On The May 2023 Ballot: Oregon Counties To Vote To SECEDE From Oregon and Join ‘Greater Idaho’

This is getting interesting. The movement proposes to add fifteen conservative rural Oregon counties to Idaho to escape the left-wing madness.

Wallowa County Clerk announces Greater Idaho is on the ballot

The Wallowa County Clerk notified the Greater Idaho movement today that it has submitted enough valid signatures to force its ballot initiative onto the May 2023 Wallowa County ballot.  She awarded the initiative a measure number: 32-007.

So far, eleven eastern Oregon counties have voted for the movement’s ballot measures. The movement proposes to add fifteen conservative rural counties to Idaho by convincing the state legislatures of Oregon and Idaho to move their common state line. The purpose of the initiatives is to show state legislators that voters want them to begin talks with Idaho to move the border, according to the movement’s website greateridaho.org .

Matt McCaw, the movement’s spokesman, said “eastern Oregon is mostly ranchland, and Portland is not. It doesn’t make sense for these two cultures to be dictating policy to each other. Portland voters forced a gun control measure on the whole state, although eastern Oregon voters almost defeated it. And then an eastern Oregon judge blocked it. His injunction might stand for a couple years while he decides the case.  If Oregon had let Grant and Harney counties go when they requested to join Idaho, then their judge wouldn’t have blocked an Oregon measure.”

McCaw called on the new President of the Oregon Senate, Rob Wagner, to allow a hearing on their bill in January. The bill, SJM 2, invites Idaho to begin talks with Oregon on the potential of moving the border. A January 2022 SurveyUSA poll showed that 68% of northwestern Oregon voters thought that the Oregon Legislature should hold hearings on the idea, and only 20% were opposed.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

SECESSION: Oregon Counties Will Vote To Secede From Oregon This November And Join “GREATER IDAHO”

Rural Oregon counties vote to discuss seceding from state to join ‘Greater Idaho’ to escape oppressive Democrat rule

Oregon Counties Vote to Secede Into Idaho To Escape Democrat Violence and Lawlessness

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Released More Illegals in Three Months Than the Entire Population of Montana

It’s a bloody invasion and yet not one legacy media outlet has covered it. On the contrary, they are militantly covering for it.

The country is in the throes of a totalitarian coup and half the country is too dumb, too apathetic, or too misinformed to care or worse – in support of greatest self inflicted wound in human history.

Biden Released More Illegals in Three Months Than the Entire Population of Montana

Even blue cities have been overloaded.

Biden made his ritual visit to an El Paso scrubbed of illegal aliens and a detention center scrubbed of detainees. The entire Potemkin village setup was meant to kick off Biden’s plan to get rid of Title 42 and ram open the border all the way to flood the nation with illegal aliens even more than it already is.

How bad is it now?

“Using even a very conservative estimate of unknown got aways, Biden has released or allowed more illegals into the United States in the last 100 days than the whole population of Montana. An entire storied American state now exceeded by just 3+ months of foreign lawbreakers,” Stephen Miller tweeted.

That’s the massive rate of demographic change underway. And it’s entirely intentional.

Even blue cities have been overloaded and are begging for help. But the bigger plan is to eliminate red states entirely.

The Biden regime claims that they can’t do anything about it. Sure, they can’t.

Biden’s visit was scheduled at a time when border crossings had already dropped drastically in El Paso.

They control the trafficking and they control the border.

Read more.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

RONNA MCDANIEL: I Went To The Southern Border. Here’s What Joe Biden Won’t Tell You

House Republican Files Articles of Impeachment Against DHS Sec. Mayorkas In Wake of Border Invasion

Numbers Don’t Lie: America’s Border Crisis Is Biden-Made

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Killing Newborn Babies

In June of 2018, the body of a little baby was discovered floating in the ocean near an inlet in South Florida. One sheriff told NBC News that he had thought he had seen it all, but this corpse really tugged at his heart.

And now, more than 4 years later, through DNA technology, authorities have been able to isolate the mother. She’s been arrested and faces first-degree murder charges. So sad.

How could this type of thing take place in “the land of the free”? I believe that it’s not hard to draw the link between abortion and this type of story which is being repeated over and over. After 63 million abortions where it’s supposedly okay to kill the baby inside the womb, why does it suddenly become wrong to kill the baby outside of it?

Look at these tragic headlines in lifenews.com:

  • Woman Abandoned Her Newborn Baby Outside in Freezing Cold, Lied to the Police About Baby’s Location
  • Woman Stabs Her 3-Month-Old Baby, Puts Him in Plastic Bag, Throws Him in Dumpster
  • Couple Used Poison to Kill Their Viable Unborn Baby, Then Dumped the Baby’s Body

One of the key writers who covers these and other abortion-related stories is Micaiah Bilger who pens articles for lifenews.com.

I asked her to comment on these frequent tragedies. She told me, “The shock never weakens when I hear about another case of infanticide. It’s difficult to imagine how any mother could kill her child, born or unborn, but even more so after seeing her newborn child for the first time. How can a mother hold her precious baby and then throw the child in a garbage bag or abandon it in the cold?”

As to the link between abortion and these cases, Bilger adds, “I suppose after so many years of it being ‘normal’ to kill a child before birth, it’s not surprising that children outside the womb are being devalued, too.”

What should be trumpeted throughout our culture is this: There are safe harbor or safe haven laws that exist in one form or another in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia.

Within a short time of delivering a baby, often 30 days, a mother can bring a baby over to a local fire department or police department or hospital and drop the child off—no questions asked, no charges filed.

