Fragile Republic. Roe v Wade Op Ed's. Buddy Brown on Privilege. Coach Can Pray. Justice Dept. Blind Eye. New Farms. White Forrester.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Our republic is fragile. It rests and depends upon informed and participating citizens. Because of a variety of factors, the decline in newspapers, as a valid, unbiased source of information (ombudsman) risks have heightened as citizens become less informed and their views are increasingly influenced by social media sources, many controlled by elites whose activities and motives are questionable . This trend must be reversed.

We are no longer a united nation of citizens from all cultures, religions  and nations. America has been called an experimental melting pot. No nation has tried to accomplish what our founding father's contemplated and drafted in a document called a constitution.

It might surprise readers to learn, as successful/productive/creative and powerful as Israel has become,  they  have no constitution and it's government is in constant flux.

In a recent interview, Ken Langone, a co-founder of Home Depot, stated it was imperative we embrace limited terms. The founding fathers never contemplated permanent politicians.

Consequently, limited terms has much in it's favor but I have two main concerns:

a) how do you prevent un-elected bureaucrats from gaining increasing/overwhelming  power, 

and

b) can constant turnover/rotation retain institutional knowledge.

+++ 

HERE ARE SOME OP ED'S DWELLING ON VARIOUS REACTIONS TO ROE v WADE'S Demise.

In time, the emotional blathering will subside, states will make their own decisions. Meanwhile, abortion will continue to be debated for several more years as states decisions are finally concluded and the issue is resolved.

Hopefully, the next next important issue needing resolution is the matter of presenting identification before one can vote. Voting is one of our most cherished rights and it cheapens the merit of citizenship if one can exercise this privilege while casting doubt about the outcome of election results.

The argument waged against requiring identification is totally driven by emotion and rests upon the shaky foundation obtaining identification places a "racial" burden on voter, of color, because it is based on keeping black voting numbers low.

Once again the connection of racial bigotry is not only unjustified but also has more to do with laziness and other factors than racial bias. In a nation as large as ours, there will always be a degree of fraudulent behavior but until we get the numbers lower and we must continue to press forward.

+++

Social Issues

Rioters Smash Windows, Write Graffiti Threats During Roe v. Wade Protests in Portland

+++

BEN SHAPIRO

Roe Is Gone, And The Left Is Melting Down

Rage and tears abound as Roe is overturned; Democrats try to jazz up their 2022 base but have no actual plan; and we examine which party is truly extreme on abortion

Quote: "Today there is a lot of talk about how this is going to radically shift the state of play in the United States, politically. How this is going to turn into a hot button issue politically all across the United States in federal elections. How 2022 will be decided by abortion, 20243 will be decided by abortion, 2028 will be decided by abortion. Wrong. Wrong. And, wrong." - Ben Shapiro LISTEN

DAN BONGINO

They Want To Burn It All Down

In this episode, Dan covers the Left's reaction to the overturning of Roe and Casey, the dangerous path we’re on, and how to correct it. LISTEN

Quote: "Keep your head on a swivel. Keep your eyes open, ladies and gentlemen. They want to burn it all down. I'm gonna give you the bad news and then the good news. And, there is some good news as they are about to go thru an extinction burst." - Dan Bongino LISTEN

MATT WALSH

Roe Is Dead, Hallelujah

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Roe is no more. In one of the greatest moments in American history, the Supreme Court decision which codified the right to murder babies has been finally and officially overturned.  LISTEN

Quote: "They never understood us as pro-lifers. They're always looking for 'what's really going on here...what's going on below the surface...what's the nefarious plan?...It's none of that -- we just don't think you should kill babies." - Matt Walsh LISTEN

And

To: Americans everywhere.

Thank you for your time and attention.

In light of Bill and Hillary Clinton recently stating that "we are on the edge of losing our Democracy", I wish to reply.

        First, please let me be very clear, what I have written here for your consideration is not about the Republican Party, Democrat Party, Independent Party, Libertarian Party, Tea Party or any other Party. It is about an idea conceived over two centuries ago, a country, a people, a document.

       Two hundred and thirty five years ago (1787) a group of men whom we now refer to as the "founding fathers," following a long and bloody battle for their independence from a dictatorial Monarchy, assembled themselves together in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and did their best to establish a country governed in a God-fearing way by representatives who were selected by the people who were to be governed.

       No where in the history of all mankind were there any examples or even political theory in existence that offered them any hope that a republican form of government based on the new concept of consent of the governed, could succeed on a wilderness continent which was much larger than any European state.

       These men met there on the world stage to carry out the first of three acts in this epic political drama, the drafting of the United States Constitution. The final document was the culmination of a fierce political struggle that had been waged for four sweltering summer months in secret behind guarded closed doors. The document sought to reconcile individual personal liberty with the perceived need for a central government with powers to forge a political and economic common market among thirteen separate and sovereign states.

