Although the human population officially reached 8 billion a little over a year ago‚ its growth rate is the slowest it’s been since 1950‚ dropping under 1 percent back in 2020. Some have even predicted this might be a sign of an impending decline in the global population. Whilst there’s no guarantee of this on a global scale‚ United Nations (UN) projections suggest that the populations of 61 countries will decrease by 1 percent or more by 2050. But what would cause such a decline and what could the consequences be?Falling fertility ratesPopulations can grow or decline for many reasons – migration‚ medical advances and disease affecting mortality‚ for example – but arguably‚ one of the most important is the global fertility rate. On average‚ people are having fewer babies; according to the 2022 edition of World Population Prospects‚ an annual report of UN population estimates and projections‚ two-thirds of us humans live in a country or area where lifetime fertility is below 2.1 births per woman. That’s below what’s known as replacement fertility – in theory‚ keeping a population stable by every two people having two children to replace them. Although it’s projected that this decline will have a limited effect on the global population between now and 2050‚ these things can eventually add up.“The cumulative effect of lower fertility‚ if maintained over several decades‚ could be a more substantial deceleration of global population growth in the second half of the century‚” explained John Wilmoth‚ director of the population division of the UN’s department of economic and social affairs‚ in a statement.Are the consequences positive or negative?The consequences of falling fertility rates‚ combined with an increase in life expectancy‚ may not only lead to a declining population‚ but also an aging one. Back in 2018‚ globally‚ people aged 65 or above outnumbered those aged under five for the first time in history‚ and this gap is expected to continue widening.Fewer people around and a greater proportion of them being elderly might present many problems – although some older people can be just as healthy as those decades younger than them‚ it’s still important to consider some of the potential negative consequences. This could include fewer people in the workforce (depending on retirement age)‚ increased demand on healthcare and welfare systems‚ and the economic impact of both.The UN has suggested that “countries with ageing populations should take steps to adapt public programmes to the growing numbers of older persons‚ including by establishing universal health care and long-term care systems and by improving the sustainability of social security and pension systems.”Others have focused less on aging and more on the possibility that with fewer people around‚ there could also be a reduction “in the flow of new ideas”‚ with a stagnation of knowledge and living standards. Not only would that have a knock-on impact on the economy‚ it also just doesn’t sound very fun.Some‚ however‚ have argued that a global population decline may actually be a sign of something good happening. Wang Feng‚ a professor of sociology at University of California‚ Irvine‚ wrote in the New York Times that in countries with population decline‚ there have also been increases in education and employment‚ as well as more reproductive freedom and professional opportunities for women. Whilst acknowledging the potential challenges of a declining global population‚ Feng argues that it is an inevitability and that‚ rather than trying to stop or reverse it‚ it’s an opportunity to “embrace it and adapt.”Only time will tell which‚ if any‚ of the above predictions and arguments will stand true. All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current. 

A nightclub in London‚ UK‚ has been fined after accidentally serving tequila shots with caustic soda instead of salt.On 7 December 2021‚ four customers at Tiger Tiger nightclub asked for tequila shots‚ traditionally served with salt and lime. The barman noticed there was no salt and‚ according to the Westminster City Council‚ went to an unlit area behind the bar and scooped what he thought was salt into a cup from a white container on a shelf. "The customers then poured the white substance onto the back of their hands‚ licked it and drank the shot‚" Westminster City Council explains. "At this point‚ the bartender realised something was wrong as the customers immediately became unwell. After tasting the substance for himself it burnt his mouth and tongue and immediately realised that it wasn’t salt."The customers were taken to hospital‚ suffering from vomiting and burns in their mouths. Technically‚ caustic soda is a salt‚ it's just not the type of salt you want to use to slam tequilas. You may know it by the name sodium hydroxide (NaOH)‚ or "lye"‚ as featured in the below scene from Fight Club.    