For example, here is what the Sunshine State says about its safe harbor law on its website: “Florida’s Safe Baby Law allows mothers and/or fathers, or whoever is in possession of an unharmed newborn approximately 7 days old or less, to leave them in the ‘arms’ of an employee at any Hospital or staffed 24/7 Fire Rescue Station, or Emergency Medical Station. No questions asked, totally anonymous, free from fear of prosecution.”

How much more humane to let the baby live and be placed in the arms of those who can bring the child to a safe future.

The Supreme Court even referred to these laws in their Dobbs v. Jackson decision from last June, overturning  Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion decision of January 22, 1973.

Dobbs noted: “…States have increasingly adopted ‘safe haven’ laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously; and…a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home.”

I also asked Eric J. Scheidler, the executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, based in the Chicago area, for a comment on these laws. He told me, “Many women know nothing about this option, and as a result, newborn babies are abandoned and even murdered. We must do more to publicize this important way to save babies’ lives.”

America’s two founding documents have important bearing on the subject of abortion. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. The first right enumerated is the “right to life.”

The founders didn’t grant this right. They simply acknowledged it and spelled it out in our founding documents.

The Constitution begins, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [emphasis added] Our posterity includes the promise for those yet unborn.

One could only wish that the mother in South Florida who apparently drowned her newborn had instead brought the child to a “safe haven.”  After a half-century of the abortion ethic, we have lost a lot of ground in cherishing the “right to life.” Raising awareness of these nationwide safe haven laws is a step in the right direction.

©Jerry Newcombe, D.Min. All rights reserved.

Mike Rowe Calls Out Adults Over Child Sex Changes: Kids Aren’t Saying ‘Remove My Genitals’

TV host Mike Rowe spoke out during an episode of his podcast released Tuesday, criticizing parents who push transgender medicine on their children.

Rowe made the comments while interviewing The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh about his documentary “What Is A Woman.” As the two discussed the documentary on Rowe’s podcast “The Way I Heard It,” the topic turned to children, consent and the movement supporting irreversible gender reassignment surgeries, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors.

“You’re talking about sterilizing kids way before they could ever hope to have kids of their own in adulthood,” Walsh told Rowe, describing the impact of taking puberty-blocking drugs like Lupron, which is typically prescribed to sex offenders to chemically castrate them.

Rowe went on to ask Walsh where the push for transgender surgeries and medications for kids is really coming from, and there are stricter age requirements for drivers licenses and alcohol. “Is it Big Pharma, is it money, is it academia, is it our healthcare system? It feels like an alliance of sorts,” Rowe commented.

Walsh claimed that a combination of peer pressure, counter-culture and the normal discomfort of adolescence contribute toward the increase in the number of trans-identifying youth, but that younger children are often led into it by adults who exploit their innocence.

Rowe agreed, saying that young children are not saying “give me some Lupron, cut off my genitals” unprompted.

The full episode is available on Rowe’s website.

AUTHOR

KAY SMYTHE

News and commentary writer.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Republican Indiana Rep. Lorissa Sweet Unveils Bill Banning Child Sex Changes

Community Ousts School Board Members For Backing Policy To Hide Kids’ Gender Transitions

Jimmy Kimmel Stand-In Thinks It’s Funny When Grown Men Dress In Women’s Lingerie For Children

Harvard University Offers Class On Transgender Medicine For ‘Infants To Older Adults’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Is Pete Buttigieg The Most Incompetent Transportation Secretary In History?

Things just keep getting worse for Pete Buttigieg. After Southwest Airlines ruined many Americans’ holiday plans with mass cancelations, now a “glitch” is causing hundreds of flights to be canceled again.

Fortunately, a massive snowstorm meant that I wasn’t going anywhere over the holidays, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t grind my gears that for the umpteenth time the guy whose job it is to do something isn’t doing anything. Much like the establishment GOP tends to do when confronted with its failings, Pete fell back on a strongly worded Twitter statement.

He followed that up with a not-so-strongly worded letter to the airlines asking them to treat passengers like people and threatening to use the department’s enforcement power. Seriously, $221,000 a year to write strongly worded letters? Get this guy into Congress because he and Sen. Lindsey Graham are going to be the Beltway’s new bipartisan force.

It looks like the department is belatedly doing something and we shall see just how effective the response is. But Pete’s job is to make sure this doesn’t happen — not enforce gender-neutral language for airmen.

For those paying attention, absolutely none of this should be surprising. Remember when the port of Los Angeles got so backed up that suddenly basic goods we all take for granted started disappearing from the shelves?

Pete was off on paternity leave. I don’t have any problem with people taking paternity leave. But since Pete occupies such an (allegedly) important government office, couldn’t Chasten have taken care of the kids? Gay or straight, there is still that second parent to help out. People have been doing it for millennia. He can do it too.

I would have slightly more respect for Pete if he could at least lie well about the crisis. But instead he blamed Joe Biden’s economic “success.”

Middle Americans aren’t stupid, Pete. You should know that being from my neck of the woods near South Bend and all. I can do math and tell when my grocery bill has doubled. And going on MSDNC or whatever other network may have worked with people in the past, but it isn’t going to cut it anymore. Not even with seniors – they’re too busy working at the local Home Depot because Biden’s greatest economy ever is murdering their retirements.