       The next two acts to be performed on this world stage were the ratification of the document and the translation from words on parchment paper to institutional form and structure. In 1789 the first congress approved and sent to the states for ratification, a bill of rights of individual liberty, and additional rights reserved to the states. Those ten amendments, ratified on December 15, 1791, became an extremely vital part of the Constitution and crucial to greatly limiting the power of the Federal Government over both that of the people and separate states. The Republic of the United States of America, an experiment in people governing themselves was now a reality for the first time in the history of man. Newcomers from other countries, willing to be governed by it's Constitution and Bill of Rights, and themselves, came in droves through the established legal immigration process, to this new land of government by the governed.

       I here bring to your attention that the United States of America was formed as a Republic and not a Democracy. All our lives you and I have been conditioned to believe we are a Democracy in America. How long has it been since you have heard of America referred to as a Republic? You see, there was purpose behind the words in the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag referring to our country as, "the Republic for which it stands." Ladies and gentlemen rest assured there is a very good reason the term "democracy" does not exist either in our Constitution or the Declaration of our Independence. A true Democracy is mob rule. Any government set up as a Democracy is the same government we would have if we were set up as a Socialist, Communist, or Marxist government. In these forms the government is a mob ruling over the people with absolutely no rights for individuals or minorities.

       It has been written, "The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life." Democracy and/or Socialism is mob rule by government. The founders of America were all too familiar with democracies/socialism, and deliberately did everything in their power to prevent a Democracy. It has been written, "In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem." The people have no obligation to the government; the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to them, for they are its creator and owner. Not only have many politicians, Republican and Democrat, lost sight of this fact, but a great many of the American people.

       A Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. The goal of our founding fathers in forming a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the disastrous extremes of either tyranny (absolute ruler) or "mobocracy." (government mob). I borrowed the following from Darrell Huckaby: "I am tired of hearing about our democracy and the popular vote. We are not a democracy, and a whole lot of people should be really glad about that, too, because in a democracy, mob rule applies. The majority is the boss of everybody, and if we had been a democracy in 1865 slavery would have never been abolished. If we had been a democracy in 1920, the women would have never gotten the vote. If we had been a democracy in 1964 and 1965, those historic pieces of civil rights legislation would never have been approved. In fact, if we had been a democracy in 1776, the Declaration of Independence would never have been adopted because the majority of the colonists were afraid to pursue independence, just like a majority of Americans opposed women’s suffrage and abolition and sweeping civil rights reform. For the record, Abraham Lincoln did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1860, and Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996. “Oh, yes he did!” screamed one of my Facebook friends this week. “I know Lincoln got the most votes and so did Clinton.” Most means plurality, y’all. A majority is 50 percent plus one. And while we are on the subject, we are not a democratic republic, either, no matter what the revisionist history books might claim. That’s just a term Andrew Jackson coined for political purposes in the 1820s and it stuck with some people. We are a republic, period. We have a federalist form of government where the power is to be divided between the states and the central government and neither is subservient to the other. Both are to receive their powers directly from the people."

       Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government"...If we the American people don't stop this and start a reversal of the present trend, the free Republic of America will be lost for generations to come to a Socialist, tyrannical government mob. It begs the question, "Do we really care enough?" There seems to be a possible awakening of all freedom loving Americans to the fact, that a people can become slaves to the government, as well as a plantation owner. Do you really care enough? Do you care enough to elect people to public office who DO care and will do what is necessary to change the trend toward a Socialist Democracy.?. Do you care enough to forward to everyone, and let your children study it?.............Thank you, John Porter.

+++++++++++

Another contentious decision came today (June27) and was another boost for freedom of religion and the manner in which one can express themselves without economic repercussions.

It would have been better had these two decisions come at a time when our nation was more healed but cases become resolved randomly.

+++

Supreme Court Rules On Case Of HS Football Coach Fired For Praying With Players

Supreme Court Rules For Religious Freedom In Case Of Praying Coach

Canadian Press 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday sided with a football coach from Washington state who sought to kneel and pray on the field after games.

The court ruled 6-3 for the coach with the court’s conservative justices in the majority and its liberals in dissent. The justices said the coach’s prayer was protected by the First Amendment.

“The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority.

The case forced the justices to wrestle with how to balance the religious and free speech rights of teachers and coaches with the rights of students not to feel pressured into participating in religious practices. The outcome could strengthen the acceptability of some religious practices in some other public school settings.

The decision is the latest in a line of Supreme Court rulings for religious plaintiffs. In another recent example, the court ruled that Maine can’t exclude religious schools from a program that offers tuition aid for private education, a decision that could ease religious organizations’ access to taxpayer money.

In a dissent in Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the coach decision “sets us further down a perilous path in forcing states to entangle themselves with religion.” She was joined in her dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Elena Kagan.