The alkali salt is generally used for cleaning purposes. Contact with it can cause "severe burns to the eyes‚ skin‚ digestive system or lungs‚ resulting in permanent damage or death" according to the Tennessee Department of Health. These burns can be particularly nasty‚ even in comparison to acid burns."Most acids produce a coagulative necrosis by denaturing proteins‚ forming a coagulum (i.e. eschar) that limits the penetration of the acid‚" one case report of an alkali burn explains. "By contrast‚ alkali typically produces a more severe injury known as liquefactive necrosis. This involves the denaturing of proteins as well as saponification of adipose tissue‚ which does not limit tissue penetration. Alkalis cause deeper burns as they continue to penetrate the skin following initial contact."The nightclub has now been charged under the Health and Safety at Work act‚ and fined £120‚000.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman‚ a master in the art of being perpetually wrong‚ stayed true to form by making the ludicrous claim that 2023 was a stellar year for the U.S. economy under President Joe Biden.   Krugman brazenly claimed in a Dec. 18 column that “2023 will go down in the record books as one of the best years ever” from an “economic standpoint.” Yes‚ you read that right.  Krugman continued to spew nonsense by characterizing 2023 as a “year in which inflation came down amazingly fast at no visible cost‚ defying the predictions of many economists that disinflation would require years of high unemployment.” This is misleading. Inflation hasn’t come “down” as Krugman’s choice of words implies. “Disinflation” means prices are still increasing at a slower rate‚ and they’re over 17.6 percent higher than when Biden first took office.  How Krugman could claim “no visible cost” is absurd in light of issues like‚ for example‚ the New York Post’s recent report that mortgage payments alone have spiked 90 percent under Biden amidst the Federal Reserve’s drastic rate hikes. Not only that‚ but the interest rates on retail credit are also taking a record bite out of Americans’ wallets. The Post summarized that “aspiring buyers are confronted with one of the most unaffordable markets in recent memory.”  Krugman also absurdly complained about how Biden hasn’t been praised enough for his illusory economic successes. However‚ as much as rich media talking heads like Krugman are doing their utmost to gaslight people into believing that everything is fine and dandy‚ reality isn’t going along for the ride. Along with the insanely high prices and record credit card debt‚ new monthly home payments are reportedly almost double what they were at the beginning of Biden’s term‚ and 70 percent of Americans reported that they are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Further‚ economists such as Harry Dent predict that current state of the market in particular is just a massive “everything bubble.” When that bubble pops‚ Dent told Fox Business that “2024 is going to be the biggest single crash year we'll see in our lifetimes.”  Economists Steven Hanke and John Greenwood also wrote in a Dec. 13 National Review piece that the economy was effectively running on “fumes” based on the drastic drop in the money supply. Both economists analyzed that this all pointed to a recession: “[T]he U.S. economy is on schedule to tank in 2024.”  These problems still hit everyday Americans hard and do not spell a thriving economy like the one Krugman is desperately trying to convince them exists. “So far‚ at least‚ the public seems unwilling to believe the good news or to give the Biden administration any credit‚” he wrote. Public opinion clearly reflects the effects of these problems. According to a Fox News poll‚ 78 percent of registered voters believe that the economy is in “bad shape” and will get worse. Krugman also went after economists who he claimed got their inflation predictions wrong. Krugman has apparently forgotten that he is high on the list of economists to “beware” because of his vehement inaccuracy when it came to his “transitory” inflation predictions that took him months to admit he was wrong in 2022. What’s ironic is that Krugman reneged on his 2022 mea culpa in his latest op-ed by claiming that “transitory” apologists like himself who admitted they were “wrong” were somehow still right‚ committing the very offense he accused others of doing. His excuse was that “‘transitory’ ended up meaning years rather than months‚” which literally makes no logical sense. His headline‚ “Beware Economists Who Won’t Admit They Were Wrong‚” speaks for itself.  Krugman is notorious for ridiculously predicting positive economic outcomes under Biden‚  before moving the goalposts when his predictions inevitably go wrong. He’s in no position to be lecturing anybody about the virtue of admitting that they messed up. Conservatives are under attack. Contact The New York Times at 800-698-4637 and demand that it distance itself from Krugman’s hypocrisy and radical leftist activism.  

