It may take the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to restore a semblance of order to America’s public schools, some of which have been enticed into accepting a militant gay/transgender ideology. What has happened in certain school districts is apparent from the facts of a case recently argued before the high court — Mahmoud v. Taylor.  The school board of the Montgomery County (Maryland) School District adopted a requirement that its elementary teachers must read certain books to their elementary students. The content of the half-dozen mandated “storybooks” indisputably presented and promoted LBGTQ+ themes: “pride parades, gender transition, same-sex romances.” Court documents reveal that even the school’s own principals raised objections, but the board moved ahead anyway. At first, parents were told their children could opt-out. However, almost immediately the school board prohibited opting out and to do away with any advanced warning to parents as to when the “storybooks” should be read in class. They were to use more LGBTQ+ propaganda … such as “your parents decide whether you are a boy or girl, but they might be wrong.” Parents of a variety of religious groups — Muslim, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic — strongly objected to the board’s policies. The families filed a suit claiming that their First Amendment rights under the free exercise clause were being burdened. The families lost in the district court and again before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court agreed to hear their case. One of the “storybooks” about which the parents are complaining is called Pride Puppy and is typical of the six books advancing the LGBTQ+ cultural agenda. This book is said to be for children three to five years old. In Pride Puppy, parents bring their children, including the family puppy, to a gay pride parade. The puppy gets lost and is later reunited with his family. The illustrations show the participants in the parade, along with rainbow signage, dress, and flags. Pride Puppy purports to be helping preschoolers learn the alphabet. One of the key pages contains an activity called “Search and Find Word List.” The children are prompted to look for images in the pride parade that begin with certain letters of the alphabet. Some of the words in the lists are innocuous. However, one finds, for example, that under the letter “Q” there are only two choices and one of them is [drag] Queen. The same is true for “K” where we find [drag] King. (The brackets appear in the book.) One of the choices in the list of “M” words is the name of a person whose picture and name appear on a placard held by a parade participant. It bears the name “Marsha P. Johnson.” Johnson was “a self-identified drag queen and prominent gay liberation activist who co-founded the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries.” Since she had “difficulty finding employment she turned to sex work.” That is only one of the six books. To make matters worse, the school board proposed various responses for teachers to use in dealing with questions in class from students. Here is just one: Suppose a student asks what “transgender” means?  Here is the suggested response from the board: “When we’re born, people make a guess about our gender and label us boy or girl based on body parts. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes wrong. Body parts do not decide our gender. Our gender comes from our insides.” This is not diversity; it is a determined LGBTQ+ crusade, and one can see why religious Montgomery County parents are deeply concerned. Legally, the Montgomery County School District appears to be on a collision course with a line of long-established Supreme Court precedents and a group of recent decisions, all of which support the complaining parents. The first case is a century old and recognized that parents have a fundamental liberty under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause to guide their children’s education. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the court established the principle of parental educational autonomy by siding with parents who sought religious education in a Catholic school which Oregon regarded as failing to comply with its “public-school-only-mandate.” The next significant case protecting religious freedom, though it did not involve education, was Sherbert v. Vernor (1963). There, the court endorsed what became known as the “Sherbert test.” In that case, Sherbert, the complainant, had been denied unemployment compensation payments by the state because she refused to make herself available for work on Saturdays, which was her Sabbath. The court found that her free exercise of religion was “burdened” by the state’s demands and, further, that the state had no necessary reason for its policy. In other words, the state’s reasons for refusing Sherbert benefits was not “compelling.” The premier case protecting the rights of religious believers concerning the education of their children is Wisconsin v. Yoder (1971). There, the Supreme Court ruled that Amish children could not be forced into the public high school system after they had completed the eighth grade, usually at their own Amish schools. To do so would “burden their free exercise of religion” and undermine that religious order’s religious teachings. