is also willing to cease watching competitive sports. The same thing is true when they get a leak and need a plumber. They aren’t saying no to the white guy who can be there in an hour to wait for the black guy who won’t be there until tomorrow. Here are five myths I want to address using hatchet, axe, and saw that deserve your attention. Call it common sense; don’t call it political. Myth 1: Federal Employment represents an entitlement like the right to vote. As a former Peace Corps Volunteer, I was considered a part of the Department of State. There was a policy while I served that said, “You can’t stay in the Peace Corps for more than five years. After that, you become a part of the system. That is bad, so we are capping your service at 60 months, no matter who you whine to.” That was brilliant, in retrospect. That policy didn’t start or end with the Peace Corps. We also have term limits on the president for parallel reasons. There is a strong agreement on both political sides that we should have a national conversation about term limits for Senators and Congressmen for the same reasons listed above. It isn’t evil to say, “You have contributed enough. Priorities change, but you don’t change like they do.” For whatever reason, we think there is a reason to abandon the idea of outliving your effectiveness. At both the individual level and the department level, usefulness has an expiration date. As I published earlier, USAID ran its course of usefulness a very long time ago. It should have been killed 30 years ago. That is NOT a bad thing to pronounce the end of life of a job or a department. In fact, it is healthy. At a recent Returned Peace Corps meeting, I listened to background whining about people who had lost their jobs as a result of “tyranny.” I didn’t speak, and I could only listen as they built a not-so-subtle conclusion that our government deserved to provide them with jobs. They were getting fired, even though they felt they did nothing wrong. They missed the memo. Employment is not an entitlement. It is a privilege. If I had exactly one takeaway from that meeting, it was the need to remove the mentality that people deserve their jobs. Leaning out places where the government overspends is a good thing. Sometimes, you need to throw out an entire bag of apples. No one is taking the time to realize that this was the most courageous act of any executive government leader in my lifetime. It wasn’t cruelty; it was reality. Myth 2: Such and Such is not my president. For a few election cycles now, I have listened to the passionate rhetoric of people concluding that who is the current president is not their president. Bush 1, Bush 2, Obama, Trump 1, Biden, and Trump 2 are all the subjects who aren’t their president. That is delusional and evasive of the fact that the president holds the keys. They can determine what you can and can’t do, regardless of your opinion. They can enact foreign policy that inhibits your ability to do business and travel. They can enforce previously lax laws and change your behavior. They are, in fact, the president of the United States. Your fraudulent claims don’t change that. My suggestion when hearing someone drop the comment that “Trump isn’t my president” is to remember that in every society, there are “flat earthers.” Take a pause and realize that some people disavow the truth and refuse to look at evidence that they know would mandate a change in position. Everyone has a flat-earth view of something in their lives. Suggest an alternative to those who you think might be open to replacing their hatred with peace; start with some truth. If you hold a US Passport or claim to have US citizenship, then the person who was elected and sworn in is the only president of the United States. The loser doesn’t get the title of “runner-up President of the United States.” The US President represents the United States in executive matters, can send troops into another country to kill our enemies, appoint judges, negotiate treaties, and direct the federal government operations, all while sitting in a highly protected workspace. He can veto Congress and can even pardon someone, declaring that they are above the law. He is, in fact, your president. If you are certain that he isn’t, relocate. Rosie O’Donnell moved to Ireland. Ellen Degeneres moved to England. Drop your US passport if you don’t want what comes with it. A president comes with your passport. So, deal with it and move forward. Peace beats tantrums every time. Myth 3: The best response is negativity. James 1:20 says the obvious. “The anger of man does not bring about righteousness that God desires.” Christians of every flavor are coming up with justifications to exclude this teaching. It is obvious that they intentionally exclude this from their belief structure. The rest of us see it as the convenient expulsion of God’s word from their life. Don’t take the bait. Be above that. Even if you aren’t a Christian, no faith recommends slander and defamation to achieve what you want. Spreading bile—whether it’s X rants or protest signs—rarely builds anything worth keeping. I have a personal story to make my point. Obama ran under a promise to remove government corruption and ridiculous overspending. It hit home. During his administration, my business came under scrutiny. I spent $70,000 in legal fees only to be found not guilty. I was mad and hurt, and I lost a lot of sleep listening to threats about imprisonable consequences for actions that I never took. I could not watch the man speak about “reducing governmental waste” without reflecting on the legal attack I experienced. My employees experienced pay cuts because of his “reduce government spending” policy, and I went without a salary despite being the entrepreneur and the one taking the greatest risk. It's funny how people forget that Obama had that policy. When his term in office neared its end, I saw a newspaper article while in an airport that described the additional national parks that he signed into law during the end of his term. I love our national parks, and it filled my heart to know that the land was being set aside for future generations. It gave me something positive to reflect upon. And once I did, my mentality changed. My loss remained, but there was also massive good that came into existence that would outlive my loss. Myth 4: I am right, and you aren’t. I feel it is appropriate to share some anecdotal stories about what NOT to do. They are a microcosm of the problem. This is not about disagreement. It is now dehumanizing each other. The man who runs our local writer’s guild is an established instructor at a local college. I love the short stories that he writes and shares, and he is a funny guy. Some time back, he shared that he “unfriended” someone, claiming they were a “Trumper.” There was an additional commentary: "There is no room in life for people who share that person’s values.” Later, I read something from Hamas that used the exact language as they described their passion to eliminate the Jews. (certainly, though, he is NOT a part of Hamas!). That sort of negativity does not bode well for anyone’s soul. It is antithetical to “love thy neighbor.” You may disagree with a thought or a position, but to use politics as a justification to cancel isn’t being a human. It is being close-minded and fascist. Don’t get in the “Cut and paste” reply and respond train. If you are going to add to a conversation, do that. “My side is pure. Your side is trash,” is a lazy man’s thought. Make your meme. Write your own story. Be inspiring. Myth 5: Continual overspending isn’t a big deal if you are the government. The Roman Empire fell because of economic decline. Policies like debt spending created unsustainable inflation, shrank the empire's tax base, and strained its finances. In the middle of all of that, they experienced a Barbarian invasion. After Diocletian, the empire split into two factions. Emperors were assassinated or attempted to be. See a pattern? We do not need to repeat the past. The US is overspending, and the correction will hurt. Government job loss is the least of it. To be sustainable, we must spend less or the same as we take in consistently. We have a trend of overspending. It is bad that we aren’t aware of the consequences. We need to be. What can you do? Wake up tomorrow, fry your eggs, and do your job well. The world’s bending knees or crying foul—fine, let it. You don’t need to pick a team or a hashtag. Call the plumber who shows up, cheer the athlete who wins, and build something—anything—that outlasts the noise. You’ve seen presidents come and go, and you’re still here. That’s not apathy; it’s wisdom. Share it by living it.

There is a global protocol for guests. You are a visitor with special permission. You are forthright with gratitude, and I appreciate the generosity that has been extended to you. You use your manners, say please and thank you, and remind yourself what a treat it is to be there—or so I thought. I listened to some interviews about the fate of a young man who was arrested and detained for his pro-Palestinian speech. He was a guest in the US on a visa. He was here as a student at Columbia University, my Alma Mater. I am in despair at how my school has chosen to support this young man's behavior and how they have allowed others to suffer so he could feel affirmed. I am certain the pressure will be on me in the upcoming years as I get targeted marketing emails to donate to compensate for their poor judgment. The story revolves around free speech. Free speech has ALWAYS been a topic of discussion. Say something wrong about the king, and off goes your head. Say a lie about the king’s enemy, and you get a castle and a valley filled with peasants of your own. That was true five thousand years ago, five hundred years ago, and fifty years ago. Where is right and wrong through all of this? History of the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Its origins lie in the political and philosophical currents of the American Revolution and the Enlightenment, as well as in colonial experiences with British rule. The First Amendment, as ratified, reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It passed with broad support, reflecting a consensus on safeguarding these liberties against federal overreach. History of Free Speech Free Speech didn’t last, as written. And you are glad that it didn't. What am I talking about? We decided a few hundred years ago that false advertising is illegal. Someone’s free use of their tongue to deceive us into purchasing a good or service that is not “as advertised” is a crime. It is unforgivable. The phrase "as advertised" has a tone of accountability built into it. We also agreed that free speech is not OK when false statements harm a person’s reputation. We decided that if a person’s loose tongue threatens our nation’s security, that, too, is illegal. The most recent addition to the limitations on free speech is labeled as “hate speech.” If a person’s words incite harm to someone or are a threat to their well-being, we label that as equally illegal. Everyone has a right to say what they want, including telling someone they hate them and wish they would die; they just can’t say that they are the ones coming to kill you. What really happened? It is challenging to reduce it to a single paragraph, but not if I leave out my opinion. Hamas attacked Israeli citizens (no law enforcement or military were targeted) in October of 2023. They killed and raped, and they took hostages as they returned to Gaza. Israel decided to retaliate with two intentions. They wanted to prevent future attacks by wiping out Gaza’s leadership’s ability to repeat the attacks and retrieve their hostages. Hamas knew that this would be their intention before they attacked, and they structured a method of gathering global support for their cause by using their own people as shields against the Israeli military, forcing the Israeli army to kill civilians as they sought retribution. Portions of the world watched videos and called this genocide. Others saw the same videos and chose to support the Jews and their right to live in safety. Both sides had horrific videos to show, trying to win over sense and emotion from both sides. Both sides used religious texts and “rules of fair warfare” (whatever that means). Both sides claimed self-defense as their core motivation. The fighting isn't over. Mahmoud Khalil is the guest of ill repute. He is the poster child of how this international skirmish is negatively impacting students at Columbia University. The Antagonist This young man was a ringleader and acted as the spokesperson at Columbia when Jewish students were tracked down and beaten, with the university not choosing to either condemn the pro-Palestine violence or offer assistance to these Jews. He lead protests to attempt to get his university (and my university!) to divest from Israel. He participated in the destruction of property and threats against Israeli students. At the core of the issue is the issue of Free Speech. Can a young man like this man be considered “exercising his First Amendment rights” when he targeted, harassed, and intentionally made Israeli students feel unsafe and unwelcome? The videos of how these young Jewish college students were beaten made the news last spring, and it polarized us. Sorting out fact from truth. The student hired a lawyer who was looking for the spotlight. His lawyer found a microphone and a series of listening ears. Let’s look at the lawyer's positions. 1) He claims that his client was “peacefully protesting and exercising his constitutionally protected activism." 2) He claims that his clients was within his legal rights to participate in tracking down and attacking Jews that were part of the Columbia University community. 3) He claims that it is unfair for his client to be arrested and detained in Louisiana, as it inhibits his client's rights to attorney-client privileged conversations. 4) He claims that his client's arrest intends to silence all protestors, not just the ones at CU. These claims are obviously extreme, but let's examine the truth. · This guy is not a US Citizen and does not share the same rights as the rest of us. He can’t vote. He has a visa to be here and is a guest of the United States. His lawyer is trying to convince the public that he has the same rights. He is also avoiding the reality that he is behaving inappropriately, celebrating the physical harm done to someone who has never harmed him or anyone he knows. · He claims that it is within his legal rights to track down and witness an attack on someone if you are not the one swinging the club. That is not even close to true. There are laws against participating in a felony, even if only passively. · The government concluded that the school’s choice (not inability) not to protect its Jewish students from known threats was a violation of the terms and conditions for $400 M worth of funding, and the government responded by canceling the funding. As I analyzed the story, I chose to look outside of the US to see if other countries were experiencing similar issues. What were their reactions? Is the USA the only place where Jews are being attacked because they are Jews, not because of what they have done? I found an article from the UK in the Telegraph. It was an internal study that compared violent crime between native Britons and people who were immigrants or were on a VISA. Specific to sex crimes (the preferred crime type for Hamas), the report said that immigrants are 70% more likely to commit sex crimes than native Britons. The author sought to suggest that the methods used to allow entry to immigrants and the associated education and law enforcement resulted in a more dangerous United Kingdom. Imagine that. How shocking to learn that people new to the country select a “culturally inappropriate” response as they seek to get their way in a country other than their own. I conclude this Palestinian student is NOT exercising free speech. He is creating hate speech. He is actively involved in making people unsafe. It is not limited to making them “feel” unsafe. They are actually unsafe once people embrace this young man’s ideology. Can you imagine letting a guest into your house and he acts like this? The Christian response As a Christian, I own that I have Jewish roots. The Old Testament is as much my people’s history as it is for the Israeli Jew. The tendency is to have tunnel vision and conclude that we have to take the Jewish position, as they are the greatest Creation. They are God’s chosen people. How can we say we are pro-love or pro-God if we choose not to defend God's people? Yet, the core of the moment is the answer to your question, “What does God mean when he says love your enemies?” An analogy applies here. I hate the Nazis. They killed people with joy in their hearts. We are called to protect the innocent. People who seek harm against the Jews “just because they are Jews” are doing evil no different than the Nazis. Yet, if I meet an individual nazi, I am not facing the enemy. I am facing a single person. As such, I can see myself investing in getting to know them and potentially love them. Hollywood has multiple movies that play on this theme. Hogan’s Heroes is a comedy based on the idea that the enemy can become a friend, but only one person at a time. That one-person-at-a-time idea is what highlights the difference between enemy and enemies. This young “activist” is a hypocrite. He hates Jews and wants others to hate them just because they are Jews. Yet, he wants us to empathize with his unique circumstances. The media is talking about his pregnant wife as justification for him to be set free to continue his evil antics that threaten other people's safety. Strip his VISA. Deport him immediately. Let him reapply and agree to the terms and conditions of what it means to be here as a guest of the United States.