If there was one talking head you might have expected to be ecstatic over the Colorado Supreme Court ruling barring  Donald Trump from the GOP primary ballot under the terms of the 14th Amendment‚ it would be Joe Scarborough. After all‚ Scarborough has led the liberal-media attack on Trump‚ incessantly labeling him a fascist‚ and claiming that if elected he will "execute" as many opponents as possible and end democracy in America. So it was surprising‚ to say the least‚ to witness Scarborough expressing doubts on today's Morning Joe about the Colorado decision. As he put it to George Conway: "14th Amendment talks about someone who's committed insurrection against the United States Constitution. Who is the finder of fact of that? People on cable news‚ judges in Colorado‚ or does it need to be a jury in Washington D.C.?" Scarborough's skepticism was obvious in wondering whether the decision should be up to "people on cable news" [such as himself!]‚ or judges in a far-flung state. Or as he put it to David Frum‚ even more skeptically‚ whether "judges [should] randomly decide that he's an insurrectionist‚ or people on cable news shows decide he's an insurrectionist‚ or does he actually have to be convicted of insurrection by‚ by federal prosecutors? Frum dodged Scarborough's question.  Scarborough's skepticism elicited a wry smile from Conway. But the co-founder of the disgraced Lincoln Project unequivocally argued that a conviction on charges of insurrection is not a prerequisite to barring a candidate from office. He noted that it would have been easy for the drafters of the 14th Amendment to have written that anyone "convicted" of insurrection should be barred‚ but that the Amendment includes no such language. While MSNBC routinely claims there's "no evidence" of Joe Biden's wrongdoing‚ Conway insisted there is "very very very strong evidence" Trump's an insurrectionist‚ based on a Colorado judge that rejected removing Trump from the ballot in November. Mara Gay of the New York Times editorial board made the befuddling claim that Trump's primary opponents‚ in saying that voters rather than courts should decide‚ were somehow aligning themselves with members of the Confederacy after the Civil War.  Whatever. Scarborough began the show by touting "conservatives" like David French and former judge J. Michael Luttig arguing against Trump as they routinely do. He touted "two members of the Federalist Society" pushing this view of the 14th Amendment who have been the toast of the Left since August.  PS: There was what the late Don Imus would have described as a "tension convention" between Scarborough and his wife and co-host Mika Brzezinski on the set this morning. First‚ Scarborough only grudgingly agreed‚ at Mika's insistence‚ to display Asa Hutchinson's statement on the Colorado ruling.  A bit later‚ as he began to put his question to Frum‚ Scarborough snapped at Mika: "you don't have to dart your eyes around. You don't have to dart your eyes around." Wishing the Scarborough-Brzezinski household a very Merry Christmas! Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 12/20/23 6:15 am ET JOE SCARBOROUGH: Mara Gay‚ what do you‚ what do you say to the‚to the Republican candidates' argument that this should be -- the voters should have the say‚ and not the courts? MARA GAY: Why are you standing with Confederates who betrayed this country? And this is what they're standing with‚ is the spirit of those Confederates rather than the Americans who came together after a long and brutal Civil War that was fought to keep the Union together. And saw‚ clearly saw a threat in ex-Confederates running for office. So much so that they amended the Constitution to prevent those traitors from running for office. That should send a message that our election system‚ our electoral system‚ can be used for nefarious purposes against the democracy itself. It's clear‚ clear as day. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. So David‚ David Frum‚ so the question is‚ who is the finder of fact that Donald Trump committed insurrection? We‚ we of course‚ all believe it. I said -- okay‚ Mika‚ you don't have to dart your eyes around. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I was like -- SCARBOROUGH: You don't have to dart your eyes around. I said on January the seventh Donald Trump should be arrested and‚ and tried and sent to jail. But the question is‚ under the law‚ due process under the law‚ do judges randomly decide that he's an insurrectionist‚ or people on cable news shows decide he's an insurrectionist‚ or does he actually have to be convicted of insurrection by‚ by federal prosecutors? DAVID FRUM: These‚ these Republican candidates are all willing to fight for the silver medal. They're all willing to fight each other. But hey will not stand up to Donald Trump. They're too scared to fight‚ and therefore they are too weak to win. . . .  SCARBOROUGH: So George Conway‚ let me ask you. 14th Amendment talks about someone who's committed insurrection against the United States Constitution. Who is the finder of fact of that? People on cable news? Judges in Colorado? Or does it need to be a jury in Washington‚ D.C. that is hearing a case on whether Donald Trump committed insurrection against the United States Constitution? GEORGE CONWAY: Well‚ as a good‚ long-time member of the Federalist Society‚ you have to look at the text of the‚ of the constitutional provision.  And the constitutional provision says nothing about convictions. They could have easily‚ when they wrote that provision‚ said‚ someone convicted of insurrection cannot be held‚ cannot hold public office. It does not say that. And so what that means is‚ the courts are free to determine on their own‚ you know‚ based upon the valid judicial processes‚ And what happened here was‚ there was a five-day trial where Donald Trump got‚ his lawyers got to participate‚ and the judge made extensive findings -- a judge that actually kind of ruled for him on a bogus ground‚ found that he engaged in insurrection. Found this by not just a preponderance of the evidence‚ which is your lower‚ your lower basic civil court standard‚ but by clear and convincing evidence. Which means that it's way more than‚ you know‚ more likely than not. It's very‚ very‚ very strong evidence. And you don't see the dissents challenging those findings at all.

