'Perverse ways that endanger their innocence'

the children had been yelling 'stranger danger'

4-foot pie was 'crazy heavy‚' so the crew called in a CAT

An Overlooked Trump Cabinet Pick Could Upend The Left’s Grip On Power

'The public expects Legislators to meet a high standard of conduct'

'It’s all driven by the money'

At the start of the year‚ President Joe Biden announced an indefinite ban on liquified natural gas exports (LNG) out of supposed concern for the environment. The U.S.‚ however‚ is the leading producer of oil and natural gas and also the leading exporter of LNG. So‚ ironically‚ in pausing LNG exports in an effort to reduce emissions‚ the Biden administration—and the radical environmentalists who pushed for this ban—have cleared the way for another less environmentally conscious actor‚ like Russia‚ to take over U.S. market share. American energy leadership is not only good for our nation‚ but good for the global environment.  Rather than continue to wage war on American energy production and push unworkable regulations on everyday Americans‚ this Earth Day the Biden administration should do the environment a favor by unlocking domestic energy production so the U.S. can continue to be the world leader in responsibly producing oil and gas.  More than a half century ago‚ a grassroots movement celebrated the first Earth Day in order to raise awareness of the need to take better care of the environment and the abundant natural resources with which our nation is blessed. These pioneering environmentalists began a trend of reversing grim statistics about the state of the environment‚ so I imagine that they would be proud to learn that‚ over a 20-year period‚ total gross U.S. emissions decreased by 3%. What might shock them—and contemporary environmentalists—is that this was achieved while U.S. oil and gas production increased and reached historic levels.   In step with population growth and increased technology use‚ U.S. energy consumption has increased by 123% since 1960‚ but domestic energy production has kept pace—increasing by 140% since 1960. Since 2005 alone‚ U.S. energy production increased by 48%. This is significant since during the same period‚ net emissions decreased by 16.6%. Contrary to what many may believe and propagate‚ oil and gas production doesn’t necessarily result in increased emissions or harms to the environment.  Results like this are possible in the U.S.‚ but not guaranteed elsewhere. China’s carbon dioxide emissions‚ for example‚ increased by 93.9% since 2005. U.S. energy producers take great care to produce oil and gas in a clean and responsible fashion. American innovation has allowed them to discover new ways to produce more oil‚ but with less waste and pollution.  Many of our competitors in the energy market‚ like China and Russia‚ take the opposite approach and have little to no regard for the environment‚ emissions‚ or the impact on their citizens. So when the U.S. pulls back from a segment of the global energy market‚ as with Biden’s recent prohibition on LNG exports‚ less responsible‚ less environmentally conscious actors step in.  Instead‚ to really champion stewardship of the environment and our resources and lower emissions‚ the U.S. should be the global leader in energy production. Not only would this be good for the environment‚ but it would be good for our national security and our pocketbooks. A robust supply of domestic energy protects us from the whims of foreign states who may wish to withhold exports. And a less constrained market would drive down prices for U.S. consumers—something we all desperately need. When the U.S. leads‚ good things happen for our country and the world—and in this case‚ the environment. It is wishful thinking to suppose that simply limiting our own energy production will lead to lower emissions and a healthier environment. Rather‚ whatever market share we give up is then taken up by someone who almost certainly is less environmentally conscious in how they produce energy.  If we want to give the Earth a gift this Earth Day‚ we should build on our successes of the past two decades‚ which increased energy production while lowering emissions‚ and unlock domestic energy production so we can responsibly lead the world in energy production. The post To Celebrate Earth Day‚ Celebrate American Energy Leadership appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A dust storm of political madness is brewing in Phoenix as Grand Canyon University faces the continued threats of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona. Christians have watched as the Biden administration attacks biblical views left and right‚ with a particularly vehement disregard for the sanctity of life and marriage. As such‚ it can’t be too surprising that Cardona‚ a part of this leftist administration‚ has vowed to shut down America’s largest Christian university. In late October‚ Grand Canyon University was hit with “a $37.7 million fine brought by the federal government over allegations that it lied to students about the cost of its programs‚” The Associated Press reported—an accusation that GCU President Brian Mueller described as “ridiculous.” Around the same time‚ Liberty University‚ America’s second-largest Christian university‚ also was fined $37 million “over alleged underreporting of crimes.” Grand Canyon University appealed its fine in November even though a hearing is not expected until January 2025. But the question Mueller has is one of integrity. Is this genuine consideration for the well-being of students‚ or is this a targeted attack against religious institutions&;#63; “It’s interesting‚ isn’t it‚ that the two largest Christian universities in the country‚ this one and Liberty University‚ are both being fined almost the identical amount at almost the identical time&;#63;” GCU’s president speculated in a speech. “Now is there a cause and effect there&;#63; I don’t know. But it’s a fact.” The House Appropriations Committee held a hearing early this month about the Biden administration’s decision to “crack down on GCU and other universities like it.” During the proceedings‚ Cardona and Rep. Rosa DeLauro‚ D-Conn.