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the Montgomery County parents, attempted to downplay this entire line of cases by disparaging Yoder. The appeals court’s  opinion argued that Yoder was based on a “singular set of facts,” conveying the message that this long-recognized opinion should be viewed as having “limited holding” intended for cases of extreme separatist religious sects. By doing so, the Fourth Circuit ignored the clear statement in Yoder by Chief Justice Warren Burger. He called Pierce v. Society of Sisters “a charter of the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children,” and concluded that the outcome favoring the Amish parents in Yoder amounted to the same thing — a proclamation of parental liberty to follow their religious convictions in directing the education of their children. The appeals court concluded that though a “burden” on the religious liberty of the students and parents may have existed, it was not substantial enough to qualify as “unconstitutional.” The appeals court’s said that there was no significant burden because  the parents could keep instructing their children at home on these matters. Apparently, the court thought that the conflict between what the children heard at school and what the parents taught at home did not count as burdening. Further, the court said there was no evidence that the children’s views on sexuality and gender were changed, and the children were not compelled to agree with the contents of the LGBTQ+ storybooks. Never mind the dissonance and confusion generated in the students’ minds which might produce, as yet, unknown effects on their views of gender and sexuality. The appeals court viewed any burden on the religious views of the children as being  “indirect” and, therefore, insubstantial. One is left to wonder precisely what it would take to constitute a “burden” on religious belief according to the Court of Appeals if there was not one here? The children were required, without exception, to listen to the stories while attending school which they, by law, had to attend. The school-board mandated storybooks were colorful and appealing, skewed in favor of gay/transgender ideology, casting the characters and events portrayed as desirable and normal, even though they were clearly in opposition to traditional religious norms. Moreover, the books were read to the students by their own teachers, whom the students had come to rely upon and trust. These same teachers were counseled by the school board, according to documents presented to the court, on how to counter any student opposition. They were to use more LGBTQ+ propaganda about human sexuality, such as “your parents decide whether you are a boy or girl, but they might be wrong.” These planned “counter arguments” were likely to create further confusion for the children about gender. Add to that the fact that this entire gay/trans project was to be carried out in the absence of parents who were effectively excluded by the school board’s “no notice, no opt-out” policy. School Faces Powerful Precedent Besides disregarding the obvious burden that the Montgomery School District was imposing on parents and children, the appeals court either ignored or misinterpreted a series of recent Supreme Court decisions. In these, the court had ruled in favor of parties holding religious beliefs when the state threatened to bar the litigants from receiving a government benefit unless they relinquished their religious views. To cite a few examples: In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Catholic Social Services (CSS) either had to accept same-sex couples as foster parents, against the church’s religious teaching, or give up the government benefit of participating in the city’s foster-care system. With that “choice,” the court found that CSS’s religious liberty was burdened by the government’s policy. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the court ruled that the  religious liberty of parents was denied when private religious schools were refused public-tuition assistance unless the schools severed their connection with a church or denomination. In Kennedy v. Bremmerton School District, the court protected a high school football coach’s kneeling for a personal prayer after a game from having to relinquish his job. The “choice” for him? Either give up his religious convictions or lose his government benefit, a coaching job at a public school. The court ruled in his favor. In like manner, in the case at bar, to avoid losing the benefit of a free public-school education, the Montgomery County parents would have to accept, without reservation, the gay/trans indoctrination of their elementary-aged children which was patently contrary to their religious convictions. The Supreme Court is likely to find that the parents and children have had their free exercise rights burdened. The members of the high court’s liberal wing might try to convince their court colleagues that the Montgomery County School District has shown what Sherbert v. Vernor called a “compelling interest,” that is, an interest so important that despite parental and religious rights being at stake, that interest should override those rights. However, it is unlikely that the school district would succeed in convincing a majority of the court that the school’s bizarre series of gay/trans storybook encounters for three to five year-olds, replete with drag queens, same-sex romances, and gender transition advocacy, meets that “compelling interest” standard. To rule that the need for the gay/trans series was “compelling” the court would have to conclude that without it, preschoolers’ education would be fundamentally deficient. So, under Sherbert and Yoder and Pierce, the school district and the Board would lose. One additional note: A possible attempt by certain liberal justices would be to try to convince the court to follow a 1990 case (Employment Division v. Smith) in which the court seemed to deviate from Sherbert for a time. In that case, the majority concluded that a government policy or regulation which burdened the religious rights of a person did not excuse that litigant from compliance as long as the law, regulation, or policy was “neutral and generally applicable.” Most commentators say that Smith is on very shaky ground with the current court. Regardless, the school board in Mahoud v. Taylor has been neither neutral nor general in its policy application. It originally allowed opt-outs, but when there were religious