You better watch out‚ you better not try‚ to voice your own thoughts‚ Big Tech is telling you why … you can’t have free speech online.  While most Americans are celebrating Christmas and the coming new year‚ there’s not much to celebrate when it comes to Big Tech’s handling of free speech. Big Tech companies‚ especially Google‚ have been hard at work making their list‚ checking it twice and censoring anyone they think is naughty — or even nice. In fact‚ America hasn’t even moved beyond the presidential primary season‚ and already Big Tech has interfered extensively in the 2024 election through online censorship and search suppression. From election-interfering censorship at Google to TikTok removing video content on the Israel-Hamas conflict and from Meta platforms silencing climate change critiques to Twitter (and now X) censoring “transgeder” criticism and suppressing posts using Community Notes‚ MRC lists its WORST censors for 2023 based on reporting and data found in MRC’s exclusive CensorTrack.org database. (1) Google is 2023’s WORST censor‚ having engaged in alarming election-interfering censorship.  A new MRC Free Speech America study showed that Big Tech manipulated the message‚ and/or suppressed the campaign website‚ of 23 of the 2024 presidential candidates at least once. Google and Google-owned YouTube accounted for 92 percent of the censorship cases in that study. MRC researchers recorded a total of 169 cases of censorship against the 2024 presidential primary candidates to date in MRC’s exclusive CensorTrack.org database and 149 of those cases came from Google and YouTube.  Social media companies especially targeted and harmed opponents of incumbent Democrat President Joe Biden. For instance‚ before all four of the Republican presidential primary debates‚ Google's search engine favored Biden and buried his opponents in searches conducted by MRC Free Speech America one week prior to the Republican presidential primary debate(s). In each of those pre-debate studies‚ Google never presented Donald Trump’s website in searches for “Republican presidential campaign websites.” But it was not just Google’s search that was problematic. Google’s AI chatbot Bard also got in on the presidential censorship action‚ silencing Biden’s opponents ahead of the second Republican presidential primary debate.  MRC Vice President Dan Schneider also found that Bard hid important information about Israel and Hamas. When he asked Bard “What is Hamas?” the platform claimed it couldn’t answer. “I’m a text-based AI‚ and that is outside of my capabilities‚” Bard claimed. When asked “Is Hamas a terrorist organization?” Bard similarly took the cop-out response. “I’m just a language model‚ so I can’t help you with that‚” it replied. Google’s AI tool had no issues giving detailed responses about other violent and terrorist groups like the Irish Republican Army‚ Antifa and ISIS. The chatbot similarly claimed it doesn’t “have the ability to process and understand” when asked “What is the capital of Israel?” Yet without missing a beat‚ Google’s Bard could identify all four countries bordering Israel. (2) Communist Chinese government-tied TikTok goes on censorship spree during Israel-Hamas conflict. In October‚ Communist Chinese government-tied TikTok proudly announced its extensive censorship in partnership with fact checkers “during the ongoing Hamas-Israel war.” The popular app bragged that it had already removed some 500‚000 videos related to the conflict‚ and detailed various measures to crush speech—or alleged “harmful misinformation”—even more. Its efforts included a partnership with so-called fact-checkers connected to Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Poynter has received funding from groups tied to leftist billionaires including: George Soros‚ Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates‚ and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. The CCP has sided with the Palestinians in the current conflict‚ and TikTok users have reported seeing a bias against Israel. For example‚ Actor Nate Buzolic told Fox News that TikTok censored him for posting about Hamas’s atrocities in Israel and Gaza. “[T]hese are groups of people who know that the battle that's being fought on the ground in Israel is also an information war‚” Buzolic said. He told Fox News that communist Chinese government-tied TikTok removed a video he shared of a child being kidnapped in Gaza‚ accusing him of spreading “false information.” TikTok’s announcement came soon after Buzolic made the allegations public. (3) Twitter censors tried to stamp out speech running counter to the left’s narrative on “transgenderism.” Big Tech censors have had it out for anyone who would run afoul of the left’s narrative on “transgenderism.” An MRC study showed that censorship was shockingly on the rise on Twitter following Elon Musk’s takeover of the platform. That was never more clear than when Twitter censored numerous posts exposing the alleged “Trans Day