In the upcoming Manitowoc School Board election, voters face a critical decision that will shape the future of our children's education. Among the candidates vying for positions on the board are Ann Holsen, David Bowman, and Mary Lofy Blahnik, three individuals who, despite their claims of nonpartisanship, have demonstrated a clear alignment with liberal ideologies that threaten to undermine the quality and integrity of our schools. As concerned citizens, it is our duty to examine the records, statements, and associations of these candidates to determine their fitness for the vital roles they seek. In this blog post, we will delve into the troubling evidence that exposes Holsen, Bowman, and Blahnik's liberal agendas, raising serious doubts about their ability to provide the impartial, student-focused leadership our school board so desperately needs. Join us as we shed light on the true colors of these candidates, exposing the risks they pose to our children's education and the future of our community.Mary Lofy Blahnik “In the fall of 2022, I left my Green Bay HR position briefly, as I was hired as the Director of HR for Manitowoc Public Schools. At that time, I was very concerned about the leadership of the central office and School Board, so after just two months, I returned to Green Bay, as I was not interested in being part of a leadership team that was making decisions that did not put student learning first.” Mary Lofy Blahnik's history of job-hopping between seven different school districts is a cause for concern. Blahnik spent a mere two months working in the very district she is now running to represent on the school board, only to leave because she disagreed with the direction the district was heading. This brief and unsatisfactory stint calls into question her ability to work collaboratively with other board members and administrators to enact positive change. This troubling pattern of behavior suggests that Blahnik may not be committed to the MPSD and could potentially abandon her post on the school board when faced with challenges or disagreements. The MPSD deserves someone who will move the district forward, not a quitter who will leave you, the voters. Mary Lofy Blahnik's attempt to leverage her volunteerism with a certified therapy dog as relevant experience for serving on the Manitowoc School Board is a prime example of her misplaced priorities and lack of understanding of the role of a school board member. Her work with therapy dogs is by no means a qualification for making critical decisions about our children's education, curriculum, and school policies. Blahnik's emphasis on her volunteer work with therapy dogs suggests a superficial approach to the complex issues facing our schools and a failure to grasp the gravity of the responsibilities she seeks to undertake. Mary Lofy Blahnik's self-proclaimed expertise in "equity and inclusion initiatives and practices" is a concerning indication of her commitment to pushing a liberal agenda within our schools. While the principles of equity and inclusion may sound appealing on the surface, they often serve as thinly veiled attempts to promote a particular ideological viewpoint at the expense of academic excellence and fairness.Ann Holsen While Ann Holsen frequently touts her experience in the nuclear sector as her primary qualification for the school board, she has yet to explain how this background is relevant to the challenges facing our schools today. The skills and knowledge required to succeed in the nuclear industry are vastly different from those needed to effectively manage educational institutions and shape policies that will benefit our students. Holsen's inability to connect her work experience to the realm of education raises serious doubts about her suitability for the school board. It is clear that Holsen's attempt to portray herself as a nonpartisan centrist is a facade. Her reluctance to address key issues directly, her use of Democratic buzzwords, and the color of her campaign signs being Kamala Harris blue, demonstrate that she is, in fact, a liberal candidate attempting to deceive voters. Our school board needs members who are transparent, knowledgeable, and genuinely committed to the best interests of our children, not those who hide behind empty rhetoric and vague statements. She refuses to directly answer questions about keeping pride materials and pornographic books in schools and if DEI should be implemented. Instead, she resorts to using buzzwords like "inclusive environments for all learners," a common tactic employed by Democratic candidates to mask their true intentions. When questioned about her stance on the Success for All curriculum change, Holsen admitted, "I am currently not a K-12 curriculum expert." This raises serious concerns about her ability to make informed decisions on crucial educational matters.David Bowman David Bowman retired from MPSD in 2024 and had a salary of $77,841, not including benefits. This salary was 15% higher than the average and 14% higher than the median salary in the MPSD and 18% higher than the state average. David Bowman's time as a choir teacher does not automatically qualify him for a position on the school board. Managing a classroom and conducting a choir are vastly different from the complex responsibilities and decision-making required of a school board member. Bowman's background does not demonstrate the necessary skills and expertise needed to navigate the multifaceted challenges of educational policy and administration. Our schools need leaders with a diverse set of experiences and a deep understanding of the issues at hand, not just those who can "conduct their way through a meeting." David Bowman's associations and views raise serious concerns about his ability to serve on the school board impartially. Bowman's Facebook friendships with special interest group ALLY (created by Dayna Goetz) leaders Bernie Starzewski, Jennifer Gleichner, and Lisa Johnston (current Vice Chair of the Manitowoc County Democratic Party), as well as school board members Keith Shaw and Kerry Trask (former chair of the Manitowoc County Democratic Party), suggest a strong alignment with liberal ideologies. When questioned about his stance on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Bowman referred to an article promoting DEI, indicating his support for this controversial approach. Furthermore, he has expressed his approval of ALLY stickers and pride flags in schools, which many parents believe are inappropriate for educational settings. Bowman's opposition to school choice is another alarming aspect of his candidacy. By denying families the right to choose the best educational options for their children, Bowman reveals his preference for a one-size-fits-all approach that disregards the unique needs and values of individual students. To further emphasize David Bowman's alignment with liberal ideologies, it is worth noting that his yard signs bear the same design as those of known liberal school board member Keith Shaw. This striking similarity in campaign materials suggests a coordinated effort and shared agenda between the two, raising questions about Bowman's claim to be an independent voice for our children's education. In light of these facts, it is evident that David Bowman's candidacy is driven by a liberal agenda that prioritizes special interests over the well-being and education of our children. Our school board needs members who are objective, open-minded, and committed to providing a quality education for all students, not those who push a particular ideology at the expense of our children's futures.Bowman In His Own Words "To my fellow Christians who are cheering for Christian Nationalism... I wonder how many of our founding Fathers would be heretics in your eyes..." "Are you really in a position to question Harris's "record on crime" if you nominate a convicted felon?" "I have seen a video of him stumping another legislator using bible references to explain why she is wring in supporting Trumpsim and Christian Nationalism. It is powerful!" "One of the reasons I decided I SHOULD retire. There was no way I would have been able to keep my opinions to myself this coming election cycle." "Also... it will be able to fight more easily from outside than from the inside..." "I cannot support the current iteration of the GOP cozying up to dictators around the world at the expense of our relationships with democracy... You can listen to the leader of the GOP speak right now and hear him state what he believes. It is misogynistic, homo-phobic, racist, anti-worker..." He also made a comment criticizing the GOP for going after birth control. "Democrats support the majority of what I believe in." David Bowman's statements reveal a troubling lack of impartiality and a strong alignment with liberal ideologies. By openly criticizing Christian Nationalism, questioning the GOP's stance on crime, and expressing support for Democratic policies, Bowman demonstrates his inability to separate his personal political beliefs from that of the role of the school board. Bowman's declaration that he "cannot support the current iteration of the GOP" due to its alleged coziness with dictators and supposed misogyny, homophobia, racism, and anti-worker sentiments is a clear indication of his partisan bias. His comment criticizing the GOP for "going after birth control" and his admission that "Democrats support the majority of what I believe in" further underscore his liberal leanings. Moreover, Bowman's statement that he decided to retire because he "would not have been able to keep [his] opinions to [himself] this coming election cycle" raises concerns about his ability to serve on the school board with the required objectivity and professionalism. "It is not within the role of the schools (or the country) to pass judgment one way or another on how a student (or anyone) identifies. It is our role to ensure each student is able to achieve their full potential. From personal experience with transgender students, the discomfort they tend to show in their bodies seems quite debilitating. In Wisconsin, we have some guidelines from the WIAA. Students that are trans and let’s be honest the concern is about trans-females, must be on a year of medically documented testosterone blockers before they are allowed to participate in sports." - David Bowman David Bowman's response to the issue of Title IX and transgender students in sports reveals a concerning lack of understanding and a willingness to prioritize political correctness over fairness and safety. Bowman asserts that schools should not pass judgment on how a student identifies, but this stance fails to acknowledge the very real biological differences between males and females that can create an uneven playing field in sports. By disregarding these differences, Bowman's approach risks undermining the hard-fought gains of Title IX, which was designed to ensure equal opportunities for female athletes. Furthermore, Bowman's focus on the "discomfort" of transgender students ignores the potential discomfort and unfairness experienced by female athletes who may be forced to compete against biologically male opponents. While compassion for all students is important, it should not come at the expense of fairness and safety in sports. Bowman's reference to require trans-female, biological male, athletes to undergo a year of testosterone blockers before participating in sports, is an inadequate solution. This requirement does not fully address the physical advantages that biological males may have, even after a period of hormone therapy. In light of these concerns, it is clear that David Bowman's stance on Title IX and transgender athletes is misguided and potentially detrimental to the integrity of girls' sports in our schools. Our school board needs members who can balance compassion with fairness and prioritize the well-being of all students, not those who sacrifice fairness on the altar of political correctness. The Three Ann Holsen, David Bowman, and Mary Lofy Blahnik are listed as recommended candidates on the Manitowoc County Democratic Party's (which they spoke at a meeting of) and Wisconsin Education Association Council’s websites. These affiliations raise serious doubts about their ability to remain impartial and stand up to the teachers' union (Manitowoc Education Association) and special interest group ALLY (which the three were invited to a meet and greet at the creator's house and attended). Instead, it appears that these candidates would join forces with these groups, prioritizing their interests over those of our students and community. The current school board is run by the teacher’s union. We do not need more of the same. Electing candidates like Bowman and Mary Lofy Blahnik would only perpetuate this biased viewpoint and create a conflict of interest due to their previous district payroll’s. Bowman's and Blahnik’s attack on the Success for All (SFA) program, which has been the only program to demonstrate success in years, is troubling. Despite acknowledging that aspects of SFA have helped improve test scores, they support the board's decision to terminate the program without providing a clear, research-driven alternative. By dismissing the positive impact of SFA, they demonstrate a lack of commitment to evidence-based decision-making and a disregard for the needs of our students, along with a disregard of the non-sustainability among staff of changing programs after a short time. These three candidates have demonstrated a lack of commitment to the school board by failing to attend meetings before announcing their candidacy. This raises doubts about their willingness to dedicate the necessary time and effort to serve effectively. In light of this information, it is evident that Ann Holsen, David Bowman, and Mary Lofy Blahnik are not suited for a nonpartisan school board position. Our school board needs members who can put aside their personal political beliefs and prioritize the well-being and education of all students, not those who use their position to advance a particular ideological agenda of their liberal allies. Share on Facebook