objections, it abruptly changed its policy. That is a lack of neutrality. Also, its policy violates a generally applicable Maryland law that requires exemptions to be allowed in matters of family life and sexuality. The sad and disturbing thing is that should the parents win, which is likely, the school board will undoubtedly continue its campaign to convert its young students to an extreme gay/trans agenda even though some parents will be able to arrange to have their children opt-out. READ MORE from John Sparks: Reining in the Regulators: Loper Bright Enterprises and the Chevron Decision Supreme Court Curbs Land-Use Fees: Sheetz v. El Dorado County The post Elementary School Parents Fight Gay/Trans Books appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It should have been obvious when college students started using ChatGPT to cheat on academic papers that the bots were coming for our bylines — and yet, I think, journalists thought they might be spared. After all, any bot could mimic a badly written college essay, but what journalists do? That requires finesse, skill, and critical thought.  At the same time, readers are about to be inundated with bot-generated content. Most of it will be a drag to read — but so is much of modern writing. Journalists like to paint themselves as brave propagators of truth, without which modern political discourse would crumble into conspiracy theories and vague interpretations rife with half-truths that contribute to widespread insanity. There’s a sort of mythical journalistic figure — perhaps created by movies like All the President’s Men — who operates in the shadows, forces the truth out of sources, and digs through mountains of evidence until corruption is uncovered. It’s a tough thing to aspire to, and unsurprisingly, most of us just scrounge around on social media until we find something to write about. That, it turns out, is a job ChatGPT (with a little guidance and some fact checking) is just as good at.  ChatGPT Is Invading Opinion Journalism When the Italian newspaper Il Foglio decided to release a weekly AI insert in its physical magazine and announced that, on occasion, it would be using ChatGPT to write articles in its standard paper (clearly labeled, of course), it caused something of a stir.  News organizations have been experimenting with AI for a while. The Atlantic announced that it would be partnering with OpenAI last year, and the Washington Post’s in-house AI bot, Heliograf, reportedly pumped out some 850 articles in its first year. Some experiments haven’t gone incredibly well; famously, several major newspapers published a syndicated summer reading list with 10 nonexistent titles “hallucinated” by a chatbot just a few weeks ago.  There are, to oversimplify journalism a bit, three general kinds of articles. At the bottom of the pile are the lists, the kind that might be titled “The Top 25 Things Happening This Summer in Your Area,” or “5 Habits to Work on in the New Year” and which tend to be popular in Google search results and take an intern with minimal skill about an hour to write. ChatGPT has no problem chugging these out at a mind-boggling pace.  In the middle you have your everyday news article about the things that happened yesterday: Israel bombed Iran, this girl was forced to watch porn to graduate college, etc. These are also easy fodder for ChatGPT. On the high end you have investigative reporting and opinion journalism. These are the articles that require either critical analysis or developing sources, and sometimes both, and they tend to be written by journalists who thought their jobs were safe. What Il Foglio’s experiment proves is that those jobs aren’t safe. It’s using ChatGPT to write opinion articles about politics — the kind of articles that journalists (especially those of us in the magazine business) thought needed a critical thinker and a talented writer behind them. To be sure, it’s not like ChatGPT is going to turn into H.L. Mencken or Hilaire Belloc anytime soon, but neither are most opinion journalists. “If you are not a journalist with enough creativity, enough reporting, enough ideas, maybe you are worse than a machine,” Il Foglio editor Claudio Cerasa told the Atlantic. “But in that case, the problem is not the machine.”  The Age of AI Journalism Isn’t All Dystopia To be sure, the great thinkers and astute investigators in the journalism world will likely still have a job when all is said and done. After all, LLMs can’t develop sources, engage in thoughtful conversations, come up with new ideas and connections, or develop a unique writing style — real live people can. This all means that journalists as a whole (not just opinion or investigative journalists) will have to view themselves differently. They’re no longer giving readers just the facts. Objective journalism is so dead that even the lie that it exists no longer sells papers. The only thing that will sell papers is real opinion. Most of it will likely be wild conspiracy; some of it — the best of it — will contain perceptive ideas.  Those of us writers who claimed to be objective because we were neither creative enough to concoct outrageous conspiracies nor genius enough to issue prophecies on the printed page will be going into marketing, editing, or some such related field presently. Those of us who are outgoing enough to develop extensive sources likely don’t have time for writing anyway, and the chatbots will ease our schedules a bit. At the same time, readers are about to be inundated with bot-generated content. Most of it will be a drag to read — but so is much of modern writing. There will be just a small market for authentic writing available to those who are willing to help pay the salaries of the few remaining human writers.  