of Vengeance” protest and when The Daily Wire released its “What Is a Woman?” documentary. The Daily Wire released the “What Is a Woman?” documentary for free for 24 hours on Twitter. The day that the video was supposed to stream‚ The Daily Wire co-CEO Jeremy Boering announced that Twitter backed out of its deal. He said the platform “would no longer provide us any support and would actually limit the reach of the film and label it as 'hateful conduct' because of 'misgendering'" found in two clips in the movie. Walsh later tweeted those two clips‚ which Twitter also restricted for alleged “hateful conduct.” Twitter’s former head of Trust and Safety Ella Irwin insisted that the video still violated Twitter’s Hateful Conduct policy‚ but Musk said in a tweet that “This was a mistake by many people at Twitter. It is definitely allowed.”  But not long after the release of MRC’s study‚ MRC researchers found evidence to show that Musk’s moves to make Twitter more of a free speech platform have been successful despite attempts by his disgruntled anti-free speech employees to thwart him. The shift came after the platform changed its “deadnaming” and “misgendering” policy on April 18‚ and following several staff resignations‚ including Trust and Safety chief Ella Irwin’s departure on June 1. (4) Meta platforms (Instagram and Facebook) targeted critics of the left’s climate change agenda. Both Instagram and Facebook have been out in force‚ policing posts that undercut its preferred narrative on climate science. In one glaring example‚ Facebook censored Climate Change Dispatch‚ a forum and news site that works to stir discussion and challenge the climate change narrative‚ in January. This singular case highlights Facebook’s ongoing effort to enforce climate alarmist dogma by censoring those who challenge it. A user reported receiving a warning from Facebook when he attempted to share a Climate Change Dispatch post. "This Page has repeatedly shared false information. Independent fact-checkers said the information is false‚" the warning read. Facebook required users to click through the pop-up warning in order to share the post. Climate Change Dispatch later put out a statement responding to the censorship‚ saying‚ "This has been a coordinated attack by outside groups to ban my site and get me booted. They (FB) apparently learned nothing from the Twitter files." MRC Free Speech America independently verified the censorship‚ finding a warning appeared with every click of the “share” button on Climate Change Dispatch's Facebook account. Meta’s Instagram has also tried to enforce the left’s climate dogma. The Chris Plante show posted on Instagram‚ “Pretending to solve problems while making things worse is a Democrat specialty!” The post had a meme of a man charging his electric car‚ with the text‚ "Coal fired electric cars. Helping liberals pretend they're solving a make believe crisis." Instagram slapped a fact-check label underneath the post‚ claiming‚ "Partly False Information. The same information was reviewed by independent fact-checkers in another post." Clicking on the label brought up yet another disparaging message: "Partly False. The same partly false information was reviewed in another post by fact-checkers. There may be small differences. Independent fact-checkers say this information has some factual inaccuracies. Fact-Checker: AFP United States. Conclusion: Partly False." Instagram’s pop-up also linked to the fact-check article‚ which it referenced.  (5) X’s Community Notes constitute censorship by another name. X (formerly Twitter) Community Notes claim to provide well-researched fact checks and analysis of posts created by users across the political spectrum. But even crowdsourced fact checks can be wrong‚ and they do represent censorship of users. As contributing writer David Marcus put it in a piece for MRC Free Speech America‚ Community Notes is censorship by another name.  For example‚ when pro-life organization Live Action tweeted out photos and an article about 7- and 8-week-old unborn babies‚ with the back stories of the two tiny humans (Riley and Annabelle)‚ Twitter’s Community Notes users attempted to discredit the photos. The link that the note provided only confirmed what Live Action presented and did not debunk the image at all. Community Notes claim that a post is “missing context‚” but clearly this is a subjective claim. “Missing context” warning labels can delegitimize a post and the need for more context can be based on nothing but a Community Notes fact-checker’s personal opinions‚ rather than actual factual inaccuracies. It is key to note that X chooses who is allowed to write Community Notes and whether or not a post can receive a note‚ meaning that it is still a platform fact-checking system rather than the community-sourced effort that X implies. In October‚ Musk announced that posts with Community Notes labels would be demonetized‚ making the anti-free speech nature of the notes even more obvious.