‚ made their disapproval of Grand Canyon University and similar universities obvious. “[W]e are cracking down not only to shut them down‚ but to send a message to not prey on students‚” Cardona said. Supporters of GCU agree that the fine seems unprecedented and motivated by ideological bias. American Principles Project Policy Director Jon Schweppe said: “The federal government’s education agenda is punishing schools that do not conform to their progressive ideology. It’s time we take a stand against this egregious abuse of power.” Another conservative think tank‚ the Goldwater Institute‚ sued the Education Department for “refusing to turn over” public documents “that explain why” the agency fined GCU. The goal of the lawsuit is to unmask the reason behind the fine. “With its motto of ‘private‚ Christian‚ affordable’ and its track record of graduating students into high-demand and high-paying jobs‚ GCU is a success story by any metric. And it stands apart from universities across the country that are facing declining enrollment‚ that are indoctrinating students with radical politics‚ and that are under attack for failing to defend the First Amendment‚” the Goldwater Institute wrote. “So then why are the feds targeting GCU‚ a popular university that seems to be doing everything right&;#63; That’s exactly what we’re going to find out.” Although immense uncertainty still surrounds this case‚ Grand Canyon University’s president took the time to share with The Washington Stand how his staff‚ faculty‚ and students are fairing and how believers everywhere can help. Mueller emphasized that GCU has faced various issues over the years. But despite the government’s action‚ he said he wanted people to know that “interestingly enough … it has had zero impact on anything that we’re doing.” He continued: “The enrollments are just continuing to grow … [and] the morale is very high in terms of our faculty and staff. The campus is extremely vibrant. I mean‚ the students absolutely love this place. They’re extremely loyal to [the school] and so we just keep marching through it.” And although the fine that Grand Canyon University was dealt by the Education Department is “a problem‚” Mueller said‚ he is thankful that GCU remains optimistic. Christian “mission‚ not politics‚ is our motivation and it is our hope‚” he told The Washington Stand. As a university‚ Mueller explained‚ GCU exists to “pour into” the community around it. “[O]ur reach into the neighborhood and caring for disadvantaged populations has been a way to live out our faith” in a way “that has risen above … political divide‚” Mueller said. Ultimately‚ with support from “both sides of the aisle” in Arizona‚ he noted‚ “all the issues we have are with a very small number of people in Washington D.C.” “We encourage people to be involved politically and vote‚” Mueller said‚ adding: “But our faith will stand above the politics always‚ and our politics will never become our religion.” Because‚ for “many people in our country today‚ their politics have become their religion‚ and that’s when things … go really bad in our society‚” he said. Mueller pointed out that Grand Canyon University is “trying to be an example of a Christian community that can rise above those things and focus on helping people” through service‚ as Scripture calls believers to do. Mueller concluded with a request for prayer as the university works through these troubling times‚ and for “the hearts of certain people in Washington‚ D.C. to be softened.” He added that “it’s hard to make progress and resolve differences when people just … don’t want to talk to each other.” Published originally by The Washington Stand The post Largest Christian University in America Gets Fined $37 Million. Coincidence or Targeted Attack&;#63; appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument Monday in the case of City of Grants Pass v. Johnson‚ which raises the issue of how states and localities may deal with the problem of homelessness. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that it violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment for a city (in this case‚ Grants Pass‚ Oregon) to fine someone for sleeping on public property if no bed is available at a secular shelter. After Monday’s argument‚ it seems likely that the high court will reverse the lower court’s decision. In its ruling‚ the 9th Circuit relied on two Supreme Court decisions: Robinson v. California‚ which held that a state can’t criminalize the status of being a narcotics addict‚ and Powell v. Texas‚ which held that a state may outlaw being drunk in public. The 9th Circuit read those decisions as prohibiting the government from making it a crime to engage in involuntary conduct and concluded that succumbing to sleep is about as involuntary an act as anyone can undertake. Homelessness is a serious national problem. Sometimes it is caused by a transient economic misfortune that is not the fault of the displaced individual‚ such as losing a job because an employer’s business closed. On other occasions‚ homelessness results from the inability to hold a job because of poor life choices‚ such as abusing controlled substances. In each instance‚ a party might be forced out of his home because he no longer can pay his rent or mortgage‚ but the nature of the reason is quite different. Moreover‚ there is a material difference between