The LA Times blamed the shortage on workers refusing to take the jobs at such low wages (for California, anyway). As for Pete, he could have at least blamed COVID, as Democrats tend to do when the race card exhausts itself. But then he would have had to also blame COVID shutdowns, vaccine mandates and California’s insanely high cost of living – which would have indicted Gov. Hairgel … I mean Gov. Newsom. And we can’t have criticism of America’s favorite governor before he’s anointed as the DNC nominee for 2024 now, can we?

Instead, Pete has been trying to demolish one “racist” highway in Detroit. Look, I hate these highways that divided neighborhoods in the 50s and 60s. They’re ugly and some of them were actually built for racist reasons. But, let me tell you something Pete: your party has run Detroit for over 60 years. Your party built those highways, not only in Detroit, but New York and Chicago too. Detroit was America’s wealthiest city and is now a shithole. One highway is not the problem – it’s you guys.

Seriously, why the hell is this guy in charge? Ask yourself why Joe Biden is president and you have your answer. Neither of them have any clue what they’re doing (in Joe’s case, he doesn’t have a clue, period). They both take time off while the country burns.

Let’s face it. Pete’s a young, good-looking white guy in a Democratic administration. You either have some intersectional points or need to be really good at your job – like Merrick Garland rounding up dissidents or Janet Yellen shilling for CBDCs to turn us all into financial slaves of the Federal Reserve.

Before now, I rarely, if ever, heard the transportation secretary pop up on TV or elsewhere. I can’t name the previous transportation secretaries from any other administration except Trump, mostly because he’s been attacking her lately. So if Pete has to be doing media hits and go on Twitter to defend his department’s flubs before an angry America, it means he’s not doing a very good job.

As punishment, Pete should be forced to fly coach on his own dime. No more private jets. And he doesn’t get to deduct it from his taxes, either. Reps. Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz: if you guys are reading this, pass a bill to that effect and restore the IRS expansion but with the sole job of making sure Pete can’t avoid this punishment. Then, shut down the Transportation Department. We did fine without it before 1966.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.

AUTHOR

MICHELE GAMA SOSA

Michele Gama Sosa is an opinion editor for the Daily Caller and a historian by training.

RELATED ARTICLE: More Transportation Nightmares On Mayor Pete’s Watch

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Allahu Akbar’ – ‘Allah Is The Greatest’ – A Jihadi Battle Cry

By: Y. Carmon

This report will discuss jihadis’ use of the phrase Allahu akbar – meaning “Allah is the greatest” – as a battle cry during terror attacks. This subject has been discussed in previous MEMRI analyses, but there have been many attacks since carried out by jihadis in the West in which this battle cry was repeated. In two recent examples, an Islamist named Trevor Bickford shouted “Allahu akbar” as he lunged at New York Police Department officers with a machete on New Year’s Eve near Times Square, and a man who stabbed six people in a January 11, 2023 attack at the Gare du Nord train station in Paris also shouted the phrase during his attack. This report will provide more than three dozen additional examples from recent years of the use of the term as a jihadi battle cry (see Appendix below).

This article will also examine how and why this term is routinely mistranslated and misunderstood by Western media. This was illustrated very clearly after the October 31, 2017 attack in Manhattan by Sayfullo Saipov, who according to witnesses shouted Allahu akbar as he drove a truck into a crowd of cyclists and pedestrians in Manhattan, killing eight and injuring nearly a dozen. Minutes after the attack was reported, CNN’s Jake Tapper said: “The Arabic chant Allahu akbar, God is great – sometimes said under the most beautiful of circumstances and too often we hear of it being said at moments like this.”

The media’s usual rendering of Allahu akbar as “God is great” is misleading and omits the aspect of superiority in the word akbar (which means “greater” or “greatest,” not merely “great”) and blurs its specific reference to Allah – and not to any other entity or deity. Translating and understanding this phrase as merely “God is great” is not only wrong – it also strips it of its crucial aspect of Allah’s supremacy over all other entities and deities. This is why throughout the history of Islam, and to this day, Allahu akbar has been a battle cry shouted out during attacks, as demonstrated in modern-day Islamic terror attacks.

Indeed, jihadis themselves relate to the battle cry of Allahu akbar as the “Marseillaise of Arab conquests,” as the Muslims’ “nuclear bomb,” and as what the “communist East and the capitalist West fear the most,” and they believe that it guarantees victory just like it had in the times of the Prophet Muhammad.

Needless to say, when Allahu akbar is used, for example, by an Arab Christian priest, it is not a jihadi battle cry. But when it is uttered by a Muslim, it is always an assertion of Allah’s supremacy– either in a nonviolent context (such as prayer – indeed, Allahu akbar is repeated several times during the Islamic prayer ritual) or in a violent context.

Translating “Allahu Akbar”

Translating concepts from one language into another is a difficult endeavor. Translating concepts that have no equivalent in the target language is even harder. Translating religious concepts for a culture in which religion has ceased to play a central role in the life of the individual and in society is hardest of all.

Perhaps this is the reason why religious Islamic idioms representing concepts such as Allahu akbarla ilaha illa Allah, and istishhad are routinely mistranslated in the American media.

The American failure to understand religious concepts does not apply only to Islam. A similar misunderstanding occurred in 1993 between the authorities and fundamentalist Christian David Koresh, who had holed up at a remote complex outside Waco, Texas along with dozens of his followers, including women and children, and an arsenal of weaponry. Besieged by the authorities, who attempted to negotiate with him, Koresh recited Biblical prophecies about the End of Days. Trying to peacefully end the standoff, the authorities urged him, “Let’s not discuss religion now.” Koresh, immersed in his religious beliefs, could only reply, “But religion is life and death.” It was a “dialogue of the deaf,” doomed to end as it did, with the loss of many innocent lives.