It’s a reality that most of us haven’t come to terms with just yet, but it’s not all dystopia. AI will force those writers who remain in the field to excel because lazy writing won’t bring in a paycheck. This brutal school of “write better or go hungry” is what the modern age needs to overcome the myth that excessive content is better than quality content. READ MORE from Aubrey Harris: A Rare France Win in the War on Porn Yes, AI Is Taking Jobs From the Class of 2025. No, We Shouldn’t Be Concerned. The post My Job as a Journalist Is Going to a Bot appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Every journalist makes decisions about how to frame a story. Word choice is a powerful tool. Sometimes it is difficult to find neutral words, and so the journalist’s choice is crucial in putting a particular slant on events. Take the turmoil in Los Angeles, for example. Is it a protest, a riot, an insurrection, an invasion, or something else? The Wall Street Journal reported that the Washington Post reported early on in its coverage of events in L.A. in these words: “Angelenos defend their city…” Spin, anyone? There are at least three egregious errors embodied in those four words. If we could shut down the mob violence … it would be worth having to read twisted reports from the MSM about the Trump administration allegedly suppressing free speech. First, those who are kicking up a fuss (how’s that for an attempt at a neutral characterization?) are by no means all Angelenos. Hardcore leftists have flocked to the City of Angels to pursue their own agenda of anarchy, anti-Americanism, social destabilization, or “revolution” (as they self-flatteringly call it). Second, the selection of the verb “defend” is highly questionable. First of all, against whom are people allegedly defending the city? From the Post’s reporting, apparently, they are defending it from Donald Trump. Huh? More fundamentally, does one defend a city by acts of arson, looting local businesses, denying people access to the highways they need? Numerous acts of violence against innocent civilians or against police officers, National Guardsmen, and U.S. Marines who were deployed to protect life and property are acts of aggression, not of defense. Third, what does the writer mean “their” city? Yes, certainly many of those confronting law enforcement officials are legal residents of Los Angeles, and so they are justified in regarding it as “their” city, but “their” also implies property rights. Journalists have no right to speak of L.A. as “their” city when “they” are individuals who are in the country illegally. Are they “invaders,” as Mr. Trump would characterize them? You decide. My point is that such individuals have no right to claim that Los Angeles is “their” city. And their participation in mob activity is rendering life somewhere on the spectrum from unpleasant-to-dangerous for thousands of Americans who can truthfully say that L.A. is their city. One more thought about “their” city: According to news accounts, Mexican flags are not an uncommon sight in the mob. The fact that demonstrators wave a Mexican flag while hurling scorn and ice bottles at American law enforcement personnel indicates that they intensely want to live under Mexican rather than American jurisdiction. One couldn’t be faulted for concluding that ICE would be doing these people a favor by deporting them to Mexico where they can wave “their flag” in “their country” to their heart’s content. The Democratic Party seems to be exhibiting either terminal stupidity or an incorrigible lack of patriotism or both. Once again, they are bending over backward to accommodate and defend behavior that is infantile, savage, and lawless. Spineless officials in California, led by that demagogic eunuch, Gov. Gavin Newsom, grovel for votes from mobs in the street — mobs that express their contempt for American citizens and our legal system through violence and intimidation rather than through dialog and democratic processes. Speaking of Gov. Newsom, he apparently dared Trump to arrest him. Don’t do it, sir! Newsom, a most ambitious and opportunistic politician, wants the story to be about him. Any attention spent on him would be attention diverted from the lawlessness that he seems to not want to deter. His actions (or inactions) are showing him for the unprincipled person and impotent governor that he is. Don’t go down to his pathetic level. We already know that yours is bigger than his. Instead, arrest the malefactors, decapitate the leadership of the mobs, quell the violence, and give Angelenos their city back, and you will score a great moral and politically popular victory. Sadly, not many mainstream media reports dare to point out that the riots in L.A. (and perhaps in other cities by the time this is posted) have been far more protracted and far more destructive than the January 6, 2021 demonstrations in Washington, DC. Los Angeles has seen much more of an insurrection than Washington did. Will the left support the government if it prosecutes those engaging in violence in LA. as energetically as they did those arrested on January 6? There have been encouraging reports that FBI Director Kash Patel is having his agents gather information about various organizations that are organizing, coordinating, and funding riotous activity. That surely sounds like a superior strategy than using agents to monitor moms and dads at local school board meetings. Any individual or group that conspires to incite violence — and particularly those who pay for rioters to go to L.A. from other states — should be prosecuted. If existing criminal or anti-terrorist statutes are insufficient to curb such wannabe revolutionaries, Congress should craft new laws to punish and deter them. If we could shut down the mob violence that is turning our cities into combat zones, it would be worth having to read twisted reports from the MSM about the Trump administration allegedly suppressing free speech. READ MORE from Mark W. Hendrickson: Some Clarification About Tariffs Confusion About Tariffs in the Trump Administration The post Skewed