The first real migration story we hear of appears in Genesis, when Abram's family leaves Ur of the Chaldeans and migrates towards Canaan. The story has an abrupt ending in Chapter 11, when it states that they reached Haran and settled there instead. Take a look at the map at the disparity between where they were going and where they settled. They should have gone Southwest; instead, they went northwest for three months. It was quite a long journey, and they completed it on foot. The best-case scenario is three months, considering the amount of livestock they took with them. It could have been longer, but the narrative doesn't tell us. A false teaching exists that states God told him to leave Ur. The story goes that since the message to leave came from God, Abram’s migration was fundamentally different from what we see today. The problem with that claim is that it isn’t true. Read Genesis 11:31-32. Abram immigrates, and there are ZIPPO references to God telling him to do that. Read it seven times if you need to; get mad at your pastor for telling you something different. It doesn't change the truth. The family left without God's prompting. The distances here are not insignificant. If you look at the journeys that God’s people travel, this is the longest one of them all. It is longer than the Exodus. The distance in the first story is between 1,050 and 1,240 miles (per Grok) versus Moses's journey in the Exodus from Egypt to the River Jordan (310-375 miles). Even accounting for variables (e.g., specific starting points in Egypt or detours), the Mesopotamian journey’s vast scope dwarfs the shorter Sinai-Canaan trek. Ponder the nature of migration with this new context. There was no burning bush or voice from God telling him when, where, or why. The dude’s father, Terah, just “knew” it was time to go. He had to cross a desert with a lot of terrifying conditions on a route he knew nothing about. And, in the middle of the journey, when they were way off course, they gave up and “settled there.” They stopped their journey for reasons unknown. Then, magic happens. God began to speak to Abram, telling him to leave Haran and go to a place that He would show him. From that moment forward, your bible teaching is probably accurate. God eventually creates a covenant with Abram, gives him a new name, and it is off to the races. However, going rogue and migrating without God's prompting returns! Bad news strikes Canaan after he arrives there, and he leaves to go to Egypt. Again, God didn’t tell him to do that; he departed for Egypt on his own. Once he gets there, God intervenes with plagues, revealing the truth, and Pharaoh spits them out of Egypt like bad mouthwash. For nearly all, the US is the Canaan of their immigration journey. Foreigners embark on a long and uncertain journey with the goal of reaching the US. Despite what the media convinces us to believe, most people who arrive become contributing members of society and follow our rules. My grandparents all were. As a personal addition and a disclaimer, I know illegal immigrants. As they share their stories and videos from their journey with me, I see parallels between their sadness and what is recorded in scripture. In the bible, some get to Haran and stop, even though that isn’t their destination. They make homes there and start a new life. I heard a tale and watched several videos of a group of eight men attempting to travel overland from Brazil to the USA, but one of them gave up and stayed in Panama. Hearing that reminded me of Abram’s father, Terah, the initiator of the first immigration story in the Bible. He died in Haran, just like Moses died, before reaching Canaan. It seems like a theme of a treacherous route is what we should learn from. The act of moving to another country can be fraught with danger and death. Isn’t that a mirror image of what happens at the borders in Italy for inbound vessels and gang/cartel members as they reach the Arizona border? I see connections. Immigrants come to the US, and sometimes they can’t articulate the reason, as Abram’s family did when they left UR. All they know is that they must leave their birthplace if they want to have a life. Some, along the way, give up. Some hear from God, and they overcome adversity to reach the Promised Land, watching their seeds grow into a great community. America is comprised of multi-generational towns that would not exist without the courageous immigrants who founded them. As a final piece of Biblical history to add to the conversation about immigration, I will refer to the story of Ruth and Boaz. When Ruth arrived in Bethlehem, she was a foreigner in a precarious position—poor, widowed, and without local ties beyond Naomi. Seeking to support them, she went to glean in the fields, a practice allowed under Mosaic Law (Leviticus 19:9-10) where the poor could collect leftover crops. She ended up in Boaz’s field by chance (Ruth 2:3). It sounds like something that might happen today for a Mexican farm worker crossing over from Texas. Boaz’s treatment of the immigrant was extraordinary—far exceeding basic charity. As an immigrant, Ruth could have been ignored or exploited, but Boaz offered safety, abundance, and ultimately a new identity as his wife and the great-grandmother of King David. His actions reflect a personal generosity and adherence to God’s laws, which favor the vulnerable (Deuteronomy 24:19-21), making Ruth’s story a standout example of immigrant acceptance in the biblical narrative. I am not a fan of open borders or illegal immigration. However, for those who cross and work hard, I am a fan of Boaz.

According to the latest 2022-based population projections published by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA), the population of Northern Ireland is expected to reach a peak of approximately 1.95 million in 2033, followed by a gradual decline to 1.93 million by mid-2047. However, the most significant aspect of these projections is not the overall population trajectory but rather the profound demographic restructuring that is expected to unfold over the coming decades, particularly the ageing of the population. By 2030, the number of individuals of pensionable age is projected to surpass the number of children aged 0–15. A more immediate demographic milestone will occur by mid-2027, when the population aged 65 and over will outnumber children for the first time in Northern Ireland’s recorded history. Moreover, the number of people aged 85 and over is expected to more than double by 2047. These trends highlight the growing demographic weight of older adults, with significant implications for policy planning and public service provision. Unlike projections for younger age groups, estimates of the older population are relatively more robust, as they are less influenced by assumptions regarding future fertility or net migration. In contrast, projections concerning children and overall fertility are inherently more uncertain. NISRA's principal projection assumes a constant total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.65 throughout the projection period. However, evidence suggests a continuing downward trend: the Republic of Ireland, for example, has already recorded a TFR of 1.50. If such trends persist in Northern Ireland, the demographic ageing process may accelerate further. Under NISRA’s low fertility variant, considered by many demographers to be a plausible scenario, the old-age dependency ratio could increase significantly. In 2022, there were approximately 261 individuals of pensionable age per 1,000 working-age individuals, equivalent to roughly one pensioner for every four people of working age. By 2072, this ratio could rise to 489 per 1,000, or nearly one pensioner for every two workers. This represents a dramatic increase in the dependency burden and poses substantial challenges for fiscal sustainability, labour market dynamics, and the structure of public services. Scotland’s demographic outlook presents both parallels and contrasts. Over the same 25-year period (2022–2047), Scotland’s population is projected to grow by 6.2%, largely due to inward migration mitigating natural decline. The proportion of pensionable-age individuals in Scotland is projected to rise from 18.9% to 21.5% during this period, while the old-age dependency ratio is expected to increase from 318 to 396 per 1,000 working-age individuals. These figures suggest that, although Scotland also faces ageing pressures, the projected burden on its working-age population will be less severe than in Northern Ireland. In contrast, Northern Ireland is projected to experience population growth of just 1.1% between 2022 and 2047. When coupled with the projected increase in the elderly population, this limited growth underscores the region’s heightened vulnerability to the socioeconomic impacts of demographic ageing. The implications of these projections are wide-ranging. An ageing population will likely increase demand for healthcare services, age-related social care, and pension provision, while simultaneously constraining the size of the working-age labour force. Policymakers must therefore consider a range of strategic interventions, including initiatives to support higher fertility rates, immigration policy adjustments to augment the labour supply, and reforms to pension and care systems to ensure long-term sustainability. In conclusion, the projected demographic changes in Northern Ireland represent a critical policy challenge. A comprehensive, forward-looking response is required to ensure that the region can maintain economic vitality and social cohesion in the context of an increasingly aged population.

President Donald Trump holds Cabinet Meeting, February 26, 2025 ** For over 50 years, America has moved its production overseas. It’s been the easy answer to many of our nation’s most pressing issues. Are you concerned about the environment? Are you worried about clean water, clean air, and the many pollutants associated with traditional manufacturing? Move production offshore. It’s the easy solution. Are you worried about workers’ benefits, retirement plans, pensions, and, yes, even Social Security? There is a built-in labor force outside the United States. Does it look like a slowing economy, or is inflation too high? Ride the wave of low-priced goods made in low-cost jurisdictions. These trends and many others were more than a side benefit of offshore production; they became the foundation of our current economy. America Embraces Offshore Production For the country’s leaders, trade with low-cost providers became the easy and expedient method of maximizing growth and profits. Companies like Nike and Apple, the first to move production to China, made their flagship products (running shoes and iPhones) overseas, presenting them with a significant price advantage over the competition — competition, incidentally, which either had to follow them overseas or lose market share. The American consumer enjoyed these lower prices associated with their move and welcomed the newfound affordability of shopping at big-box retail stores. Economists noted the “disinflation,” although they seldom credited that monetary condition to the overseas production capturing much of our retail sector. Politicians could point to the enhanced economic growth that followed the offshore manufacturing movement. As James Carville said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Unfortunately, it was the Chinese economy, not America’s. All this went virtually unnoticed by many Americans. After all, price adjustments and the subsequent benefit to our wallets were instant, while the loss of jobs and aging US factories took decades. Yes, the “Rust Belt” suffered. Places like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Garry, Indiana, and virtually all of West Virginia endured systemic unemployment and its associated crime and poverty. But most of us lived far away from these places, and besides, prices were cheap at Walmart and Target. Fortunately, with the 2024 Election came the ascendance of a man who, at least intuitively, saw many of these issues. As President, Donald Trump has prioritized the country’s rebuilding as his paramount goal. With the slogan “Make America Great Again,” Trump acknowledged that the government had not addressed the need for economic reform. A bloated Government Bureaucracy ignored the challenge of off-shoring America’s manufacturing while allowing domestic factories and plants to atrophy. Tariffs — A Way To Bring Home American Production Trump chose “Tariffs” as his way of returning jobs and businesses to our shores. This move to increase tariffs is consistent with the country’s history and tradition. The first law passed after ratifying the US Constitution was the Tariff Act of 1790. Designed by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and sponsored by future President James Madison, the new law had three goals: raise operating capital for the new Government, help pay off the country’s substantial debt, and, most importantly, protect America’s nascent industrial base for overseas competition, chiefly the British. These are undoubtedly the same three goals President Trump would like to achieve today. However, unlike in 1790, we are not the newly emerging country we were 235 years later. As a country, we spent years promoting the very thing that Trump now seeks to change: offshore production. Cheap foreign goods became the central feature of our commerce. Millions are now employed by a vast industry that ships, packages, markets, and sells the inexpensive goods that line the country’s stores. The retail sector is recognizing the risk of Trump's Tariffs. The nation’s largest retailer, Walmart, has already warned of the uncertainty associated with the new higher costs. We can be sure that the rest of the stores and shops that make up the retail sector are bracing for the impact that higher tariffs and the consequent higher prices will have on future earnings. Retail management is worried. Reaction to the Trump Tariffs And they’re not alone; the nation’s chief banker, Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, said that he, too, is concerned about the return of inflation driven by higher Tariffs.. In a speech before the University of Chicago Booth School of Business on Friday, March 3, 2025, he said: “If it turns into a series of things … If the increases [in Tariffs} are larger, that would matter, and what really does matter is what is happening with longer-term inflation expectations. How persistent are the inflationary effects?” https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/powell-says-fed-has-time-wait-clarity-trump-policy-shifts-2025-03-07/ While Powell remains concerned about the inflationary aspects of Tariffs, the average consumer focuses on the same issue: rising prices. The result is that the latest University of Michigan consumer confidence survey had to be revised to the lowest level in four years. Consumers are becoming nervous, and that’s never a good sign for the sector of the economy that represents about two-thirds of our commerce. http://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/ Finally, there is the issue of China. China remains our chief trading partner, and whether we like it or not, we continue to rely on its supply of goods and materials for a well-functioning economy. Remember the “Supply Chain” disruption we experienced during the COVID-19 Pandemic? That’s a small indication of how severe cutting trade ties with China would be. Unfortunately, the recent reaction from China to Trump’s proposed 10% increase in US Tariffs indicates that Washington has some work to do in managing this most important relationship. Asked to respond to the Tariff increase, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lin Jian replied: “Exerting extreme pressure on China is the wrong target and the wrong calculation … If the US has other intentions and insists on a tariff war, trade war, or any other war, China will fight to the end. We advise the US to put away its bullying face and return to the right track of dialogue and cooperation as soon as possible.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/06/china-donald-trump-us-tariffs-trade-war The Trump Administration has a lot on its plate, including issues of international war and peace, monetary inflation, financial stability, and future prosperity. A version of these falls under the rubric of Tariffs and is summed up in Trump’s motto: Make America Great Again. Each of these objectives requires addressing different constituents, from consumers to central bankers to American Multinationals and foreign governments and companies. Each has differing objectives, speaks in various idioms, and requires different concessions. This requires a multi-prong approach and will likely take months to achieve. Half a century cannot be undone with a one-and-done approach, as promoted by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The DOGE Re-Organization Finally, we need to acknowledge that many of our fellow citizens are facing one of the most challenging transitions of their lives — the loss of a job. For anyone who has been through such a situation, you know how traumatic this can be. As this is written, more than 170,000 Americans are now out of work — displaced by the DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) re-organization of the Federal Government. Most of these are well-educated, highly motivated employees who lost their positions through no fault of their own. They are being laid off for chiefly budgetary reasons. Hopefully, many private-sector employers will take this opportunity to reach out and offer them a position. I encourage many to start their own business; entrepreneurship can be most rewarding. There are many support systems in place to aid anyone starting a business. The Small Business Administration and SCORE, the Service Corps of Retired Executives, were helpful to me in starting my business. This massive reorganization of the Federal Government presents us all with the opportunity to unite as a nation, support each other, and perhaps even regain the initial self-sufficiency that marked our nation’s founding. * If you enjoyed this article, please consider buying me coffee. Go to: https://buymeacoffee.com/davidreavill Thanks for reading!