The problem is not one of linguistic relativity – as comprehensively discussed in the last century by the renowned linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf – since there are ways to convey original meaning in a proper, brief explanation. Instead, it is about the tendency of the media to choose the easiest solution, that is, to translate to what will sound most familiar to readers, even if inaccurate.

The word istishhad (related to the term “to bear witness”) denotes a religious act of faith in which a believer strives to kill as many perceived enemies as he can, at the price of his own life, as a means of getting closer to Allah, the prophets, the righteous, and the shahid “martyrs” (see below) in Paradise. The goal of this act of faith, which is considered blessed, is to make Allah’s religion supreme on Earth, in what the perpetrator believes to be an imitation of the battles of early formative Islam of the time of the Prophet Muhammad and the four righteous caliphs. This term is often recklessly and inaccurately translated as “suicide,” which is an act motivated by personal desperation and is forbidden in Islam, and for which a different word – intihar – is reserved in Arabic.

This is also why Allahu akbar and la ilaha illa Allah – both statements of faith that embody the religious concept of the supremacy of Islam and of Allah – are mistranslated. First it was the struggle to establish the supremacy of the monotheistic Islam over the pagan idols of seventh-century Mecca. Then it was a struggle for supremacy over other religions, including monotheistic ones, in the Arabian Peninsula, resulting in the expulsion of non-Muslims, as related in the compilation of hadiths on behalf of the Prophet Muhammad: “I shall take out the Jews and the Christians from the Peninsula” – a ban that is in force to this day against non-Muslim religious institutions. Later it was a struggle against other religious empires, such as the Persian and the Byzantine. However, the rendering of Allahu akbar in the U.S. media as “God is great” omits the aspect of superiority in the word akbar (which means “greater” or “greatest,” not merely “great”) and blurs the specific reference to Allah rather than to another deity. In the same vein, la illaha illa Allah is often translated in the U.S. media as “There is no god but God” (rather than “There is no god but Allah”). Omitting the supremacy of Allah over all other deities is a mistranslation, and moreover leads to a logical fallacy – reminiscent of Carrollian nonsense verses.

One of the reasons for such mistranslations is the fact that in the modern Western world the struggle for supremacy among religions has almost completely ceased, and to the extent that it still exists, it is nonviolent. Therefore, statements of religious faith that embody a continuing historical struggle for divine religious supremacy lack a modern religious/cultural conceptual basis through which to be understood in the West, and consequently lack a linguistic equivalent. The American media, facing the risk of not being understood in translating these Islamic concepts, prefer to provide an approximate translation, even though these are inherently misleading.

This is not to say that Allahu akbar is uttered only by jihadis continuing the age-old struggle for the supremacy of Islam and of Allah. Over the centuries it has come to be uttered by non-religious Muslims as well, and even by Christian Arabs. In many cases, it carries a variety of meanings – ranging from admiration for what is perceived as a wonderful act of Allah to an expression of shock and horror in the face of calamity.

A translation should always reflect the context, the speaker, and his intent. But what often happens in the U.S. media is that when Allahu akbar is said by a jihadi, it is translated as if said by a non-religious Muslim or a Christian Arab. This is utterly wrong. And when such mistranslations occur time and again, whether intentional or out of ignorance, it results in a profoundly apologetic misrepresentation of the concept, and its cultural and religious meaning.

So what could be the solution? One school of translation holds to keeping the original term, followed a brief explanation of its meaning, as, for example, the Japanese word kamikaze. In this case, this solution was so effective that the original word no longer required explanation. There is no reason why the same process should not occur with the word istishhad, which over time could become as well known and understood as kamikaze.

So what could be the solution? One school of translation holds to keeping the original term, followed a brief explanation of its meaning, as, for example, the Japanese word kamikaze. In this case, this solution was so effective that the original word no longer required explanation. There is no reason why the same process should not occur with the word istishhad, which over time could become as well known and understood as kamikaze.

The alternative is for the media to adopt a more professional approach, translating these terms in each case according to the specific context, speaker, and intended meaning, and not settling for an approximate but misleading term.

This is not to claim that MEMRI, in its 25 years of translating tens of thousands of pages of primary source material from the Arab and Muslim media, has not at times fallen for the temptation to prioritize being understood by a non-expert reader. Even in the field of transliteration, we have accepted incorrect transliterations because they were common in the media (for example, “Koran” instead of “Qur’an”). In many cases, we used the word “martyrdom operations” for “istishhad,” even though martyrdom is an inaccurate translation, since it is a Christian concept for an individual accepting death rather than forsaking his religious beliefs, while the Islamic concept of istishhad relates in modern times primarily to killing enemies at the price of one’s own life.

“Allahu Akbar” – An Expression Of The Supremacy Of Islam

The term Allahu akbar embodies the fight for the supremacy of Islam, Allah, and the true believers: past, present, and future; actual and symbolic; military, cultural, or by means of forces of nature controlled and directed by Allah. It is the battle cry and the anthem of this fight for supremacy. Victory for Muslims is victory for Islam and for monotheism, and it is Allah’s victory over false gods. Victory comes from Him and proves His supremacy. This was the main meaning of the term in the early centuries of Islam. Today it is a mark of Islamists and jihadis, as well as all others who wish to restore the ancient grandeur of Islamic empires, where “the crescent must always be on top of the cross,” as described by New York-based Muslim Brotherhood activist Ayat Oraby.