Reporting From Los Angeles appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Since 2011, my graduate Red Team class at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs has had a final exercise in which the students play an Iranian reaction to what actually just happened with Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear program. In the game, the students play the main Iranian government factions. They are deciding how to react to a Blue (American) proposal designed to contain the crisis before it becomes a major regional conflict. In the game the students play against Blue but also against each other to influence the Supreme Leader’s final decision regarding how to react to the American proposal. The only constant  in all games through 14 years is that no Iranian team ever seriously considered giving up the quest for nuclear weapons. Over the years, the final outcome has largely been determined by the relations between Tehran and whatever administration was in power in Washington. Every year, I have anticipated a need for a new scenario expecting that Israel would strike. This year, it finally happened. The student groups play the three power factions in Iran. These include the Guardian Council, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the Executive Branch (which includes the office of the President and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). A Supreme leader is selected from the class and tasked with making the final decision. This is what is called a Complex (multi-sided) Seminar War Game (or simulation). During the course of the semester the students study the motivations of their group in preparation for the game. Not surprisingly, the Guardian Council group is primarily interested in staying in power and protecting the hereditary land ownership that makes them the primary landlords and agricultural power in Iran. The IRGC has two primary interests. First, as they guys with the guns, they control the population and quell unrest. Second, this is a “for profit” organization which owns the nuclear program. They will resist any attempt to seriously control or curtail their attempt to get nuclear weapons. Finally, the Administration Team represents what passes as adult supervision in Iran. They are primarily interested in seeing that the crisis not escalate into a full borne regional war, but they are also the weakest faction. In the game, Iran has three primary political-military options: (1) Launch a major conventional missile/drone strike on Israel (2) close the Straits of Hormuz to U.S. and Western shipping (3) use surrogates to retaliate and punish Israel. In all cases, the American relief package contained the caveat that unlimited no-notice inspections would be part of the deal. Wargames — particularly academic ones — are not meant to be predictive, nor are they meant to validate any plan or concept. They do tend to identify issues that planners should be aware of. During the Obama and Biden years, the Iranian response tended to be more restrained. They understood that closing the straits would be a “go to war issue” with the Americans and generally sought to respond to Israel through surrogates such as the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas. They would usually agree to some form of IAEA inspections, but always vowed to subvert them. The only constant  in all games through 14 years is that no Iranian team ever seriously considered giving up the quest for nuclear weapons. That is a significant issue. This Year’s Game Not Like the Others The 2025 game was a significant departure from the norm. In the real world, the Israelis, supported by the Americans and regional Sunni actors were able to swat aside a massive 2024 Iranian ballistic missile attack, and their Hezbollah and Hamas allies were crippled by Israel. Despite this, the 2025 IRGC student players — without much opposition from the president  or Ministry of the interior — opted for a massive retaliatory attack on Israel with the potential of closing the Straits on the table. This was done in the full knowledge that Israelis would likely double-down in their attacks. War games are not meant to be predictive, but in this case, it was. The real world Iranians launched a massive retaliatory strike on Israel near-immediately which indicates preplanning. They knew they were going to get whacked. The student explanation was that they were taking the long term view of wearing the resolve of Israel and the West. Although they didn’t allude to it directly, they were attempting to outlast the Israelis and Americans down as the North Vietnamese did in the 60s and 70s of the last century. The wild card in all of this is that the GWU games did not postulate the decapitation strikes on the IRGC leadership and infrastructure that actually happened, nor did we have a civilian team to attempt to simulate a population response and we would not have had enough cultural data to even try. The question of whether the Iranian population will exhibit the loyalty and stoicism of the North Vietnamese or turn on their theocratic masters is the dog that has not yet barked in this situation. I picked a good year to decide to retire from teaching. I would have to have created a new scenario, and I hate it when that happens. READ MORE from Gary Anderson: Is Climate Change Destroying the Environment? It’s Time for Trump to Wield the Stick Against Putin Gary Anderson has lectured on Red Teaming and Alternative Analysis at GWU since 2003. The post The Most Dangerous War Game Finally Happened appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