These super easy coconut macaroons are so good and a great addition to any gathering. Perfect for afternoon coffee or tea. If you love easy and delicious recipes‚ you will want to check out these delicious Southern Pecan Pralines. They are a classic for a reason and go great with these coconut macaroons. Only a...

Iconoclasts in the previous Democrat-controlled 116th Congress and the Biden Department of Defense are getting exactly what they wanted: the toppling of the Jewish American-designed Reconciliation Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery. While Judge Rossie David Alston Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia temporarily halted the plan to dismantle the 109-year-old monument‚ he reversed course Tuesday‚ giving the go-ahead for the Christmastime toppling. What's the background? The group Defend Arlington‚ affiliated with Save Southern Heritage Florida‚ unsuccessfully sued in the District of Columbia last month accusing the Army‚ which oversees the cemetery‚ of violating regulations in an effort to rush the process and get the monument down by January. There is an apparent need to expedite the process‚ given the deadline set for the Pentagon by the Democrat-controlled 116th Congress in its National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021. Per section 370 of the NDAA‚ virtually all military assets even remotely linked to the Confederacy are to be removed by Jan. 1‚ 2024. After the D.C. federal court dismissed the heritage group's lawsuit‚ Defend Arlington tried once more in Virginia. Contrary to claims made by the cemetery‚ their lawsuit alleged‚ "The removal will desecrate‚ damage‚ and likely destroy the Memorial longstanding at ANC as a grave marker and impede the Memorial's eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places." Judge Alston granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order‚ expressing concern over the possibility that neighboring grave sites might be disturbed. He hedged by stating‚ "Should the representations in this case be untrue or exaggerated the Court may take appropriate sanctions." The cemetery indicated Monday that the Army had begun "disassembly of the monument atop the Confederate Memorial prior to the court issuing the temporary restraining order‚" but would comply with the order and halt further work. — (@) A vacant plinth for Christmas Prior to Tuesday's hearing‚ Alston toured the cemetery and inspected the site‚ reported the Associated Press. "I saw no desecration of any graves‚" said Alston. "The grass wasn't even disturbed." The Trump-nominated judge subsequently issued an 18-page ruling Tuesday evening lifting the restraining order. Alston indicated the plaintiff's allegations about the removal efforts‚ specifically the suggestion that graves were being disturbed‚ "were‚ at best‚ ill-informed and‚ at worse‚ inaccurate." During the hearing‚ Alston also questioned Defend Arlington lawyers' claims about the nature of the monument‚ stating "a slave running after his 'massa' as he walks down the road. What is reconciling about that?" reported Politico. John Rowley‚ a lawyer for Defend Arlington‚ said in a statement obtained by the New York Times‚ "While we respect the Court’s decision‚ we continue to believe the evidence shows that in its haste to remove the Reconciliation Memorial‚ the DoD failed to conduct the reviews mandated by law regarding historic preservation and environmental impacts." Kerry L. Meeker‚ a spokeswoman for the cemetery‚ told the Times in a statement that the iconoclasm would resume immediately and would be completed by Friday. "While the work is performed‚ surrounding graves‚ headstones and the landscape will be carefully protected by a dedicated team‚ preserving the sanctity of all those laid to rest‚" said Meeker. The monument‚ designed by Moses Jacob Ezekiel‚ a Confederate veteran and the first Jewish graduate of Virginia Military Institute‚ will be thrown into storage "until the final disposition has been determined." Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) previously indicated he intends to move the memorial to the New Market Battlefield State Historic Park in the Shenandoah Valley. The Reconciliation Monument was approved in 1906 by Secretary of War William Taft; commissioned by the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1910; designed by Ezekiel; and unveiled in Section 16 of the cemetery by President Woodrow Wilson on June 4‚ 1914. Both those supportive of and those opposed to the monument's original construction understood it to be signal reconciliation in the aftermath of the Civil War. The monument‚ at least as it stood Tuesday‚ consists of a bronze female figure crowned with olive leaves atop a 32-foot pedestal. The female figure holds a laurel wreath‚ a pruning hook‚ and a plow. At her feet is a biblical inscription that reads‚ "They have beat their swords into plough-shares and their spears into pruning hooks." Defend Arlington noted in a Meta post‚ "We are disappointed that American's [sic] had another breach in upholding the rule of law today. Hon. Rossie David Alston‚ Jr. visited Arlington National Cemetery ex-parte. We expect the crane is moving over the top of Ezekiel's grave this moment." Controlling the past If the past three years provide any indication‚ the removal of the Reconciliation Monument will not placate the left's desire