It is worth noting that Allahu kbar is uttered by both Sunni jihadis and the Shi’ite leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran (which was established as an “Islamic State” long before ISIS). In every major sermon delivered by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the crowd, comprising thousands and sometimes tens of thousands, regularly chants Allahu akbar together with “Death to America”, “Death to England”, and “Death to Israel.” (See, for example, MEMRI TV Clips 41545075, and 5011.)

Appendix – Examples Of The Use Of “Allahu Akbar”

Use As A Battle Cry During Terror Attacks – A Timeline

  • In September 2022, a Muslim man shouting “Allahu akbar” stabbed two British police officers in London.
  • In September 2022, a 200-strong mob chanting “Allahu Akbar” surrounded a Hindu temple in Birmingham; chants of Allahu akbar were heard.
  • In October 2020, a Muslim high school student in Paris shouted “Allahu akbar” as he beheaded his teacher, Samuel Paty, who had shown cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad during a class on free speech.
  • In November 2021, Fulani Muslims shouted “Allahu akbar” as they slaughtered 10 Christians, including several children, and burned down 100 homes in Nigeria.
  • In June 2020, Muslim rioters in Stuttgart, Germany chanted “Allahu akbar” as they attacked police with stones and bottles.
  • In March 2018, Yacine Mihoub stabbed to death 85-year-old French Holocaust survivor Mireille Knoll in her apartment while shouting “Allahu akbar.”
  • In June 2017, a Canadian man, Amor R. Ftouhi, shouted “Allahu akbar” as he stabbed a U.S. police officer at Bishop Airport in Flint, Michigan.
  • In March 2011, a gunman shouted “Allahu akbar” as he gunned down two U.S. airmen in Germany.

From MEMRI Reports

In March 2015, MEMRI published a report titled “Jihadi Media Company Praises Tunisia Attack, Calls For More Attacks On Western Tourists,” in the aftermath of that month’s attack on the Bardo National Museum in Tunis in which 17 were killed. The article quotes the shooters: “‘How did you enter so easily,’ they asked in astonishment, and the two answered: ‘We come in the name of Allah.’ Then they began throwing grenades, crying ‘Allahu akbar,’ and shooting at infidels and at the policemen that guarded them, and the massacre began.”

In May 2003, an Al-Qaeda video about one of the group’s suicide bombings, in Riyadh that month, included an audio recording of the bombing itself. In the recording, the suicide bombers can be heard praying, and then, en route to carry out their attack, crying “Allahu akbar!” and “Allah, expel the polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula!”

Read The Full Report

RELATED ARTICLES:

NYC: Muslim screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ brandishes BB gun, fires it into the air in Jewish neighborhood

France: Muslim migrant suspected of killing his wife threatens cops with a gun while screaming ‘Allahu akbar’

France: Muslim migrant screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ stabs six people at Paris train station

EDITORS NOTE: This MEMRI column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Some of 2022’s Biggest Lies to Reject as False in 2023

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

JUDD DUNNING

Judd Dunning, Host of “Unapologetic with Judd Dunning” on KABC AM790 and on YouTube and Co-Host of “BulletPointNation.” Judd Dunning, is a political author, host, pundit and producer. Over Judd’s three-decade political journey from liberal to conservative activist, he has collaboratively created and hosted a multitude of political media projects. Judd is also both a Newsmax Regular Guest commentator, and look for Judd’s next new book; coming later in 2022 — “13 ½ Reasons to Love America: How to Stop the Angry Woke Left and Preserve the America We Love”

TOPIC: Some of 2022’s Biggest Lies to Reject as False in 2023

LANCE LORUSSO

Lance LoRusso is a leading attorney, former law enforcement officer, and author of the books, When Cops Kill and Blue News. Profits from his books go to charities for law enforcement officers. LoRusso has appeared on CNN, HLN, and FOX News Channel.

TOPIC: Illinois is eliminating cash bail this year—if its supreme court lets it.

©AUN-TV, Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

Why Banning Gas Stoves Is Not a Serious Way to Fight Climate Change

In July, in an effort to combat global warming, Berkeley, California, became the first city in the United States to prohibit natural gas in new buildings, including residential homes.

“We need to tackle climate change every way that we can,” said Berkeley City Councilwoman Kate Harrison, who led the effort.

Other cities, including Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Jose, are developing their own policies in what appears to be the latest trend to save the planet. But does banning gas for heating and cooking in residential developments make sense?

Lawmakers and environmental activists often overlook important issues.

Assuming that people will continue to cook their meals at home and that exotic solutions such as sun-powered grills are exercised by a tiny fraction of the population, people will still need devices that heat their pots and pans for cooking.

On a gas stove, you burn natural gas to heat the water for your tea. In the case of an electric stove, you burn natural gas (or coal, oil, or biomass) in a power plant to heat water that turns turbines that produce electricity that heats the stove that heats the water for your tea. Simple physics reminds us that as energy passes from one state of matter to another, energy loss is inevitable. Burning gas to make electricity is only about 40 percent efficient, on average.

The environmental effect of switching from gas stoves to electric stoves depends largely on how the electricity is produced. If your electricity comes from renewable sources, there is greater potential for shrinking your carbon footprint. If your electricity comes from coal-powered plants that don‘t capture carbon dioxide, then switching could be worse for the environment since coal produces more carbon dioxide emissions than natural gas.

In 2018, about 17 percent of electricity produced came from renewables, with 35 percent coming from natural gas, 27 percent coming from coal, and 19 percent coming from nuclear.