This June 4th, the 36th anniversary of the crackdown on demonstrators in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, passed quietly in the People’s Republic of China. Of course, the atrocity could not be mentioned, let alone debated, in the PRC. The Chinese Communist Party long ago deposited the slaughter, in which at least hundreds and perhaps thousands died, in the national memory hole. Even now the regime tightens security on the massacre’s anniversary to prevent any embarrassing incidents. The U.S. should oppose Beijing’s attempt to extend its controls beyond its own borders. And build a coalition of states unwilling to allow the PRC to treat their lands like its own. The repression, which went far beyond protestors in Beijing, exposed a tragic what if, given the depth of support for political liberalization, if not full democratization, across the country. However, “paramount leader” Deng Xiaoping demonstrated his Maoist roots by inaugurating a far-reaching purge. Detailed Amnesty International: “Immediately after the military crackdown, the Chinese authorities began to hunt down those involved in the demonstrations. Thousands of people were detained, tortured, imprisoned or executed after unfair trials charged with ‘counter-revolutionary’ crimes.” Millions were also kicked out of the CCP for their heretical views. One of the victims was Zhao Ziyang, previously anointed party general secretary by Deng. Zhao opposed the deadly military operation; he was ousted and held under house arrest until his death in 2005. Of course, no one was held accountable for their crimes. Observed Yalkun Uluyol of Human Rights Watch: “The Chinese government has never owned up to the Tiananmen Massacre, much less provided redress for victims and their families. Beijing’s enforced amnesia has deepened authoritarian rule in China, yet it has not extinguished demands for the truth, democracy, and respect for human rights.” Today when questioned about Tiananmen Beijing calmly dismisses the “political turmoil” about which “the Chinese government has already reached a clear conclusion.” Behind the scenes, however, the PRC remains fearful of any disclosure and uses modern technology in an attempt to extirpate history. Reported Australia’s ABC News: More than 230 pages of censorship instructions prepared by Chinese social media platforms were shared by industry insiders with the ABC. They were intended to be circulated among multi-channel networks or MCNs — companies that manage the accounts of content creators across multiple social and video platforms like Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok. The files reveal deep anxiety among Chinese authorities about the spread of any reference to the most violently suppressed pro-democracy movement in the country’s history. Unfortunately, there was silence on June 4th in Hong Kong as well. The protestors who did not gather offer an unfortunate reminder that the once liberal city is no longer any different than any other Chinese metropolis. For years, despite Hong Kong’s official transfer to the People’s Republic of China, thousands of people turned out to mourn the murderous crackdown in Tiananmen Square and across the PRC. But no longer. In 2020 Beijing launched a ruthless campaign in the Special Administration Region, whose autonomy had been guaranteed for 50 years after the 1997 turnover. China imposed the “National Security Law,” or Article 23. Stanley Ng, a member of the rubber-stamp National People’s Congress which approved the legislation, explained that the NSL was ambiguous in order to provide the “real effects of intimidation and deterrence.” Today criticism of PRC rule, including the actions of such local factotums as Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu, can lead to prosecution and imprisonment. In this way, at least, Hong Kong has become largely indistinguishable from any mainland Chinese city. This June 4 the authorities succeeded in what should be known as Operation Memory Hole. Reported NPR: “Police said they brought 10 people on suspicion of breaching public peace to a police station for investigation. Three were still detained late Wednesday, while the rest were allowed to leave. Police also arrested a woman for failing to show her identity document and a man for obstructing police officers from performing their duties.” Mission accomplished! Of course, suppressing the memory of Tiananmen Square is but one aspect of the pervasive violation of human rights, which has earned China an abysmal 9 out of 100 on Freedom House’s rating of political and civil freedom. That’s a bit better than such bottom-feeders as Afghanistan and North Korea but remains very deep in “Not Free” territory. Repression has dramatically worsened during General Secretary and President Xi Jinping’s ascendancy. It still isn’t the horror of Mao’s China, and personal autonomy as well as income is much greater today. Nevertheless, in almost every way the Chinese people are less free today than a decade or so ago. Chinese Reach Into Other Countries Washington’s ability to influence events within any sovereign nation, and especially one like the PRC, is limited. However, of particular concern should be Beijing’s attempt to extend its reach to other countries, including the U.S. The British group Article 19 has published a disturbing report entitled “Going Global: China’s Transnational Repression of Protestors Worldwide.” According to Article 19: “As the CCP has cracked down on and censored discussion of protest at home, it has also escalated acts of [transnational repression], targeting diaspora communities and other protest movements seeking to raise awareness of human rights abuses in China or to commemorate high profile protest anniversaries — from the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre to the 2019 Pro-Democracy protests in Hong Kong to the 2022 White Paper Protests.” Thus, even those who have fled the PRC find themselves vulnerable to its security forces. While living in nominally free nations, “Protesters targeted by TNR frequently live in fear of surveillance; targeting; abduction and forced repatriation, especially around embassies and consulates; and ‘collective punishment’ retaliation against relatives