It's funny, typically, for me, I am not so comfortable giving a simple answer to what looks like a simple question. I like to mine the question and travel through all the parts, like an ENT putting a scope up your nose or in your ear and you find out that you have sensations in real estate in twists and turns that you didn't know existed but now you always knew existed. And then after the exercise you feel better and cleaned out. Maybe I can give you an ENT nostril and outer ear cleaning and you'll feel all cleared up on this topic as well. First question. What is inflation? When ppl say this, what do they mean? a. inflation in prices b. inflation in money supply And why does it matter anyway? Prices As a child I remember our father telling us about prices when he was a kid. And now I can do the same. Granted, I can't say that I remember when a loaf of bread was a nickel. But I do remember when I could get lunch in New Orleans for $4.50 and now what is lunch in NYC? 20? It keeps going up. By the time someone reads this in a few months from now, it could be $25 or $30. It also depends on what you buy. But whereas when I was in med school in the 90s the difference between a cheap lunch and a fancy one might have been a dollar, today the percentage difference may be the same but the actual dollar amount is more. People don't care about an abstract like increase in money supply. Leave that to the math people. They care about what they have to pay. Back to my dad- how do you encapsulate a lifetimes worth of memories? Basically only the great ones, the dramatic ones or odd ones stick out. We probably talked about money a lot, like anything else that comes into one's direct purview. I think boys in particular, around ages 6 through 10 are very interested in this. This is the age of collecting- be it stamps, baseball cards, stickers, Pokemon cards, etc. It is the age of interest and memorization of facts and statistics. It is the age of counting and saving. It is also the age of interest in rules based games and competition. Money falls well into all of these categories. School lunch was an example. It cost 75c. With the last quarter you could get an ice-cream. I stopped eating ice-cream because as a little boy I was fat. I remember in 1st grade playing Santa Claus in the school play, for example. So I would only spend 75c. At some point it was brought to my attention that I was missing the extra quarter and I realized that I was throwing it out with the garbage on my lunch tray. So I started saving those quarters. I put them in the lid of a box of a board game. At the end of the year, we counted the quarters and, actually, it added up to $20! My parents gave me a $20 bill for all the quarters and apparently that left an impression on my younger brother. Next year suddenly my brother was rich. He always had money. A lot. How did that happen? Well, it turned out that he wasn't eating lunch in school. Instead of saving the quarter at the end, he saved the whole dollar each day. This began the identity of my brother being rich. Of course, once my parents found out, I think that they tried to make him eat lunch or gave him special shakes in the morning for him to maintain caloric intake (which backfired because they gave him diarrhea because he was lactose intolerant). Anyway, the identity stuck and his wealth was always inflated compared to the other kids. That's a good kind of inflation. And as it formed his identity, or maybe because he liked being active, or both, as we got older, he always worked harder than other kids. I remember one summer in high school we both worked as life guards. But he also worked as a valet parker. By the end of the summer he had saved 10K, which was a lot in 1990 and he used that money to buy a used BMW, stick shift, which was in awesome condition and was still the new model. Then in college he ran a flower business the week of Valentine's Day each year and killed it. But I am digressing from the topic of inflation. So the point- what is inflated? Prices? Back to a memory of my father- so, once, during a conversation on inflation, he said that it didn't really matter because everyone got inflated together. Even if bread was more expensive today, the money that you made was greater as well. I think he might have been repeating something that some respected economist said at the time. Ah, silly man, if only you knew... Today we are well aware of fake news and bullshit dressed in a suit and tie and a degree. He was gaslit as he himself was experiencing the effects of inflation his whole life. Wages do not keep up with inflation in other areas, generally speaking. Especially when you accept medical insurance in your practice. It is like that line from Matthew McConaughey in "Dazed and Confused", when he is talking about High school girls, "I keep getting older and they keep staying the same age." Except here, inflation keeps going up but you, the doctor accepting insurance for the past 20 years keeps staying at the same reimbursement. This may not sound like a big deal but at 7% yearly inflation as a rough estimate that is reductive because inflation in a price doesn't only apply to one thing but many things at different percentages- using the rule of 72 for compound interest, after 20 years you are making about 25% in real terms of what you were making originally. It is eviscerating. And the 2 to 3% inflation that the Fed tells you is occurring is just them gaslighting us, as we know. By the way, the 7% inflation rate holds if looking at the price of lunch example above. A doctor accepting insurance in his practice is a very bad gig, not because they chintz you on the reimbursement, which they do, or because they delay paying you, which has happened. The real problem is that they don't keep up with inflation. Other people do a better job of keeping up with inflation. It is a matter of whether you ride the wave or get drowned by it. Remember, if you are the one inflating, well, that's fine with you. People like lawyers can ride the wave. Dentists who were boxed out of the insurance coverage world can also ride the wave, ironically. That's an example of what seems like a punishment initially ends up being a blessing. On the other hand, they all may tell you that, sure, their top line may be that they charge a high fee but then most people can't afford that so they end up offering a reduced fee. In a world of inflated costs, people are relatively poorer and cannot afford to pay the top line request for service. By the way, whose to say that a doctor deserves to make a certain wage? Why should a doctor's hour be worth more than a ditch digger's? Maybe he should get paid the least of all careers because he is receiving other benefits like fulfillment, etc. If anything, this brings me back to the idea that as long as you are in the zero sum game where a service provider's financial benefit is the customer's financial loss, you will never be able to achieve financial lift off. Anyway, back to tariffs. OK. Let's say I want to buy an American car in Europe and let's say the cost of the car is 2x what it would be in the US. Now does that mean I can't drive? No. It just means that I am less likely to drive that tariffed item. That's why you don't see American cars in Europe, or in most other countries outside of the US and Canada for example. So, as long as I can get my basics, food, energy- I will be OK. Designer things can become more designer, in essence, as they become more expensive due to tariffs, i.e. Italian leather or French wine or a German car. But I am not obligated to buy those things. I'm just not. One might argue in that instance that a tariff is a fairer tax than income tax which is non-voluntary. It is the lesser of 2 evils because it is voluntary. Tariff wars A concern with tariffs is, "What if it leads to tariff wars? The answer is that the country that imports more from the other will win. And the individual in the winning country will lose. And the companies of both countries that export will lose (and the share holders in those companies will lose). But what the individual loses is the opportunity to purchase certain goods. And, because we are talking about individuals, the question is, what do you spend money on and how will it affect you, personally? If you spend your days in your mother's basement watching youtube then this is all meaningless to you. However, if you do that and eat (which we all do) then you have to figure out which foods you eat and if any of those will be more expensive after the tariffs, or not available all together. If tariffs on Mexico mean that you won't be able to get guacamole and Corona beer anymore, as Genius Senator Chuck Schumer showed us on live TV recently, I think you as an individual can still have a fairly full and fairly happy life. Really, I think that people's fear of the unknown is wreaking havoc on them and stocks are using this narrative to sell off. I do run the risk of being overly simplistic in my understanding of things. As Milton Friedman once famously showed on one of his videos, a pencil may have many parts from many different places, all of which are needed in the assembly of something so simple. Also, we have to realize who is talking about tariffs. It isn't a Nazi who is saying something about other countries being inferior and having inferior products. And it isn't an Islamist who hates everything not under the umbrella of Islam. Trump is not a hater. He wants a better deal. He wants to win. He wants to be remembered favorably and to be praised or at least appreciated. And I think he wants to do good. And I think he does have a sense of fairness and right and wrong. And if you look at reality, other countries have had enormous tariffs on American made products and that is anti-free trade. So the real beneficiaries of a trade war, based on reciprocity of tariffs, if it is resolved, would be the individuals of the country we beat and the American companies who export to them (and their stock holders). The individuals of the winning country would neither lose or make. For example, if the US is able to, through threats or exercise of tariffs then lead to a resolution where countries like China and others drop their long held tariffs on us, then the Chinese citizens would have more affordable options and companies like Tesla would sell many more cars in China and Tesla stock holders would see their shares skyrocket. Meanwhile, the individual consumer in the winning country would lose nothing in the end. If, however, the point of the tariffs is to raise revenue for the country and there is no interest in using them as a bargaining tool, then foreign item prices could go up and stay there. You may not be able to get guac and corona. But then, possibly, the revenue generated could offset government costs and result in less need for internal revenue. So you may lose certain specialty goods but it may save you thousands in income taxes- a trade that I think many of us would like to make. Also remember: American companies that export- in the case of a trade war, they would eat their own profits as well, leading to lower earnings and lower stock prices. Elon himself would take the greatest hit in that scenario. What would also most likely happen in many situations is that the companies based in foreign countries would take a beating on their profits but still provide their goods. Also, as we are now seeing, many companies that are foreign based or are American but based in foreign lands, are starting to relocate a substantial part of their company state-side so as to avoid the potential tariff, which they will. Also, that will provide more jobs for the local economy here as well. This is another benefit of tariffs. Another benefit of tariffs is that it is another avenue to fight in prior to having to go to war. If you can use the stick to incentivize someone's behavior, better for it to be through trade (or threat in trade) than in actual physical war. This is another useful option in a peacetime leader's repertoire of tricks. Effective Amount of Tariff as a behavioral incentive Trump is talking about 25%. I am guessing that the threat of this is big enough to incentivize a change in behavior. If it were 5%, the recipient nation wouldn't care enough and it would be a revenue maker only. Also, if the tariff goes above a certain percentage it would probably become too high for the recipient nation's company to eat and it would become too expensive for the individuals from the nation giving the tariff to afford. Effectively, it would raise no money for the tariffing country because it would simply halt trade all together. I am not a prophet. But what I guess may profit you nonetheless. My guess is that the tariff thing is a work in progress. I think it is very flexible. Thus far I have seen Trump put them on, take them off, put them on again, change them. I think he is trying to use it as an incentive to get countries to behave in certain ways. I think he is using them as a tool and less as a revenue stream. But in order for the threat of tariffs to be effective, he must say how beautiful they are and how much revenue we will make. In the end I think he will use this as a way to get more work state side and get other countries to drop their tariffs, both of which are great for the US and for individuals in the US who are both workers and share holders. And, I do think that there will be some stubborn leaders who will not or cannot drop their tariffs, in which case we will probably have some income from tariffs as well. I don't think Trump is anti- capitalism. I think he wants Americans to do well, which means everybody. I think we will go through a rough patch which may last for months but not years. I think once things get better in Trump's estimation, then we will really be up up and away like one of Elon's rockets. "It's the economy, stupid." - James Carville, Democrat strategist for Bill Clinton, 1992. Trump's plan: 1. Decrease Government expenditures- waste, fraud, abuse- therefore saving 1T, thus decreasing the need for inflation to monetize the debt and decreasing need for tax revenue. 2. Decrease tax revenue- this stimulates growth 3. Decrease the rate of increase in debt will decrease inflation --> decrease in interest rates, thus making houses, cars, etc more affordable. 4. Bringing more work stateside --> decrease unemployment. This decreases the chance of "stagflation" which is inflation in a stagnant economy, which happened in the 70's, which sux. 5. Saving the dollar. using the Bitcoin reserve. Elon's contribution: 6. The benefit of D.O.G.E isn't just about eliminating expenses but it is also about eliminating useless regulations/ improving regulations. This will allow for growth including: safe growth in robotics, AI and getting us to Mars. Imagine a world where we aren't in debt as a nation? What if you didn't have to pay taxes anymore? And what if you could have a car drive you everywhere safely and comfortably for a fraction of the cost of an uber? And what if you had a very affordable robotic servant, that you could lease for $250/mo? It might not cost much more than your cell phone bill. Remember the days when a flat screen TV cost 20K and now a big beautiful one costs what? $400? Imagine having a servant who will walk your dog, go to the grocery store, buy your food, bring it back, cook it as the best chef would, clean the house, set the table, serve you and 20 friends dinner, pour your wine, play the piano for you like a concert pianist, for your listening pleasure while you eat, and clean up afterwards, walk your dog again and then charge itself at night? You could talk to it if you were lonely. It could teach you about art, philosophy, physics. It could be your music teacher. It could be your primary front line doctor. It could take your weight, blood pressure, heart rate and temperature. It could do a full body skin check on you. It could do a full physical exam (including breast exam and prostate- I'm ready for the jokes). It could remind you to take your medications. You could live longer because the robot would be the first to observe a sign or symptom that you had that you might not have been aware of. This is what Elon is talking about. The future doesn't need to be about restriction. It can be about boundless optimism, freedom, creativity and fun. It could be about great improvement in QOL (quality of life) and expansion of our consciousness into the universe.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln – supposedly America’s greatest president – destroyed the union created by the Constitution when he declared and then waged war against those States that had constitutionally seceded from that union. Lincoln’s actions were treason according to Article 3, Section III of that document. But he also nullified the Constitution when, as President, he both declared war and suspended the writ of habeas corpus, both acts limited to the Congress. And when Chief Justice Taney attempted to block these unconstitutional actions by the President, Lincoln threatened military arrest and confinement of any Justice ~ as well as any American ~ who made any attempt to interfere with his tyranny. Needless to say, both the Legislative and Judicial branches of the formerly federal government were effectively silenced while the President successfully pursued his war to make that government all-powerful. In 2008, American leaders of the leftist/communist-New World Order cabal managed to put into the presidency a change-agent in Barack Hussein Obama. Obama was totally ineligible to run for, never mind occupy that office being a foreign-born non-citizen* whose father had been a citizen of Great Britain, the colonial power ruling over his father’s country of origin (*Obama’s American mother was 17 at the time of his birth, thus her American citizenship did not devolve on him as she had to be 18 for that legally to happen). Many different groups and individuals brought these facts to the High Court only to have their efforts dismissed with the ruling that they “lacked standing;” that is, that the plaintiff(s) did not have the legal right to bring suit in the first place. As a result, the facts in these cases were never examined or ruled upon. Rather, the matter was simply thrown out. As a result of this judicial chicanery, this Marxist “change agent” spent eight years doing terrible damage to every aspect of America and her government. In 2016, it was believed that seditious, murderous communist change agent Obama would be followed into the presidency by equally communist and even more dishonest (if that were even possible!) former “First Lady,” then Senator Hillary Clinton, but here the plan hit a snag. To the great distress of both political parties and the “Deep State,” a man ran for the candidacy in the Republican Party who was not an insider or a politician, but a businessman, Donald J. Trump! Trump won the nomination and immediately, the inner workings of that same “Deep State” began to plot his destruction, a strategy that moved into high gear immediately after he astonished the entire nation by gaining the White House in the election of 2016! And so, for the first time in over two and a quarter centuries, political power was not smoothly transferred to a new administration! The secret war against Donald J. Trump that began with his candidacy never ended during his term in office. He was harassed, denied the constitutional mandates for a President, twice impeached and actively sabotaged virtually from the moment he was nominated. Under the then existing circumstances, nobody with any brains believed that the election of 2020 would be honest or fair – and, of course, it wasn’t. Cheated of another huge victory, Trump tried his best to have this dishonest election – and few with any real knowledge denied that it was dishonest! – set aside. In doing so, he went to America’s courts only to find that those attempting to undo what was a true communist coup again “lacked standing!” In 1861, Abraham Lincoln was in the wrong but his crimes were not overcome by the Supreme Court. He achieved this judicial “non-interference” by threatening to use the military to imprison any judge who attempted to thwart him. He prevailed in that threat and the Court did nothing despite the magnitude of his crimes. In 2020, Donald Trump was in the right but, alas, could find no support in the judiciary that was created to uphold the Constitution and the nation’s laws. Then came the election of 2024 and against all odds (or so it seemed to many Americans) Mr. Trump was able to win again. The reasons for this are many and complicated but as they do not matter here, they will not be addressed. And so, in a replay of the Grover Cleveland presidency, Trump regained the office of which he had been deprived four years earlier! This time, after he was inaugurated, Mr. Trump hit the ground running and is attempting to make a real difference in the present condition of this country as quickly as possible! But, as in 2020, he finds that much of what he is attempting to achieve as President is being resisted in America’s severely compromised justice system. Judges in the wrong courts are making rulings in cases in which they have no jurisdiction, preventing a sitting President from fulfilling his constitutional duties. Oh, occasionally a good jurist will point out to the parties involved that they are in the wrong judicial system – criminal rather than civil etc.! – but often even if, for instance, a judge knowingly hears a state matter in his federal court, the rulings still come down and failure to obey produces threats of legal penalties! All that matters to these criminals robed in the ermine of justice is the victory of their agenda. This, of course, is nothing new. Mr. Trump has been assailed by “lawcraft” – political war waged through the judicial system – since he entered the political arena. As a result, one of his promises to the electorate is to stop the “weaponization” of American jurisprudence so that it can be used to support the policies of the Left. But will he be able to do it? Will this last election be enough to keep the Ship of State afloat? Or will the icebergs and mines created by the New World Order end the vision of America’s Founders! Only time will tell, but there is little hope for us if America cannot rescue its judiciary from the hands of the enemies of justice.