Given current U.S. electricity production, if you banned natural gas stoves across the country, only two out of ten would be powered by renewable energy—the remaining eight would be powered by electricity generated from coal (three), nuclear (two), and natural gas (three).

California produces about 44 percent of its electricity from renewables, so swapping natural gas for electricity makes more sense there than, say, Florida, where renewables generate just three percent of the state’s electricity.

There are other problems, however. Take peak demand. Electric heating usually uses a lot of energy—to such an extent that British grid operators need to predict when a major soccer match ends so that they can ramp up production at tea time, when millions of Brits plug in electric kettles. (This is less of a problem today because of on-demand streaming.)

What this means is that even if electricity from renewables increased substantially, due to the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, you might end up in a situation where gas-powered electricity production plants are working overtime during peak demand. This is an issue that electric grid operators face on a daily basis.

While cooking is far from the main consumer of electricity, a mass switch from cooking on gas to cooking on electricity could add stress to the system. Moreover, if bans extend from cooking on gas to heating homes with gas, the problems would likely be even more severe.

Of course, in some cases, especially where natural gas infrastructure is not in place, cooking with electricity from the grid might make more sense than expensive new investments in natural gas pipelines. But if operational pipelines are already there, banning gas is a poor use of resources.

To be sure, these issues are not unsolvable. Smart grids, better planning and forecasting, more efficient methods to store and release electric power (think giant batteries or hydroaccumulation plants), superior electric stoves, and better technology in general might solve some or all of these problems. But banning gas-powered stoves before this better technology has arrived is similar to banning horses before cars had been invented.

Some say bans on cooking with natural gas is a symbolic gesture. Indeed. But it is the worst kind of symbol—one designed to make people feel good rather than do good. An outright blanket ban on natural gas in homes, especially if extended throughout the country, would make little environmental sense—and no economic sense.

Frankly, such ill-conceived gestures undermine the good faith efforts of those seeking to pass sound environmental policy.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Examiner. 

AUTHOR

Zilvinas Silenas

Zilvinas Silenas is the president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The “360,000 Amigos”

President Biden and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts have been dubbed the “Three Amigos.” We should call the scheme he announced on the eve of their meeting this week the “Three-Hundred-and-Sixty-Thousand Amigos.”

That’s the number of aliens expected to be brought here this year from four deeply problematic countries through a gambit that is arguably illegal and certainly unauthorized by Congress. As first revealed by the author of Overrun, Todd Bensman, the administration is now enabling people who would otherwise have paid cartels to smuggle them into this country to skip that expense and grave danger.

Instead, they’ll be authorized in their home countries to “lawfully” migrate, then flown here equipped with work papers and money – all at U.S. taxpayer expense. This process may obscure, but will only exacerbate today’s border catastrophe.

Court-ordered injunctions and impeachment proceedings can’t come soon enough.

This is Frank Gaffney.

AUTHOR

Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Founder and Executive Chairman.

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Elite University Department Bans Use Of Word ‘Field,’ Claiming It’s Too Racist

Last week, it was American that was racist, now this. These people are nuts. Evil and nuts.

Elite University Department Bans Use Of Word ‘Field,’ Claiming It’s Too Racist

Elite University Department Bans Use Of Word ‘Field,’ Claiming It’s Too Racist

By: Alexa Schwerha, Daily Caller, on January 10, 2023

The University of Southern California (USC) Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work will no longer use the world “field” in its curriculum or its practices as part of its anti-racist framework, according to an email reportedly sent Monday.

The school reportedly stripped the word from use due to alleged ties to “anti-Black” and “anti-immigrant” rhetoric, according to the email sent by the Practicum Education Department to the campus community, faculty, staff and students. The school informed that the word “practicum” would be used instead to “ensure [its] use of inclusive language and practice.”

“This change supports anti-racist social work practice by replacing language that could be considered anti-Black or anti-immigrant in favor of inclusive language,” the email reportedly reads. “Language can be powerful, and phrases such as ‘going into the field’ or ‘field work’ may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign.”

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Harvard University Offers Class On Transgender Medicine For ‘Infants To Older Adults’

Understanding Why Banning Words is Worse than Burning Books

Saying ‘American’ Is Now RACIST and Stanford University’s List of Other UNACCEPTABLE WORDS

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Regime Looking To Ban Gas Stoves

Banning gas stoves. And fireplaces next. Bottom line is good ventilation is all that’s required.  Every good thing is in their crosshairs. Gas stoves have been in use since the late 1800s.

This is just more destruction to our economy and our way of life by the totalitarian primitives.

They claim it’s for the children, These are the same folks mandating deadly RNA vaccines for kids, genital mutilation and chemical castrations for children.

Banning Gas Stoves over Health Concerns

A federal agency may look to ban gas stoves over concern about the release of pollutants that can cause health and respiratory problems, according to a new report. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is set to open public comment on the dangers of gas stoves sometime this winter. The commission could set standards on emissions from the gas stoves, or even look to ban the manufacture or import of the appliances, commissioner.

Keep reading.

US Safety Agency to Consider Ban on Gas Stoves Amid Health Fears

Natural gas stoves, which are used in about 40% of homes in the US, emit air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter at levels the EPA and World Health Organization have said are unsafe and linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, cancer, and other health conditions, according to reports by groups such as the Institute for Policy Integrity and the American Chemical Society.