one or two isolated homeless parties and an entire encampment of homeless individuals. Both scenarios pose risks to third parties‚ but the latter is far worse. The difference is like the difference between a sprinkle of rain and a monsoon. How to address the problem of homelessness arouses passion on each side. Advocates for the homeless argue that the government has a legal and moral obligation to ensure that everyone has a decent place to live‚ which means that the state must allow the homeless to sleep on public property if no other space is available. Citizens argue that they‚ too‚ are entitled to a decent place to live‚ and the government must be able to protect the quality of life they enjoy in urban‚ suburban‚ or rural neighborhoods against the drug use‚ crime‚ and squalor surrounding homeless encampments. Local governments are caught in the middle. They must prioritize how to spend limited funds while trying to satisfy the competing needs of local constituencies. Unfortunately‚ the 9th Circuit short-circuited the legislative process by making up—yes‚ I meant exactly that; the court willfully made it up—a constitutional right for the homeless to sleep in a public park if no public or private nonsectarian beds are available. That quite astonishing ruling attracted the attention of the Supreme Court‚ which agreed to hear the case. Dozens of parties filed amicus briefs in the Grants Pass case on one side or the other. Three parties argued in the Supreme Court. Theana Evangelis argued on behalf of the city of Grants Pass‚ contending that the 9th Circuit misread the Eighth Amendment. Edwin Kneedler‚ a seasoned veteran in the Justice Department’s Office of the Solicitor General‚ argued on behalf of the United States. Kelsi Brown Corkran argued on behalf of the plaintiff class of homeless people. Oral argument lasted for two and a half hours‚ so the justices and lawyers covered a great deal of ground. Evangelis argued that the 9th Circuit had “constitutionalized” the responses of local governments that were trying to deal with a thorny public policy issue‚ adding that the appeals court had “tied the city’s hand.”  She seemed afraid to follow this argument to its logical conclusion‚ however.  Evangelis could have responded “Yes” to hypothetical questions such as: “Could the city make it a crime to be homeless‚ even if all that someone did was to stand at a bus stop&;#63;” Or “Could the city make it a crime to eat in public‚ because someone could not afford to eat in a restaurant&;#63;” After all‚ the Eighth Amendment was adopted when there were only 13 states bundled along the Eastern Seaboard. At the time‚ there was a vast unknown amount of westward space for someone to try to make a living off the land. No one imagined that the government had the responsibility to provide shelter for anyone. While Evangelis’ arguments could have been stronger‚ especially in the face of tough questions from the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices‚ several of the other six justices appeared to be on her side. Justice Brett Kavanaugh‚ for instance‚ expressed a desire to “avoid the need for having to constitutionalize an area and have a federal judge superintend this rather than the local community.”  And Chief Justice John Roberts rightfully noted that “municipalities have competing priorities‚” wondering: “Why would you think that these nine people [himself and the other eight justices] are the best people to judge and weigh those policy judgments&;#63;” Kneedler tried to refocus the justices’ attention by claiming that Grants Pass effectively sought to banish people from its jurisdiction but arguing that cities such as Grants Pass should have some flexibility in implementing reasonable restrictions on time‚ place‚ and manner to address homelessness. Several justices‚ most notably Justice Neil Gorsuch‚ appeared skeptical. They expressed concern that if the court were to adopt Kneedler’s position‚ local governments couldn’t effectively address the problem of dealing with mentally ill persons or drug addicts‚ particularly those who refuse to enter shelters‚ or for that matter the problem of public defecation. At the end of the day‚ Kneedler likely did not change many minds. Appearing last‚ Corkran argued that the Grants Pass ordinance is indistinguishable from one that makes it a crime to be homeless‚ because everyone must fall asleep eventually and a homeless person can’t do so in Grants Pass without being cited for violating the law. The result‚ she said‚ is that Grants Pass imposes a “24/7 citywide sleeping ban that forces its homeless residents to either move to another jurisdiction or face endless punishment.” Corkran and Roberts batted around answers to the question of whether “homelessness” is a “status” because it can be changed by giving someone a place to sleep. She said that it was‚ but Roberts expressed the view that being a homeless person was no more a “status” than being a bank robber because conduct is involved. Corkran doggedly adhered to her basic position and avoided being caught in logic traps. Nonetheless‚ she also probably did not win any votes from justices that she didn’t already have. At the end of the day‚ a clear majority of the nine Supreme Court justices seemed unwilling to embrace the 9th Circuit’s broad ruling that the Eighth Amendment effectively required localities to find a place for the homeless to stay. The high court will have to work out exactly what its opinion will say‚ and what its rationale will be‚ during the time remaining in the October 2023 term. The post Be It Ever So Humble … : Supreme Court to Decide If City May Ban Sleeping in Public appeared first on The Daily Signal.

'This Isn't a Tinder Date.' You Don't Have to Like Trump to Vote For Him