to erase and revise history. Since the ruinous 2020 BLM riots kicked off‚ statues of former U.S. presidents including George Washington‚ Ulysses Grant‚ and Theodore Roosevelt have been torn down by leftists‚ both the kind empowered by politicians and the kind empowered by voters. Statues of Christopher Columbus were officially removed‚ toppled‚ or vandalized nationwide‚ as were hundreds of other statues commemorating consequential historic figures. Apolitical statues such as the World War I memorial in Birmingham‚ Alabama‚ and the statue of Polish hero Thaddeus Kosciuszko were afforded no exemption. There appear to be incentives for iconoclasts to stay the course. For instance‚ vandals who destroyed the Sacramento statue of a historic Catholic missionary were rewarded last month with a substitute palatable to those antipathetic to the region's Christian heritage. Efforts to sever the present from the past have gone far beyond statues. Blaze News recently reported that the American Ornithological Society announced on Nov. 1 that it will begin changing the names of 70-80 birds currently named after people next year. "There is power in a name‚ and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today‚" said AOS president Colleen Handel‚ a biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska. Biden Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland similarly has been scrubbing place names across the country that include the Algonquin word for woman‚ as it had been deemed derogatory by activist groups. Ezekial's erasure wasn't the first and will not be the last under the current administration. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

On Tuesday‚ the Internal Revenue Service announced that it plans to waive $1 billion in penalty fees for individuals and businesses owing back taxes for the tax years 2020 and 2021.The IRS called it "a major step to help people who owe back taxes‚" according to a Tuesday press release.The failure-to-pay penalty relief will impact roughly 4.7 million individuals‚ businesses‚ and tax-exempt organizations that did not receive collection reminders during the COVID-19 lockdown. During that time‚ the agency suspended mailing automated notices for overdue taxes. Despite pausing the reminders‚ the penalties for failing to pay continued to accrue."It was an extraordinary time and the IRS had to take extraordinary steps‚" IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said‚ the New York Post reported. "People need to know the IRS is on their side."The IRS noted that most of those receiving the relief make under $400‚000 annually."As a first step‚ the IRS has adjusted eligible individual accounts and will follow with adjustments to business accounts in late December to early January‚ and then trusts‚ estates and tax-exempt organizations in late February to early March 2024. Nearly 70 percent of the individual taxpayers receiving penalty relief have income under $100‚000 per year‚" the agency's press release explained.Eligible taxpayers include those who filed a Form 1040‚ 1041‚ 1120 series‚ or Form 990-T tax return for 2020 or 2021‚ owe less than $100‚000‚ and received an initial collection notice between February 5‚ 2022‚ and December 7‚ 2022."The failure-to-pay penalty will resume on April 1‚ 2024‚ for taxpayers eligible for relief‚" the IRS noted.Taxpayers‚ businesses‚ and nonprofit organizations that are eligible will automatically receive penalty relief‚ and no action is required. Individuals who are eligible and already paid the penalties will see the total balance returned to them.Werfel stated‚ "As the IRS has been preparing to return to normal collection mailings‚ we have been concerned about taxpayers who haven't heard from us in a while suddenly getting a larger tax bill. The IRS should be looking out for taxpayers‚ and this penalty relief is a common-sense approach to help people in this situation.""We are taking other steps to help taxpayers with past-due bills‚ and we have options to help people struggling to pay‚" Werfel added.Approximately 18.6 million taxpayers owed the IRS $316 billion in back taxes as of 2022‚ the Wall Street Journal reported. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Every society organizes itself around an idea of the sacred. This may sound silly to contemporary ears‚ but it continues to be true even if modern people have convinced themselves they are too advanced to indulge in such primitive notions. Statues are monuments designed to inspire reverence‚ and the kind of statues that a civilization erects‚ tolerates‚ or destroys tells you a lot about the character and values of the people. Leftists are perfectly aware of this‚ which is why they have made the destruction and replacement of statues a central part of their cultural revolution. Activists started with statues of Confederate generals to test the waters‚ and it worked. Police largely stood by for the destruction‚ and many conservative commentators even ran rhetorical cover for the iconoclasm by claiming that Confederate statues belong in museums or private collections‚ not on public display. A nation is defined by what it holds sacred‚ and nothing is a better indicator of what a nation holds sacred than its statues. Progressive mobs moved predictably to statues of slaveholders‚ then to anyone remotely connected to slavery‚ then eventually dropped any