Read more.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: Elite University Department Bans Use Of Word ‘Field,’ Claiming It’s Too Racist

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

TWITTER FILES: Pfizer Pressured Twitter to Censor Tweets

Pure evil.

Twitter Pressured by Pfizer to Suppress Tweets #TwitterFiles

Twitter was asked to censor tweets by Pfizer that questioned its efficacy.

By: Dr Panda, January 10, 2023:

Meet former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb. He is now a board member of Pfizer. He’s been busy getting tweets that challenge the ‘safe and effective’ narrative censored and removed. This is a recap of (part 1?) of the #FacuiFiles.

On August 27, 2021, former FDA Commissioner and current Pfizer Board Member Dr. Scott Gottlieb, emailed Twitter regarding a tweet sent out by Dr. Brett Giroir, which claimed that natural immunity was superior to vaccine immunity and there’s no scientific justification for the vaccine.

In Gottlieb’s email to Twitter, he called the tweet “corrosive” and worried the tweet would end up going “viral and driving news coverage.”

Dr. Girori is the Former Assistant Secretary for Health, Acting FDA Commissioner, WHO Board Member, and Admiral in the US Public Health Service. He also worked at DARPA and currently is the CEO of Altesa BioSciences which specializes in developing treatments for respiratory viruses and global viral threats.

Here is the tweet. It is labeled as “misleading” and cannot be replied to, shared or liked. This tweet was never misleading or factually inaccurate.

Gottlieb’s email was forwarded from Todd O’Boyle, Twitter’s Manager of Public Policy at Twitter, to Twitter’s Strategic Response team. This team handles the company’s most important employees and users.

O’Boyle wrote to the team “Please see this report from the former FDA commissioner,” not mentioning Gottieb was a current Pfizer board member, the ones who make billions on the mRNA vaccines.

An analyst found that the tweet didn’t violate Twitter’s rules on false and misleading information but still slapped a “misleading” flag on it.

A week later Gottlieb was back at it, ferociously emailing O’Boyle about more tweets. This time it was Justin Hart, a fellow Substacker and COVID vaccine dissenter. His tweet (correctly) pointed out that children essentially have zero risk of dying from COVID-19. Why report this tweet? It’s easier to sell experimental mRNA if parents are terrified that their children will die.

Here is the Tweet Gottlieb reported:

Once again O’Boyle forwarded Gottlieb’s email to the Strategic Response Team, again only referencing him as the former FDA commissioner. Twitter took no action.

Gottlieb responded on Twitter blocking all replies. It’s quite long. He complained to Twitter about being doxed and feared for his safety. He actually doxed himself in his own tweets for exposing his personal email (tweet 5,6&7). Around the same time, Gottlieb also went on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” saying “I’m unconcerned about debate being made. I’m concerned about physical threats being made for people’s safety.

Dr. Brett Giroir also responded by saying Gottlieb’s behavior speaks for itself. He “put corporate interests first — not public health.” Calling for an “open, honest, uncensored debate.”

Last but not least Elon Musk, Owner and CEO of Twitter, chimed in saying “Some conspiracies are actually true.” This tweet has since been deleted.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: Under White House Pressure, Facebook Censored Accurate Covid Vaccine Information

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

House Republican Files Articles of Impeachment Against DHS Sec. Mayorkas In Wake of Border Invasion

Finally! Millions have stormed the border while Mayorkas continues to insist “the border is secure.”

Mayorkas: ‘The border is closed, the border is secure’:

House Republican Files Articles of Impeachment Against DHS Sec. Mayorkas

Kevin McCarthy called for Mayorkas to resign in November or face an impeachment inquiry

By Kyle Morris, Kelly Phares | Fox News January 10, 2023:

Texas Republican Rep. Pat Fallon has filed impeachment articles against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, delivering on a promise he made last week before the 118th Congress was officially sworn in.

The articles of impeachment against Mayorkas for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” known as House Resolution 8, were introduced by Fallon in the House on Monday and have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Last week, Fallon vowed to file impeachment articles against Mayorkas after the Congress was sworn in. The effort from Republicans in the House is one of many that the new GOP majority will take as it works to fight the Biden administration on issues related to immigration and the southern border crisis.

“Since day one, Secretary Mayorkas’ policies have undermined law enforcement activities at our southern border,” Fallon said in a statement to Fox News last week. “From perjuring himself before Congress about maintaining operational control of the border to the infamous ‘whip-gate’ slander against our border patrol agents, Secretary Mayorkas has proven time and time again that he is unfit to lead the Department of Homeland Security.”

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Republicans Pass New Rules Package for Congress in First Vote

New GOP House Votes To Repeal Funding for Biden’s 87,000 New IRS Agents

Where Is The FBI Raid Of Joe Biden?

TWITTER FILES: Pfizer Pressured Twitter to Censor Tweets

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Radical K-12 Reform: Pay Homeschoolers

Governments should focus on funding effective education.


What if we just cut through the morass of programs and take all the money being provided at the federal and state level and put it into individual student endowment accounts?

The late 1970s in the United States was a time of surprising deregulation. It was the beginning of the end for the telephone monopolies. Those inside the regulated industries, and the regulatory agencies, warned of doom and disaster if competition were allowed. The doomsayers were wrong. The free market provided solutions that were impossible to forecast. Competition and the profit motive brought out the best that humans can create.

Communications solutions today are employing far more people than the old phone monopolies, and are delivering services never dreamed of in that era. The forecasts of disastrous unemployment and system collapse if the phone monopolies were opened to competition were totally and completely wrong.

K-12 is the phone monopoly of our time.