Batya Ungar-Sargon lays out the argument for being a MAGA Leftist. For years, the political establishment has insisted that the Left and the MAGA movement are irreconcilable forces. This is a lie. In a recent fascinating interview with Bill Mahar, Batya Ungar-Sargon explained that Trump’s policies align with traditional Democratic economic and anti-war views. Ungar-Sargon explains that she has never been a Republican; that she’s a leftist—but she’s a MAGA leftist! Ungar-Sargon, the deputy opinion editor of Newsweek, argued President Trump’s agenda and policies are closer to traditional leftist values than the policies of the progressive-globalist elites now controlling the Democratic Party. She’s concluded if leftists truly care about socially moderate policies, the end to the “forever wars”, and working-class empowerment, they have every reason to align with the MAGA movement. Trump: The Anti-War President Trump was the first president in decades not to start a new war. He opposed the forever wars that have drained America’s resources and sent working-class soldiers to die for elite interests. His administration prioritized diplomacy over military adventurism—historic peace agreements in the Middle East, de-escalation with North Korea, and a resistance to the military-industrial complex’s endless thirst for conflict. Meanwhile, the modern left, which once stood against war, now cheers for endless foreign intervention under the guise of “democracy-building.” Socially Moderate, Not Extremist Contrary to the media’s hysteria, Trump is not a hardline social conservative. His record proves he is a moderate. He was the first Republican president to enter office openly supporting gay marriage and appointed figures like Richard Grenell, the first openly gay cabinet member, and Scott Bessant at the Treasury. On abortion, Trump holds a centrist stance, supporting legal access up to 12 weeks, a position more moderate and more mainstream than the Democratic Party’s push for abortion until birth. While the progressive leftists radicalize toward extremism, MAGA’s social policies reflect the broad middle ground where most Americans stand. The Champion of American Workers Free trade, once the sacred dogma of both parties, has devastated the working class, shipping jobs overseas and leaving rust-belt towns in ruin. Trump, unlike globalist progressive politicians, prioritized American manufacturing. His tariffs and protectionist policies aimed to reinvigorate industries crippled by NAFTA and China’s exploitation of free trade loopholes. In his current administration he’s already focused on rebuilding the shipbuilding, lumber, mining, and steel industries. Under Trump’s leadership, the working class saw wage growth, reduced illegal competition, and an economic policy focused on their prosperity, not Wall Street’s. The modern Left, beholden to corporate donors, has abandoned the working class in favor of neoliberal globalism. The Reality of Illegal Immigration Despite the media’s narrative, uncontrolled illegal immigration harms the working class the most. It creates downward wage pressure, burdens public services, and allows corporations to exploit cheap labor at the expense of American workers. Trump fought for border security not out of xenophobia, but to protect jobs and wages for American citizens, particularly in minority communities. The Democratic Party, once the champion of labor, now serves the interests of globalists by promoting policies that flood the market with low-wage labor. Ungar-Sargon explained this brilliantly in a subsequent clip, noting the shift in GDP from the 70’s to today which was caused by free trade and illegal immigration. The Left’s Opportunity If leftists genuinely care about working people, ending wars, and resisting elite rule, they should abandon their blind loyalty to a radical and progressive Democratic Party that now serves the World Economic Forum, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the war machine. Trump’s policies prove that MAGA is a movement for the people, not the elites. The choice is clear: Cling to a progressive left that has sold out, or embrace a populist revolution that actually delivers for the working class. Washington State’s Moderate Left should also Shift Right Washington State's leftists also face a pivotal decision: Continue supporting a Democratic leadership that has overseen the growth of homelessness, crime, and drug abuse, as well as rising taxes—or align with Republicans who advocate for pragmatic, common-sense solutions to these pressing issues. Escalating Homelessness Crisis Since Governor Jay Inslee's 2015 emergency declaration on homelessness, King County has witnessed a staggering 63.3% increase in homelessness. The county's "Housing for Health" program, which involves purchasing former hotels for supportive housing, has cost taxpayers over $333,000 per unit, raising serious concerns about fiscal responsibility and effectiveness. Rising Crime and Drug Abuse The surge in homelessness has been accompanied by increased crime and drug abuse. Notably, shootings related to homeless encampments in Seattle rose by 122% between 2020 and 2021, highlighting the urgent need for policies that address both public safety and the well-being of vulnerable populations. Tax Increases Amid Fiscal Shortfalls Despite implementing 22 new taxes over the past decade, Washington State faces a projected $16 billion budget shortfall. Washington state Democrats are working to pass more massive tax increases this session, from property tax increases, to new payroll taxes to B&O tax increases on businesses large and small. Dangerous Rhetoric covered a list of the worst tax proposals in detail in Taxapalooza! Republican Proposals: A Commonsense Alternative Washington state Republicans offer alternative solutions that prioritize accountability and fiscal prudence: For Homelessness: Republicans are advocating for comprehensive strategies that address addiction and mental health issues, rather than solely focusing on housing. For Public Safety: Republicans are proposing commonsense measures to prevent crime, hold offenders accountable, and support law enforcement, aiming to restore safety in communities. On Taxation: Republicans are calling for targeted tax relief to alleviate the financial burden on working-class families, including exemptions for child care essentials and on-the-go meals. See the pattern? Like Trump, Washington’s Republican legislators want to increase public safety, reduce taxation, and support the working class and small businesses in our state. They also want to help our families fight the tragedy of drug addiction, untreated mental health, and end the narcotics trade. A Call to Action for Washington's Leftists For leftists committed to social equity, economic justice, and effective governance, supporting Republican initiatives in Washington State represents a commonsense shift towards policies that address the root causes of societal challenges. Ask yourself, “Which Political Party Has Made Your Life Worse?” By embracing solutions that prioritize accountability, fiscal responsibility, and the well-being of all citizens, a coalition can be formed to tackle the pressing issues of homelessness, crime, drug abuse, and reducing taxes. This alignment transcends traditional partisan divides, focusing instead on commonsense approaches that serve the greater good. It’s time for leftists to proudly become MAGA-Leftists. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the chair of the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack.Support Dangerous Rhetoric SOURCES: 1) Eric Abbenante on X, clip 1 of interview of Batya Ungar Sargon by Bill Mahar. https://bit.ly/41SQkwb 2) Eric Abbenante on X, clip 2 of interview of Batya Ungar Sargon by Bill Mahar. https://bit.ly/41oVPTa 3) Change Washington, Using Facts to Bring Common-Sense Solutions, https://bit.ly/4kpQzrb 4) Change Washington, Stating the Obvious: Homeless Camps Cause Crime, https://bit.ly/4iPdXNh 5) House Republicans of Washington, House Republican Caucus Website, https://bit.ly/4i8Zhsl 6) DefiantLs on X, Which Political Party Has Made Your Life Worse?, March 16, 2025, https://bit.ly/4kIj1Vo