still in China.” Responding to what amounts to violations of the sovereignty of the U.S. and other nations — something which Beijing vociferously rejects when criticized for its internal policies — should be a top priority for Washington. Economics and trade are important, but so is foreign interference with the freedom of America’s citizens and their guests, especially political refugees. The U.S. should work with not only Western friends which also value individual liberty, but also other nations which emphasize their own sovereignty. Even states otherwise friendly to the PRC might support the principle, since they aren’t likely to want Chinese agents active on their territory. For Sherlock Holmes the key to one case was the dog that didn’t bark. For us today evidence of China’s expanding repression is the Hong Kong demonstration that didn’t occur. Alas, Hong Kongers who enjoyed Western-style civil liberties as recently as five years ago are no longer free. The U.S. should oppose Beijing’s attempt to extend its controls beyond its own borders. And build a coalition of states unwilling to allow the PRC to treat their lands like its own. READ MORE from Doug Bandow: Are Democrats Surrendering the Demographic Battle? The Rule of Law Serves the American People, Especially Conservatives   The post Tiananmen Square Down the Chinese Memory Hole appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Starships have long captured the imagination of audiences, serving as both vehicles of exploration and symbols of humanity’s dreams. From sleek cruisers darting through distant galaxies to colossal carriers brimming with technology, these vessels are more than just settings—they are characters in their own right. Their influence extends far beyond the screen, inspiring real-world innovation ...

from The Mel K Show: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by A Midwestern Doctor, Global Research: Natural light is an essential nutrient many of us lack within our bodies. When ultraviolet light is introduced into the bloodstream, remarkable health benefits emerge The dermatology industry created hysteria about benign sun-induced cancers while ignoring that deadly melanoma actually results from sunlight deficiency, not excess exposure Once ultraviolet […]

A North Carolina state representative faced extreme criticism and calls for her resignation after posting an image on social media depicting a beheaded President Trump. “No Kings Protest in Raleigh. Amazing turnout all across the Triangle today, including this event at the Capitol hosted by @wakedems and @ncdemocrats,” the now-deleted post from state Rep. Julie von Haefen read. Wow this is sick. North Carolina State Rep Julie von Haefen (D) posted a photo from the “no kings” protest which calls for Trump to be beheaded @FBI pic.twitter.com/ETn7O6e8cu — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 15, 2025 A closer look: “Yesterday, I posted a video on social media containing crowd photos from the No Kings protest in Raleigh. One of the images of a protestor holding a sign was inappropriate, and I later edited the video to remove the photo,” von Haefen said on Facebook. “Let me be clear: I condemn political violence in all forms. My focus remains on bringing people together and fighting for the values that matter to North Carolinians. Like so many, I was horrified by the violence in Minnesota. There is no place for that kind of extremism in our democracy, no matter the target, no matter the party,” she added. From The Center Square: Her actions Saturday morning is at odds with her midafternoon Sunday statement, as pointed out by many voters and other colleagues in the General Assembly. While the Facebook account associated with her campaign from last fall is active, her account on X does not exist anymore. “This is why reasonable people are leaving the Democrat Party in North Carolina,” said Rep. Erin Paré, a Wake County Republican. “This is a sitting state legislator who is publicly applauding the beheading of President Trump just hours after a state legislator in our country and her spouse were murdered in cold blood. Horrible.” The North Carolina Republican Party on Sunday morning said, “Political violence should be condemned, not encouraged.” Rep. Chris Humphrey, R-Lenoir, said, “Some people hate a duly elected leader, who won by landslide, more than they love America.” Midafternoon Sunday, first-term Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, Republican House Speaker Destin Hall of Caldwell County and Republican Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger had not commented publicly on von Hafen. “We are calling on the resignation of Wake Democrat Rep Julie von Haefen. There is no place for promoting political violence,” the Wake County Republican Party stated. We are calling on the resignation of Wake Democrat Rep Julie von Haefen. There is no place for promoting political violence. #ncpol pic.twitter.com/97Ualy8V1E — Wake GOP (@wakegop) June 15, 2025 Per North State Journal: House Speaker Destin Hall (R-Granite Falls) issued a statement on X. “On the same weekend that a gunman in Minnesota targeted state lawmakers in an act of political violence, and after two attempted assassinations of President Trump within the past year, Representative von Haefen (D-Wake) shared an image of a “protest sign” that glorifies violence against her political opponents-including President Donald Trump,” wrote Hall. “Her disgraceful behavior fails to meet the standards expected from House members and sets a dangerous precedent in an already volatile political climate,” Hall wrote. “I am examining next steps with our legislative attorneys to ensure this behavior does not continue.” Attempts to reach von Haefen for comment were unsuccessful. Around 3 p.m. on Sunday, von Haefen issued a statement on her official Facebook page, which addressed the deletion of the image as “inappropriate.”