pretense and simply started removing everyone from Founding Fathers to Abraham Lincoln. Progressives may mock the notion of the sacred‚ but they certainly understand the necessity of destroying it. Nothing exemplifies Christmas in modern America quite like a satanic altar being displayed inside the Iowa Capitol. The enemies of tradition never miss an opportunity to desecrate public spaces‚ so the local Satanic Temple decided to erect a statue of Baphomet in the capital by exploiting the notion of religious expression. Predictably‚ Republican politicians behaved like mewling cowards‚ refusing to remove the statue. Filled with disgust at the cravenness of elected leaders‚ former U.S. Navy aviator Michael Cassidy decided to act‚ beheading the blasphemous statue and leaving the display in ruins. Religious liberty rightly understood One would expect that support for the measures taken by Cassidy would fall along partisan lines‚ but instead‚ many conservative leaders decided to take the opportunity to lecture Cassidy and other Christians about the First Amendment and the rule of law. Iowa state Rep. Jon Dunwell (R) even made a post on X praising the pluralism and tolerance that made the satanic display possible while warning against the real danger in the United States: Christian nationalism. It is astonishing and more than a little bit depressing how reliably conservative leaders will adopt the progressive distortion of founding principles and promote it as their own. Any civilization must prefer its own culture and history to survive‚ and the United States has been a protestant Christian nation since its inception. That does not mean that some of the other great religions could not be practiced‚ but Christianity was always given a place of public primacy. Satanism is not a long-standing faith tradition seeking to commune with the holy. It is a bunch of Reddit atheists being tricked into worshipping evil because they think they are too clever to be fooled by spiritual claptrap. Religious liberty exists to protect a sincere pursuit of the divine‚ not the pathetic trolling of sad and lonely atheists. It most certainly does not exist to protect literal monuments to evil inside the state capitol. Neither constitutional conservatism nor Christianity requires the toleration of a satanic altar. The fact that so many leaders would entertain the idea speaks to how vulnerable the right is to legalism.Some of this hyperbolic reaction can be attributed to how progressives have managed to turn Christian nationalism into their latest bogeyman. Many conservative and Christian leaders who crave mainstream respectability are crawling over themselves to signal their allegiance to the current thing by decrying anything labeled Christian nationalism. Playing up Cassidy’s actions as some ominous demonstration of the horrific acts that Christian nationalism will inspire is the perfect chance to counter-signal those to your right and prove that you are “one of the good ones.” The truth is‚ this ultramodern conception of religious liberty is a progressive perversion of what the framers of the Constitution intended. The Christian faith has always been central to public life in the United States‚ and you do not need to be a “Christian nationalist” to recognize that. One of my problems with adopting the language of Christian nationalism is that it allows the left to frame that which is normal‚ healthy‚ and within the American tradition as a radical fringe ideology. Any Americans of the founding generation would have seen it as their moral duty to smash a satanic altar erected in a government building and would have found absurd the idea that this violated the Establishment Clause. Sacred and profane spaces The Biden administration on Monday began the removal of a monument in Arlington National Cemetery that commemorates the reconciliation between North and South after the Civil War. Congress passed legislation mandating a purge of all monuments honoring the Confederacy in the wake of the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020. Despite the legislation containing an exemption for grave sites‚ the Biden administration decided that it was critical to obliterate this piece of history from public memory. A judge issued a temporary order halting the removal of the statue but subsequently lifted it. It will be dismantled by the Pentagon. A nation is defined by what it holds sacred‚ and nothing is a better indicator of what a nation holds sacred than its statues. Conservatives have stood by while American war monuments are torn down and while monuments to the founders are torn down‚ and now they are told by their own leaders that they must stand by while satanic altars are erected in their capitols. The left is remaking America’s public spaces in its own image and establishing its vision of the sacred in the process. If “conservative principles” cannot conserve our history‚ our founders‚ or our faith‚ then they are not fit for the purpose. Conservatism must be capable of making the case for defending what it holds sacred‚ or it will be discarded on the trash heap of history where it belongs.

Songs by Fleetwood Mac (group and solo) and Rod Stewart were among the biggest Top 40 hits as were certain smashes by the Alan Parsons Project and Survivor The post Radio Hits in 1982: Top 40 Was Still Rockin’ appeared first on Best Classic Bands.