A matter long believed has recently been claimed by some who served in the Biden Administration during the last four years; that is, that Sleepy Joe was never mentally competent to serve in that office. The same Party that claimed Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s during his tenure as President (he wasn’t!) failed to disclose that Joe Biden actually was mentally incapable of serving during his “presidency.” Of course, Biden’s ability or lack thereof was never a problem as his “presidency” was actually intended to be the third (and fourth) term of Barack Obama! It was a real-life replay of the throne room scene in the Wizard of Oz with Biden as the Big Head on the throne and Obama the man behind the curtain. Unfortunately, it is possible that the puppet master(s) didn’t understand just how “out to lunch” Sleepy Joe actually was – or became – as he took office. Yet even that may not be the case, for now, with Donald Trump in office, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has requested that the Justice Department investigate the legality of Biden’s many Executive Orders. Why? Because the conservative Heritage Foundation’s “Oversight Project” has revealed that Biden’s signatures on numerous EOs, pardons and other documents of national consequence appear to have been “machine-generated.” The “auto-pen,” a mechanical means of producing someone’s signature when great numbers are required, may be used in “unofficial” correspondence but in matters of law and the President’s duties, such documents must actually be signed by the individual holding that office at the time and in the place indicated on the document. Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell stated, "The main legal question here is who was the president over the last four years. That's what we are aiming to uncover. The prolific use of (the) autopen by the Biden White House was an instrument to hide the truth from the American people as to who was running the government." The watchdog group noted that "every document" they could find with Biden's signature” — with the exception of the announcement indicating that he was dropping out of the 2024 presidential race — "used the same autopen signature." Howell also noted that the repeatedly used autopen signature appeared on the pardons for a murderer and five other criminals issued while Biden was vacationing in the U.S. Virgin Islands though all reportedly claimed that they were signed "at the City of Washington." This discovery, coupled with the former president's alleged admission to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he did not remember signing a January 2024 order to pause decisions on exports of liquefied natural gas, prompted the Oversight Project to once again cast doubt on whether Biden was ever actually fulfilling the office of the President of the United States, clearly suggesting that "WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY!" Critics of the Administration, enraged by yet a further indication that unelected ideologues may have secretly controlled the Executive Branch for the past four years, are now questioning the legitimacy of all documents bearing the autopen signature in the belief that all orders so signed are void on their face. Thus, as noted, seeking definitive answers to this newly found situation, Missouri AG Bailey wrote to the Department of Justice last week requesting a full investigation into the legality of Biden's presidential actions in light of his apparent mental decline, which was made especially clear to special counsel Robert Hur, who, upon investigation, found Biden as possibly too senile to legally charge with any wrongdoing! "Under the 25th Amendment, his (Biden’s) inability to make decisions should have meant a succession of power," Bailey noted in his letter. "Instead, it appears staffers and officers in the Biden administration may have exploited Biden's incapacity so they could issue orders without an accountable President of sound mind approving them." President Donald Trump told Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck in October before the election that Joe Biden was likely little more than a figurehead for a "committee" of unnamed bureaucrats. Lindy Li, a former Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served as a surrogate for failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris and worked for the 2020 Biden campaign, recently shed some light on potential members of that supposed committee. Li told podcaster Shawn Ryan that Hunter and Jill Biden, and a handful of other unelected senior advisers effectively combined to serve as a shadow president. AG Bailey also suggested that a number of pardons Biden supposedly signed were suspicious, including the unconditional 10-year pardon Biden supposedly gave his son after repeatedly vowing he would not do so and just months after declaring without qualification, "No one is above the law." "It is black-letter law that a document is void, ab initio, when the person signing it lacks mental capacity," wrote Bailey. "Staffers and the Vice President cannot constitutionally evade accountability by laundering far-left orders through a man who does not know what he is signing (or, in the case of the auto-pen, it is represented that he signed). If in fact this has been occurring, then all those orders are void." The Oversight Project suggested that in order to determine whether Biden ordered the signing of key documents or was even mentally capable of doing so, investigators must "determine who controlled the autopen and what checks there were in place." The watchdog group also indicated that Biden's efforts to undermine the White House "executive privilege" shield in their attacks against then former President Donald Trump will make such determinations achievable. "There is a constitutional process to deal with an incapacitated POTUS and it doesn't contemplate giving someone else his autopen and authority," tweeted Howell. "It's called the 25th Amendment and the conspiracy not to invoke it in order to keep whatever they were doing going is a big problem." The New York Post reported that representatives for Biden had not responded to requests for comment regarding the use of the autopen. Of course, that is to be expected as God knows what a finding of mental incompetency of the former President while he was in office especially given admissions already made that he was incompetent before he took office, will mean for what was done during the last four years!

Divorce will affect children for the rest of their lives, well into adulthood, but people don’t want to hear this because it makes them feel bad about their decisions, says Spectator columnist, writer and broadcaster, Bridget Phetasy.A piece she wrote a few months ago titled “How divorce never ends”, is based on her personal experience and presents the lifelong impact of parental break-up on children. It caused a huge reaction, for and against. Those who supported the article were themselves usually children of divorce. Those who reacted angrily were often the parents who exhibited great defensiveness about what they had done, even though Phetasy was at pains to say parental separation, for example when the relationship is abusive, is justified. Phetasy (née Walsh), whose parents divorced when she was 12, recounts how her life and that of her future husband – also a child of divorce – were upended. Their school achievements declined, and they fell into rebellious behaviours. The logistical challenges of splitting time between parents, with cross-country travel and fractured holiday traditions, contributed to instability and neglect. Lacking proper supervision, the children often resorted to reckless behaviour. “So often it feels like two people are just ‘over it’ [meaning the parents] and want to move on with their lives and be single again instead of doing whatever it takes to make it work for the kids. People don’t want to hear this because it makes them feel bad about their decisions. Divorce sucks. It never ends and it should be a last resort”, she wrote. Phetasy – a former columnist for Playboy magazine, of all things, – is now a mother and uses her parents’ shortcomings as a guide for what not to do. “Before I had a kid, I asked people who came from similar backgrounds how they managed to raise great, well-adjusted kids. They always said the same thing: “I just did the opposite of what my parents did.’”, she writes in her piece. She argues that divorce is too often treated casually, with little regard for its profound and enduring impact on children. She admits harbouring lasting anger and grief over her parents’ prioritisation of new relationships over their children’s well-being. These feelings persist into adulthood, particularly as the complexities of managing relationships with multiple sets of grandparents now affect her own family. Talking to the feminist podcaster Louise Perry, she recalls the reactions from readers of the piece and also from followers of her YouTube channel. “People lie to themselves about how hard it is on the kids. There’s this lie: kids are resilient, they’ll be fine. It was heartbreaking reading the initial flow of comments that came in. First you get the flood of people who feel seen and heard and validated. “Thank you so much this was my experience. I felt I this brought up so many emotions of my own”, and then you get the backlash and the people misinterpreting you and taking it out of context”, she told in the interview. Commenting on Bridget Phetasy’s article, Louise Perry noticed that the consideration of what is a truly valid reason for divorce often leads to exaggeration of issues, while many overlook the long-term impact on their children, whose lives will be shaped by the decision for decades to come. The majority of break-ups occur in low-conflict marriages, where the impact on children is often more profound due to the unexpected and therefore more traumatic nature of the separation. In such cases, it is usually in the best interest of the children for the parents to remain together. 2025 will mark 30 years from the divorce referendum in Ireland, where now over 320,000 adults are today divorced or separated and hundreds of thousands of children affected. This anniversary will surely be celebrated with enthusiasm, but a mature assessment will consider the voices of people like Bridget Phetasy who have suffered because of their parents’ decisions.

Early American farmer. The United States was founded upon the principle of limited Government, the concept that no power or authority should have absolute control over its citizens. This is often seen in our tripartite division of the President, Congress, and the Courts. However, the division of power between the Federal Government in Washington and the various state governments is equally essential. Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution spells out the limits of the Federal Government and explicitly reserves all other government powers to the States. Unfortunately, we've witnessed the concentration of power in the Federal Government in Washington for over two centuries. With each national crisis, a major war, a pandemic such as COVID-19, or a natural disaster, we've called upon Washington for aid. This concentration of power and authority along the Potomac has had predictable results in excess and occasional corruption. Day by day, DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) has systematically revealed just how far the Central Government has strayed. We've all been transfixed by the stunning revelations coming from the DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) investigations of Government: millions spent on sketchy social projects, billions sent to foreign news organizations to influence their coverage, and Social Security checks mailed to long-dead recipients. The list of systemic corruption grows by the day. There can be little doubt that there has been a nearly endless amount of corruption at the heart of much of our Federal Government's finances, costing American Taxpayers trillions. Americans are outraged, and justifiably so. As a country, we cannot allow this kind of malfeasance from those in office. Beyond the moral outrage, there is the realization that the nation cannot afford these expenditures. There's a reason we're trillions in debt, and, at least partly, that's because the Government and its agencies have wasted our money. Today, the focus is on the crime, petty theft, and massive fraud at the heart of this financial debacle. For most of us, the size and scope of the funds involved have shocked us all. Many of the people I've spoken with are calling for the prosecutions of those involved. "Someone must be held accountable," they say. And they're right; laws have been broken, crimes committed, and the guilty must pay. However, we cannot stop there. There are fundamental issues that go beyond personal corruption—issues that our country's founders understood but that have been ignored or shunted aside over the decades. Unfortunately, before I can mention those issues, the conversation usually veers into a recitation of: "Well, we live in a democracy, and so we get the leaders that we vote for and deserve. After all, 'elections have consequences.'"For many, perhaps most Americans, America is a democracy, and if there are "crooks" in Government, it's because we elected them. Somehow, the perfidy on display is the fault of "we the people." It all comes down to the voters. Elect the "right" person, and all will be well. Regrettably, this is just the sort of thinking that leads to the election of the benevolent dictator, the "right" person to lead a country. Throughout history, every tyrant has sought to portray themselves as morally upright when the reality is usually the opposite. The United States was founded precisely to oppose just such a monarch, George III, King of Great Britain and Ireland. However, in establishing America's Government, the founders saw the issue less with personality than with power. In the words of Lord Acton, it was power that "tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." While that's the quote most often cited, Acton's complete quote goes on to say: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority." https://www.acton.org/research/lord-acton-quote-archive Here, Acton is telling us that not only power but the addition of a moral component (yielding 'authority') produces "almost always" corruption. This is precisely what DOGE has revealed. Heads of US Government Agencies, Departments, and Regulators have crossed the line, exercising powers they did not have and becoming corrupt. Just how corrupt we'll undoubtedly find out in the weeks and months ahead as DOGE continues its investigation. Regrettably, this sort of corruption is just what our Federal System of Government was designed to prevent. If you enjoyed this article, please consider buying me coffee. Go to: https://buymeacoffee.com/davidreavill Thanks for reading!

I have one cousin who is an "outlier" and is, horror of horrors "a liberal". Now if one is paying attention, a lot of the MAGA movement (if not most) consists of former Democrats (including Trump himself). So MAGA is not REALLY Republican at all. Lots of old school Republicans loathe the MAGA movement, obviously. But the previous labels and associations still sort of remain for many people, and they cannot quite understand what is going on. Even though I was raised as a "far right" conservative in Canada (So-Cred) and my parents and grandparents and family members were mostly So-Cred, the Social Credit movement is/was actually LEFT of American Democrat Party, for the most part. So it is confusing. If one looks at Jordan Peterson, he got his start as part of the far Left in Canadian Politics, the "NDP" (New Democratic Party), but now Peterson is associated more with American conservatives. Even Bernie Sanders supports a LOT of what DOGE and MAGA are doing. This was at least true until DOGE and other events started to reveal Bernie's corruption. So, these things are complicated. Even Michael Moore, the "massive" leftist, has a sort of "right wing" movie, "The Planet of the Humans". MAGA is kind of what H. Ross Perot wanted to create in the early 90s. And he almost succeeded. Or what Ralph Nader attempted to create. I voted for both Perot and Nader. The division in American politics is really no longer between "left" and "right" or "conservative" and "liberal" or "Democrat" and "Republican". It is more of a division between "sanity" and "insanity" or between "corrupt" and noncorrupt". So what do party labels even mean at this point?