That the court ruled for the coach is perhaps not surprising. In 2019, the court declined to take up the case at an early stage, but four of the court’s conservatives agreed that a lower court decision in favor of the school district was “troubling” for its “understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers.”

The case before the justices involved Joseph Kennedy, a Christian and former football coach at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Washington. Kennedy started coaching at the school in 2008 and initially prayed alone on the 50-yard line at the end of games. But students started joining him, and over time he began to deliver a short, inspirational talk with religious references. Kennedy did that for years and led students in locker room prayers. The school district learned what he was doing in 2015 and asked him to stop.

Kennedy stopped leading students in prayer in the locker room and on the field but wanted to continue praying on the field himself, with students free to join if they wished. Concerned about being sued for violating students’ religious freedom rights, the school asked him to stop his practice of kneeling and praying while still “on duty” as a coach after the game. The school tried to work out a solution so Kennedy could pray privately before or after the game. When he continued to kneel and pray on the field, the school put him on paid leave.

Three justices on the court attended public high schools themselves while the rest attended Catholic schools.

++

Israel reportedly held secret talks with Arab states in order to cooperate against Iranian aerial threats.

Iran test launches space rocket »

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Thomas haters continue to pursue his "lynching" and The Justice Department refuses to enforce the law:

+++

Social media turns a blind eye to threats against Justice Thomas

Headline: Twitter Just Fine With Assassination Threats Against Justice Clarence Thomas The First take: We would like to know where Twitter and all social media draw the line on threats of violence against public figures. We know the DOJ isn't paying attention.

READ IT ALL HERE ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From time to time I have discussed the :New Farm" and how vacated shopping centers are being acquired by entrepreneurs and turned into farming sites.  Carnegie Mellon University, I am told, is plowing forward in this field of future endeavor.

The Farm of the Future (edited)

My family is from Montana, so when someone tells me to think of a “farm,” I think of the big open ranges and fields of Big Sky Country.

But that’s the farm of the past. The farm of the future is one built in man-made warehouses.

I’m talking about high-tech vertical farming.

In high-tech vertical farming, companies leverage a series of light, temperature, and humidity technologies to grow foods in indoor settings. Sometimes those settings are massive warehouses. Sometimes they are high-rises. Sometimes they are small apartments. The locations vary, but the common thread is using technologies to create optimal growing conditions in a controlled, indoor setting.

The biggest upside of vertical farming, of course, is that you remove extraneous variables from the farming equation. You remove weather. You remove pests. You remove natural sunlight. In their place, you create consistently optimal growing conditions so that crop yields are always high.

You also use much less water, because the growing conditions are always optimized, and you can grow much more food per square foot because you can build “fields” on top of each other, much in the same way skyrises stack living spaces on top of each other (and, therefore, a skyrise can house more people than a home on the same plot of land).

To that end, vertical farming solves all of the problems of legacy farming. Better yields. Less water. More output.

We can solve the world’s food crisis using vertical farming technologies.

Importantly, vertical farming is finally ready to deliver.

You have to understand: Vertical farming is nothing new. Growing plants, fruits, and veggies indoors has been a concept as old as time itself. But it wasn’t until recently – thanks to technological advancements in AI, lighting, hydroponics, and automation, as well as falling LED costs – that we could create large-scale, high-tech greenhouses which could reliably, effectively, and cheaply feed the planet.

That time has finally arrived.

AgTech startups like Square Roots, Plenty, and AeroFarms are all creating large-scale indoor farming facilities across America to help proactively solve the coming food shortage crisis. These companies are building on the back of other exponential technologies to create vertical farms that are actively producing lots of food.

This is the next big industry.

And yet, no one is talking about it today… which means that you have a unique opportunity to invest in this burgeoning industry first…

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Teaching Math from the 1950s to Today

1. Teaching Math in the 1950s ... 

A forester sells a lorryload of timber for £100 

His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. 

What is his profit? £____ 

2 Teaching Math in the 1970s ... 

A forester sells a lorryload of timber for £100. 

His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or £80. 

What is his profit? £___ 

3 Teaching Math in the 1990s ... 

A forester sells a lorryload of timber for £100. 

His cost of production is £80. 

Did he make a profit? __Yes or __No 

4. Teaching Math in the 2000s ... 

A forester  sells a lorryload of timber for £100. 

His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20. 

Your assignment: Underline the number 20. 

5. Teaching Math in the 2010s ... 

A forester cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. 

He does this so he can make a profit of £20. 

What do you think of this way of making a living? 

Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes?

6. Teaching Math in the 2020s ... 

Math is a racist subject. 

Students no longer need any math skills to go to University. 

2+2 = 4, or 22, or whatever you feel is correct for you. 

There are no wrong answers, feel free to express your feelings e.g., anger, anxiety, inadequacy, helplessness etc. 

Should you require debriefing at the conclusion of the exam there are Counselors available to assist you.

Also, bet the forester was a white bastard

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++