Reports indicate Vance Boelter, the suspect sought in the shooting of two Minnesota state lawmakers and their spouses, has been taken into custody. “Law enforcement appears to have assassin suspect Vance Boelter in custody in a field in Sibley County. According to radio traffic, he was tracked into the woods. When a drone flew overhead he put his hands in the air and walked toward officers in a SWAT vehicle,” Alpha News investigative reporter Liz Collin said. “Multiple sources say he was spotted near a residence in Green Isle and began running down a driveway into the woods, wearing all black with a backpack. At one point he was tucked in the fetal position and then began to army crawl until he eventually stood up to surrender,” she added. MORE: Multiple sources say he was spotted near a residence in Green Isle and began running down a driveway into the woods, wearing all black with a backpack. At one point he was tucked in the fetal position and then began to army crawl until he eventually stood up to surrender. — Liz Collin (@lizcollin) June 16, 2025 Law enforcement also detained Boelter’s wife after a traffic stop, where authorities found a weapon, ammo, cash, and passports. WATCH: UPDATE: Minnesota ass*ssin Vance Boelter’s wife Jenny has been DETAINED after a traffic stop where authorities found a weapon, ammo, cash, and passports Jenny ALSO previously worked for Tim Walz. This story is getting weirder and weirder. pic.twitter.com/dECKaKPfNc — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 15, 2025 Per KSTP: Authorities have captured 57-year-old Vance Boelter near his Green Isle home, several sources confirmed to 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS reporter Tom Hauser. He is believed to be responsible for fatally shooting Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband. He also shot Sen. John Hoffman and his wife. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension previously stated at a news conference that there was a nationwide warrant out for his arrest. Sunday saw law enforcement descend upon Sibley County, where a vehicle tied to Boelter was discovered. Details about what was found during law enforcement’s search of the area have not been made public as of this report. “Sources tell me the multi-agency task force including MN State Patrol arrested Boelter in the past 10 minutes. He’s been captured alive near Green Isle where a manhunt has been focused all day,” Hauser said. BREAKING: Sources tell me the multi-agency task force including MN State Patrol arrested Boelter in the past 10 minutes. He’s been captured alive near Green Isle where a manhunt has been focused all day. — Tom Hauser (@thauserkstp) June 16, 2025 CBS News reports: Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark were shot and killed in their Brooklyn Park home while state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife Yvette were shot in their home in Champlin. The Hoffmans are out of surgery and receiving care. The manhunt for Boelter lasted over 24 hours, as authorities issued shelter-in-place orders for parts of the northwest metro. “I’m grateful that this nightmare has come to an end with the suspected murderer captured alive so he can be charged, prosecuted, and punished for the horror he has wrought on our state,” said Speaker Lisa Demuth (R-Cold Spring) in a statement. “Thank you to the brave men and women of local, state, and federal law enforcement who have worked around the clock to ensure this evil man faces justice.” Officials said Brooklyn Park police arrived at Hortman’s home around 3:30 a.m. and found a car that looked like a police SUV with emergency lights on. Boelter then left the home and exchanged gunfire with police officers before fleeing. In a press conference, officials said he was last seen in Minneapolis, wearing a light-colored cowboy hat and a dark shirt with light pants. Officials said he should be considered “armed and dangerous.”