I recently saw a graphic on social media from the Senate Republicans talking about the WA Democrats’ “Taxapalooza.” In the graphic, Republicans highlighted a long list of ways Washington’s Democratic legislators are pushing to raise taxes. These proposals showcase a remarkable level of creativity in their efforts to generate more government revenue. And if the Majority party passed ALL of these different bills, it would be a massive tax increase! However, they’re not going to pass them all! Why? Because you, the everyday ordinary Washingtonian, are going to participate in the process, and loudly tell them, “No new taxes!” and “Cut spending!” Here’s how to raise your concerns. Understanding the Game Rules On March 12, we will reach “cutoff.” In theory, any bill that has not been passed in its house of origin by the end of the day on Wednesday is “dead.” However, with the Democratic majority, no bill is ever absolutely dead. If they really want to implement a policy, they can suspend the rules and bring a “dead” bill back to life. So, it’s better to think in terms of potential: big league, minor league and rookie ball. If a bill has passed it’s house of origin, it’s in the big leagues. It’s moving on to the opposite house, and you can tell from the final floor vote how controversial a bill is. For some of these very controversial bills, it will be possible to stop them in the opposite house, when people show up in public hearings, comment on the bills, write letters, and make phone calls. If a bill is in either the rules committee or on the floor calendar in its house of origin, it’s in the minor leagues. These bills are like minor league players waiting to get the call to the big leagues (a floor vote). If they don’t get voted off the floor, these bills will be in limbo. Some people call them “mostly dead.” However, in a budget year, if a bill is deemed “necessary to implement the budget” it’s pretty common to suspend the rules and bring “mostly dead” bills to the floor for a vote, regardless of it’s normal status. Thinking in terms of potential It would take a lot of energy to raise a stink about ALL the possible taxation bills, so I tend to focus my energy on the ones most likely to succeed—the “big league” bills that have already passed their houses of origin. After that, I’ll look at the ones stuck in the minors, and finally, I’ll consider the mostly dead, “rookie ball” bills. For all of these bills, you can take the same action. Look up the bill by it’s number on leg.wa.gov, and then “Send a Comment on these bills.” If you’re really inspired, you can email certain legislators, like Democrat caucus leaders, directly. Email or message me if you need help with that. Big League Bills SB 5314 Capital gains tax – This bill passed the Senate by a party line vote of 30-19-0-0. Comment on the bill and oppose. The bill makes changes to how businesses and individuals report and pay capital gains tax, introduces new definitions and exemptions, and adjusts reporting and filing requirements. The bill also introduces provisions for adjusting applicable tax amounts annually based on the consumer price index, creates penalties for late or incorrect filings, and extends the statute of limitations for tax assessments in certain circumstances. SB 5686 Foreclosure mediation program – This bill passed the Senate: 30-19. Comment on the bill and oppose. This Democratic bill expands the Foreclosure Mediation Program. It establishes a NEW $80 fee (tax) collected on certain residential mortgage loan originations and revises the distributions to fund the program. Estimated operating costs are $42.7 million through 2031. HB 1647 Surface mine reclamation – This bill passed the House by a party line vote of 55-42. Comment on the bill and oppose. This bill is going to hit the small rural gravel pit operator very hard. The bill establishes a standardized $4,500 nonrefundable application fee for various permit-related actions, including revisions to existing reclamation permits, expansions of surface mines, etc. The annual permit fees are also modified, with most permit holders now required to pay $3,500 annually, while public permit holders for mines used exclusively for public works projects will pay a reduced fee of $2,500. Minor League Bills These bills were on the floor calendar of either the House or the Senate on Sunday March 9. They may have already jumped to the big leagues by the time you read this, so be sure to comment on them, as well. HB 1409 Clean fuels program – This hidden tax makes the CCA even worse and increases taxes via the Carbon Market. SB 5502 Recycling & waste reduction – This Democratic “bottle & can tax” bill assesses a 10-cent refundable fee on ALL covered beverage containers. This is a regressive tax. It raises money, but does nothing to improve recycling. SB 5576 Affordable housing funding – This bill establishes a new 6% special excise tax on short-term rental lodging facilitated through rental platforms. SB 5775 Public safety/local tax – This is a bill to support homelessness masquerading as a tax bill. It allows a county legislative authority to impose a sales tax without a vote of the people by January 1, 2028. Revenue would go to local “public safety” projects. Rookie Ball: Most Likely to Succeed These bills don’t seem likely to make the cutoff, but that won’t stop the Democrats from treating your wallet like their personal piggy bank. This is my best guess as to the rookie ball bills most likely to make it to a floor vote this session. Leave a comment on these bills! SB 5726 & HB 1921 (companion bills) Transportation revenue – These two are the infamous “pay-per-mile” bills. Leave a comment on both. They create a mandatory road usage charge program that places a per-mile fee on motor vehicle usage of public roadways in the state. HB 1334 Property tax revenue growth – Every government entity funded by property tax revenue is in a financial crunch. Inflation and wages are up well over 3%, while property tax revenues only increase by 1%. Do the math. These public entities are about to have budgets in the RED! This bill is a sneaky attempt to let municipalities jack up property taxes by tweaking the inflation math and adding up to 3% for population growth. By swapping to the Consumer Price Index (CPI)—which conveniently results in higher inflation rates—the bill could push property tax hikes to a whopping 5-6% annually. HB 1958 and SB 5734: Interstate bridge toll bonds – This legislation allows for the issuance of up to $1.6 billion of bonds for the design, right-of-way, and construction of the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement Project. These bonds would be backed by ALL Washington taxpayers, NOT just the bridge users. And NOT Oregon taxpayers. Is that fair? It’s not a Revenue problem, it’s a Spending problem A quote widely attributed to Ronald Reagan says "The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.” Now, it is our generation’s turn to tell our government to lower taxes and reduce spending. We can do this by simply opposing all of the bills on this list loudly and frequently! Take ten minutes to visit leg.wa.gov and “leave a comment” on these bills! Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the chair of the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack.Support Dangerous Rhetoric SOURCES: (1) Washington State Senate Republicans, Taxapalooza, https://bit.ly/4igsHEN

Outdated Clause or Vital Protection? In March 2024, Ireland held a referendum on removing the Constitution’s reference to a woman’s “duties in the home.” Article 41.2 of the 1937 Constitution famously states that “The State shall… endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home” (Referendums on Family and Care — Electoral Commission). The government proposed deleting this language — widely seen as sexist and outdated — and replacing it with a gender-neutral clause recognising the importance of care provided by all family members (2024 Irish constitutional referendums — Wikipedia). All major political parties and many civil society groups campaigned Yes to amend the text (2024 Irish constitutional referendums — Wikipedia), arguing it was a symbolic step toward equality. However, the public response was stark. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the change: nearly 74% voted No to scrapping the “women in the home” clause (2024 Irish constitutional referendums — Wikipedia). This landslide result — one of the highest No votes in Irish referendum history — meant the constitutional commitment to protect mothers from economic pressure remains intact. For many, the outcome signaled that while the wording may be old-fashioned, the underlying principle of supporting mothers at home still resonates strongly with the electorate.Dramatic Decline in Stay-at-Home Mothers The referendum’s context is a society where women’s roles have shifted significantly. New figures from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) reveal a 60% plunge in the number of women describing themselves as full-time homemakers. In 2010, about 520,500 women reported their status as “engaged in home duties.” By 2024, that figure had fallen to just 208,200 (Key Findings Women in the Labour Market 2023–2024 — Central Statistics Office). This marks a dramatic decline in stay-at-home mothers over little more than a decade. Over the same period, female employment has climbed to record levels. The CSO report notes that even in the last five years alone (2019–2024), the number of married women in paid employment jumped by 21.5% (Key Findings Women in the Labour Market 2023–2024 — Central Statistics Office). In other words, far more Irish women — including mothers — are now in the workforce, and far fewer remain exclusively in the home. Economists cite multiple reasons for this shift, from the rising cost of living necessitating dual incomes, to changing social norms and greater career opportunities for women. Whatever the cause, the trend is clear: the traditional stay-at-home mother has become far less common in Ireland today than a generation ago.What Irish Mothers Say They Want Despite the move toward paid work, many Irish mothers express a strong preference for being at home with their children — if only it were financially feasible. A 2024 Amárach Research poll (commissioned by the Iona Institute) found that 69% of mothers with children under 18 would choose to stay at home to raise their kids if they could afford to do so (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute). This suggests that for a large majority of women, employment is often a financial necessity rather than a preferred choice during their children’s early years. The survey illuminated mothers’ feelings about the trade-offs between work and home life: 69% of mothers would prefer to stay home with their children rather than go out to work, if they could afford it (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute).76% say women who work in the home are undervalued by society compared to women in paid employment (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute).Over 70% feel that society does not truly value their work as mothers and homemakers (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute). These findings, consistent with similar polls in recent years, underscore a notable gap between mothers’ personal aspirations and their economic reality. “A woman’s place is wherever she wants it to be,” Children’s Minister Roderic O’Gorman has said — encapsulating the ideal that mothers should be free to choose either career or home without judgment. But the poll results indicate many mothers don’t feel they genuinely have that choice. Instead, they often feel pressure to earn income, and they perceive that the role of a full-time mother is culturally undervalued in modern Ireland.Policy vs. Promise: Is the State Supporting Choice? The Irish Constitution’s promise not to force mothers into work by economic necessity is a high bar for policymakers to meet. In practice, government policies have largely focused on enabling mothers to join the workforce — arguably more than enabling them to remain at home. Successive governments have introduced measures like improved parental leave and universal child benefit, but the most significant investments have been in childcare. Public spending on daycare and early education has soared in recent budgets. For example, Budget 2023 injected an extra €121 million into the new National Childcare Scheme, allowing childcare fees for parents to be cut by about 25% on average (Republic of Ireland Budget 2023 announces increased funding for childcare — Employers For Childcare). The annual state budget for childcare reached €1 billion in 2023 — five years ahead of government targets (Republic of Ireland Budget 2023 announces increased funding for childcare — Employers For Childcare) — reflecting a massive financial commitment to subsidising day-care and crèche facilities. The aim of this spending is to make it easier for parents, especially mothers, to afford childcare and therefore to take up paid employment. Indeed, affordable childcare is often cited by policymakers as key to increasing female labour force participation and giving women “choice” to work. Critics, however, point out a contradiction: by concentrating support on helping mothers work, the state may be neglecting the Constitution’s call to support those who choose home-making. Apart from a modest tax credit for stay-at-home parents, Ireland offers little direct financial support to mothers (or fathers) who opt to care full-time for their children at home. Professor Patricia Casey of the Iona Institute argues that the State has “failed to live up to the promise of the Constitution” in this regard (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute). Despite Article 41.2’s guarantee, she says, government policy has “made it almost impossible for most mothers to stay at home with their children if that is what they want” (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute). In her view, the push for moms to enter the workforce — driven by economic policy and a booming jobs market — leaves those who would prefer home-making without adequate support or real choice.Childcare Investment Yields Limited Gains Interestingly, even on its own terms, the state’s heavy investment in childcare has so far produced only modest increases in mothers’ workforce participation. A recent analysis by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) examined the effects of Ireland’s childcare subsidy schemes on maternal employment. It found that the introduction of generous subsidies in 2019 led to only a slight uptick — about 0.5 of a percentage point — in labour force participation among mothers (Will childcare subsidies increase the labour supply of mothers in Ireland? | ESRI). Most women who wanted to work were likely already doing so, and many others still chose not to enter the workforce despite childcare becoming a bit more affordable. Even after the major expansion of subsidies in 2023, the ESRI study projects only a minimal impact: roughly a further 1 percentage point increase in mothers joining the labour market (Will childcare subsidies increase the labour supply of mothers in Ireland? | ESRI). By contrast, the subsidies did significantly change how children are cared for — with many families switching from informal care (such as grandparents or unlicensed childminders) to formal childcare centres when fees dropped (Will childcare subsidies increase the labour supply of mothers in Ireland? | ESRI). In short, the state’s spending spree on childcare has eased the cost burden and shifted childcare arrangements, but it has not triggered a large influx of stay-at-home mothers into paid employment. This limited effect suggests that many mothers’ decisions about working or not working hinge on personal and financial factors beyond just childcare costs.Conclusion: Do Mothers Have a Real Choice? The fallout from the referendum and the latest data highlight a central question for Irish society: Are mothers truly free to choose between staying at home and pursuing paid work? The constitutional clause protecting mothers at home remains in place — backed by a public vote — but its spirit seems at odds with economic trends. A huge decline in stay-at-home parenting and surveys of mothers themselves both point to finances being a decisive factor in whether women work outside the home. If nearly seven in ten mothers would prefer the home over the workplace given the choice (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute), the reality that most of them are now in paid employment suggests that, for many, it isn’t really a free choice at all — it’s a necessity. Government officials maintain that their policies aim to give women options, by removing barriers to employment and promoting equality. There is no doubt that opportunities for women in the labour market have expanded, and those who want or need to work are being supported through childcare subsidies and other measures. But the flip side is whether equal support is extended to those who would choose full-time caregiving. The evidence so far indicates a mismatch: society extols choice in theory, yet economic and policy realities push mothers in a particular direction. The state’s constitutional duty to ensure no mother is “obliged” to work for economic reasons (Referendums on Family and Care — Electoral Commission) is difficult to reconcile with a system that provides far greater aid for entering the workforce than for opting out of it. As Ireland digests the referendum result, there are growing calls for a more balanced approach — one that truly values the work of caring for children, whether done for pay or in the home. That could mean new policies, from direct financial supports for stay-at-home parents to workplace flexibility for those balancing both roles. The central outcome of the recent debate is a heightened awareness that mothers want a real choice, not an imposed one. The Constitution may uphold that ideal, but the challenge ahead is turning it into reality, so that “a woman’s place” can indeed be “wherever she wants it to be.”

New figures from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, confirm the growing demographic crisis facing Europe. In 2023, deaths across the EU outnumbered births by almost 1.2m, and this is only going to get worse. Births have not outnumbered deaths since 2012. This is a consequence of fertility rates being well below replacement level across the continent and in some cases for decades. At the beginning of 2023, according to Eurostat, there were 448.8 million people living in the European Union. The only reason this is little different from 20 years ago is because of immigration. The average number of births per 1,000 persons living in the EU has dropped from 10.6 in 2008 to 8.7 in 2022. One way of analysing fertility trends is to look at how many babies are born to mothers aged 40 and older compared to all babies born in a year. It shows the degree to which people are delaying having children. In Ireland in 2022, 11.2pc of all births in 2022 were to mothers aged 40 and over, the highest in Europe. This has soared from 3.4pc in 2002. Across the EU, the figure was 6pc in 2022, meaning many women in Ireland are waiting a particularly long time to have children, for whatever reason. The proportion of births to mothers aged at least 40 in the EU as a whole was 2.2pc in 2002. In Ireland, the mean age of first-time mothers is the third highest in Europe, at 31.5 years. The EU average is 29.7 years. Ireland used to have the highest fertility rate in the EU – 1.97 births per woman in 2002 – but now it has decreased significantly. The current value (1.56) is slightly higher than the European average (1.46) but way below what is needed to ensure a natural balance between births and deaths, which is 2.1 births per woman. Among EU countries, France has currently the highest total fertility rate (1.79), followed by Romania (1.71) and Bulgaria (1.65). The lowest rates were found in Malta (1.08), Spain (1.16) and Italy (1.24). While the population is growing, due to immigration and people are living longer, there are ever fewer young people. In the last 20 years, the percentage of people aged 0 to 19 years of age across the EU declined from 22.6pc to 20.1pc. Over the same period, the share of persons aged 65 and over increased in all EU countries 16.2 to 21.3. Over the past twenty years, the Irish population grew by a massive 32.9pc, from 3.7 million in 2003 to 5.27 million in 2023. Much of this is immigration-driven. To put this into perspective, the total population of the EU increased by only 4pc during the same period. In Ireland, births still outnumber deaths, although the gap between the two has halved in the last ten years. In due course, given our low fertility rate, deaths will outnumber births as elsewhere. The European demographic crisis, which is already here, will affect Ireland as well, even before ours hits us directly, simply because our fate is so tied to Europe’s in multiple ways. It is time we began to have a serious discussion in Ireland about this topic.

In an earlier article, I wrote, The Prep Act: Protecting Pogroms Perpetrated by Prescription. This Act had been signed by President George H. W. Bush provided immunity to Big Pharma for the harm caused by a medical response in an emergency. This Act was enacted in December of 2005 as a result of envelopes supposedly filled with anthrax received by Congress in 2001. Frightened politicians, not wishing to have to deal with delays in any needful treatment knew that the Medical “community” would balk at making any quick decisions (and treatments) in fear of financial damage. So, the Prep Act removed that concern by removing their liability – assuring that, if necessary, Congress would receive immediate treatment by that “community” if required. Of course, this made the Act available when the “pandemic” of 2016 “happened” followed closely by the mandating of “vaccinations” to “cure” or “prevent” the “unknown disease” COVID – yada-yada-yada &etc. Seldom have legal efforts been made to prevent justice being served on criminals, but the Prep Act has certainly been a great help to those inventing and disbursing these “vaccines” who would, under ordinary circumstances, be in danger of having to answer to those who have suffered (and died) as a result of their nostrums. How to fix that? Why remove the liability, of course! And so, with the sudden (and so carefully planned) COVID “pandemic” in 2020, the Prep Act provided a perfect cover for any response put forth by the “medical industry” as these people and corporations no longer had to be concerned with the fall-out arising from their nostrums. And as that fall-out is still playing out, apparently the Prep Act will, as intended, prevent Big Pharma from being held at least financially accountable for its part in the whole thing – perhaps even including the bio-agent responsible for the “pandemic” in the first place! It is an ideal set up! So ideal, that there are those who wonder if the 2001 “anthrax attack” was not another Deep State false flag designed to do just what it did do, give carte blanche to Big Pharma and those who profited from the “pandemic” to act without concern for financial consequences. But now, at least, it may be that this immense injustice is being thwarted. According to Dr. Joseph Sansone’s blog, three States’ Supreme Courts – North Carolina, Vermont and Maine – have heard cases and ruled on the Prep Act. According to Dr. Sansone, it was a matter of parental consent. Parents had sued over their children being forcibly vaccinated but had lost in the lower courts, bringing the matter to those States’ Supreme Courts. In response to this situation, Dr. Sansone asked the question, “Why would you inject someone with a vaccine against their will?” To which he gave the answer(s): · Because you are so sure the vaccine contains a wonderful, health-giving potion; · Because it does not cross your mind you are committing a crime. Even if there was nothing in the syringe that you were injecting, STILL sticking a needle in someone is battery. Injecting them with a gene therapy could change their life’s trajectory and is even more of an attack on someone’s bodily autonomy; · Because you think you are shielded from all liability by the PREP Act, but only after injecting the vaccine; · Because you are being paid per injected dose; · Because they are a child and therefore, you can! · Because you are “just following orders.” The Doctor then goes on to point out: I do not know what was in the minds of the individual “health care” workers in Vermont, Maine and North Carolina who chose to inject children with COVID vaccines against their will, without a parental consent form, and without making much effort to learn what the parents’ wishes were. It makes you wonder what else happens in schools, away from the prying eyes of parents. How often did this happen? We don’t know, but parents in Vermont, Maine and North Carolina were understandably upset enough to sue the health care workers and the schools over their children’s unwarranted jabs. Instead of obtaining an easy win, in each case the parents and children lost in the lower courts. How could this be? Battery is battery. Consent is consent. You see, the PREP Act provides an extraordinary, total liability shield over everyone involved in the administration of a “covered countermeasure.” Or at least people thought it did, until North Carolina’s Supreme Court ruling on Thursday. The anthrax letters gave members of Congress PTSD. Even they could be attacked! And so they passed the PREP Act, allowing designated countermeasures to be used in an emergency, only after a cabinet Secretary had declared the emergency, then the HHS Secretary declared there was a drug or vaccine which had better than even odds of ameliorating the emergency, and then after the FDA Commissioner issued an EUA for the product. Congress may have thought that was good enough — a 3-step process before the liability shield was issued. But we now know that it is not much of a deterrent. We also know that all you need is the potential for an emergency, not an actual emergency. And so, the PREP Act was born in 2005. And kids have been jabbed with a dangerous so-called vaccine. Finally, a state Supreme Court said that no, the PREP Act does NOT protect vaccinators from being charged with other crimes, like battery. The PREP Act does not waive other Constitutional protections. Many of us think the PREP Act is unconstitutional for that reason, but the courts have not agreed, until now. What I still find troubling, however, is that the judges vote along party lines. We thought judges were “blind”—that they put aside all bias. Yet in case after case, the judge’s party seems to be the deciding factor as to how they will decide a case. In any event, this blow to the PREP Act is welcome and long overdue. Apparently, the North Carolina Supreme Court (at least) “opened a path for parents to sue schools and health clinics over the Covid vaccines. The ruling was 5-2 along party lines, with Republicans voting in favor of the parents and Democrats dissenting. Chief Justice Paul Newby acknowledged the PREP Act's broad immunity rules. But he added that the unwilling vaccination violated the constitutional rights of Smith and his parents — and therefore should void the immunity rules and open the way for lawsuits that claim violations of constitutional rights. Fellow Republican justices Richard Dietz and Trey Allen joined in Newby's opinion. Republican justices Tamara Barringer and Phil Berger Jr. wrote a concurring opinion that said they agreed with everything Newby wrote, but that they had wanted to go even further in rolling back health workers' immunity protections as provided by the Act. Democrats, on the other hand, accused the Republicans of practicing the “judicial activism” they usually claim to oppose, stating that the majority of “turn(ed) somersaults to reach particular interpretations of the written law.” Interestingly enough, nobody seemed to look at – much less address – the incredible amount of “immunity” being granted by the Act to Big Pharma and those mandating (and carrying out) the application of what in this case are essentially bioweapons on an unsuspecting and trusting populace. Of course, this is the real crime of the Prep Act and thus demands penalties far greater than mere economic recompense for the damage that has been done to those forced to take these poisons – damage that may well be permanent and even fatal. None of what happened in the “Covid Pandemic” was an accident or misjudgment or even carelessness! It was (and remains) an attack on mankind itself and should be treated as the greatest treason to date against the human race!

In an earlier article, this publication highlighted the civilized norm that non-local people do not have a right to vote on whether a different location changes its political status by becoming independent or a state/province, or some other outcome. In other words, when Kosovo, Montenegro, Scotland, Quebec, and Puerto Rico vote on independence, citizens of the countries those localities vote to leave but outside of those localities do not have a right to participate in the vote.Reprise of Self-Determination Dictators such as Aliyev in Azerbaijan, however, demand that all Azeris should vote on whether part of Azerbaijan, the over 90% Armenian hills of Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh, become independent. This principle, that non-locals have no right to vote on a locality’s political affiliation, sounds clear cut, but it actually is not so simple because how should the boundaries of a locality be defined? Water boundaries could provide the answer. Water boundaries would include of course bodies of water such as rivers, but also boundaries between watersheds, a.k.a. drainage basins, that run along high points of land like ridges.All Boundaries Must Follow Water Features Humanity has traditionally sometimes used such boundaries to define political units (mostly, major rivers serving as boundaries), but could do so more universally and explicitly in order to give space to political affiliations that will always change. Throughout human history, boundaries have constantly changed. The idea frozen in place by the United Nations that current political boundaries are inviolate is unworkable: Humanity has never sat still, so humanity needs a regime of international relations that gives space for boundaries to change through democratic vote. Defining boundaries at bodies of water and watersheds provides a natural framework for humanity to agree on areas of land the people in which have a right to self-determination. Also, a previous article in this Non-Violence publication advocated giving people the right to vote to draw boundaries, not keeping that power in unelected bureaucracies. Restricting boundaries to water features provides an objective, reality-based foundation upon which to present a range of boundary decision choices regardless of whether the democratically decide those boundaries (which is ideal), or the current system of elites deciding boundaries continues.Defining Water Features Take a look at this simplified map of Puerto Rico showing only major rivers in blue, and also watershed boundaries in black which are in effect ridgelines along chains of mountains/hills. Notice a trend in watershed shape: Major rivers form watershed regions that are widest in the middle, but narrow to almost just the banks of the river as the river approaches the ocean. All areas in the mountains are part of large watersheds. Coastal areas are dominated by small watersheds, many with no major rivers worth including on this map.One Independent Watershed This Non-Violence publication’s Stakeholder Control vision advocates permitting anyone in any watershed, even a stream, to declare complete independence with a supermajority vote of residents of that watershed.Independence: Half a Watershed If residents want to use a river, stream, or lake as a boundary and declare independence on only one side of the river/stream/lake, then they may do so.Non-Contiguous Countries This publication advocates that even non-contiguous territories can unite into one country. A future article will delve into why two territories might want to unite or divide.Waterline Boundaries for Provinces Within Countries This Non-Violence publication also advocates permitting residents of a watershed to reorganize within a sovereign country. The territory would remain part of the larger country, but becoming their own province/state, or their own county/town/city, or joining another province, state, county, town, or city. Let us take a hypothetical independent, sovereign country that unites the Río Grande de Arecibo watershed and separate two coastal watersheds near to but separate from the mouth of that river: one to the west side encompassing Arecibo City, and the other on the east side encompassing Arecibo Airport and a university. Let us suppose that initially, in this Arecibo Country, the Airport/University watershed area is in the same province as the watershed area of the whole Río Grande de Arecibo. Let us also suppose that the separate watershed around Arecibo City is in a different province:Watersheds Can Switch Provinces Let us then suppose that the watershed around the Airport/University dislikes having to wrangle in the same province with the non-coastal inland residents of the larger Río Grande de Arecibo watershed. The Airport/University area wants to instead join in a united province with the nearby coastal city province encompassing the watershed around Arecibo City. If a supermajority of residents in the watersheds around the Airport/University , and separately a supermajority of residents in the watershed around Arecibo City, vote to do so, then the provincial map would change to look like this:Or Just Become an Independent Country Instead Or, if the people of the watershed around the Airport/University would rather just form their own separate, independent country, they could just do that instead:80% Supermajority On one hand, this article advocates that the civilized world tolerate people peacefully leaving to form their own country with just a vote. Countries like Spain should allow regions like Catalonia and the Basque Country to vote on independence. This Stakeholder Control vision would balance this increased permissiveness by raising the threshold to change political allegiance from a bare majority to a supermajority. This Stakeholder Control vision has advocated for a higher 80% threshold in other circumstances, (the 80% threshold to change a dividend-paying public trust fund) and does so the same in this instance.The Vision This article merely introduces some of the mechanics for how humanity can construct a framework for continuous, peaceful sovereignty realignments. It is absurd that modern international law expects borders to remain the same. Humanity needs a peaceful way for borders to change. This waterlines idea presents one such way forward. _______________ Support Non-Violence writing by tipping me at Ko-Fi.com, or by donating some Ethereum digital currency to this public address! 0x5ffe3e60a7f85a70147e800c37116b3ad97afd5e