This seems like the best time in years to truly reform K-12. However, the focus seems to be on charter schools, leaving behind thousands of students in poorly performing districts, and most proposed solutions leave out homeschooling.

The fundamental problem is the lack of competition. There is a simple way to introduce it.

Individualised investment

Instead of pouring money into the local school monopolies, the solution is to simply endow individual students. Open the door to the free market in a meaningful way.

We should create an individual educational endowment fund for each K-12 student. Student endowment funds would pay out annually for students who achieved minimum grade level knowledge, including to the parents of homeschooled students. The determination of minimum achievement would be through testing, with the tests also from free market providers.

Providers for students who did poorly would not be paid, leaving twice the annual amount available next year to educators who could catch them up. Seriously underperforming students would accrue several years of catch-up funding, providing extra incentive for the type of personalised attention that would benefit them. Military veteran servicemen and women teaching small groups of students, developing personal relationships, can change lost kids into enthusiastic young adults.

Opening educational services to the free market will allow for practical job-related instruction and college level courses to be included as providers fight for market share.

Competition among educational providers will make full use of technology, will provide useful training for actual jobs, and will deliver far more education for the same money. Gamification will keep students involved in ways that existing K-12 material can’t touch.

Instead of leaving dropouts to fend for themselves, the funds should remain on deposit indefinitely, allowing those who get their act together after some time in the adult world to get an education.

Modelling the idea will show that existing school structures and transportation fleets will be used, more than with charter schools. Most school systems will continue as they are, but a new element of potential competition will focus their efforts.

Essential pruning

A major early effect might be defunding some inner-city school systems, with the carry-over of endowment funds providing an incentive to corporate providers. These districts are a disgrace, but there is almost no way to change them now. Defunding poor performance in a way that will bring new providers could work.

The new providers will be renting space and transportation for their offerings in most cases from existing school districts. Just as with telecom deregulation, it will take several years to see the full impact, but requiring minimum accomplishment for payout will protect students and taxpayers as solutions evolve.

Homeschooling pods will explode, but those kids will still participate on local sports teams, and transportation to practice (and back) will also be rented from existing fleets by their parents.

Special needs students would still have extra funding, but at an individual student level.

Let’s end the monopoly. Let’s open the door to competition.

Unleash technology, but pay only for results.

Homeschoolers would be an unstoppable force for reform if a realistic plan to pay them existed. The endowment idea would do it.

Stark contrast

I was radicalised on this issue by an experience with a black tow truck driver. When I was in the Army during the era of the draft, my platoon had a bunch of black guys from inner-city Detroit. Our off-duty pastime in Germany with no English language TV was reading paperback novels. They were traded over and over, and it was common to see everyone on his bunk with his head propped up reading. The black guys read effortlessly.

Recently I needed a tow, and a black tow truck driver did a good job hooking me up and handling his equipment. He was a solid guy, the same type as the guys I knew in the Army. As we rode to the destination, he said he had graduated from one of the big inner city high schools.

When we got to the destination, he asked me to help him do the paperwork, and as we worked through it, I discovered that he could hardly read. This is ridiculous. These schools are a disgrace. Here is a guy who will probably never be able to read effortlessly because of terrible, crappy inner-city schools he was stuck in.

The black guys in my platoon from inner city Detroit went to schools that didn’t have unions in the 1950s and 1960s. School management was adequate at that time to produce acceptable results. They became the Motown generation that led to ending segregation and providing great music that I still enjoy.

Preference falsification among Democrat voters on K-12 has created a situation where explosive change can occur. The Overton Window can suddenly shift. K-12 seems to be that issue.

What is needed is a practical method. Endowment Accounts provide that method.

There is no way to fix the current K-12 situation beyond radical demonopolising. I can see a future where school infrastructure is owned by large competitive providers in much the same way Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, etc. operate today, fighting for market share by providing educational services that work and that kids and parents want.

This is a great opportunity to apply technology and dramatically improve the way we educate our children.

AUTHOR

Richard Illyes is a retired electronic designer and programmer in rural Texas south of Houston. He is an active pilot and flight instructor and flies off a grass strip at his place outside Alvin, where… More by Richard Illyes

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

1984 to 2020 Florida County Republican Presidential Election Trend Report

The information in this 1984 to 2020 Florida County Republican Presidential Election Trend Report was originally tied to the monthly Florida’s Registrations Report but owing to a delay in reporting of one major county, and the report becoming too unwieldly, a separate report on long-term trends of the vote is being issued.

The Republican Party is a candidate-based political organization. The variability in registration and vote trends noted in past registrations reports suggests that being a candidate-based political organization does not allow for the optimization of Republican political fortunes.

There are many political organizations, both national and international, who are satisfied with undertaking long-term political efforts. Fabian Socialists and the Chinese efforts come to mind. This raises the question of how are Republicans doing in improving their long-term prospects?

1984 was chosen as the base year for the examination as the 1984 Presidential Election was the peak of Republican share of the vote and the 36-year time span (1984 to 2020) is sufficiently long to be considered long-term. The Republican national popular presidential vote margin since 1984 is an eye-opening, and poorly trending, negative 23,938,640 votes (going from a 16,938,640-vote win in 1984 to a 7,060,520-vote loss in 2020), and a worrisome, but positively trending 908,745-vote loss of margin in Florida (falling from a 1,280,431-vote win in 1984 to a 371,686-vote win in 2020).

To demonstrate the need for a change from being a solely candidate-based organization to an organization which also considers policies, charts and tables showing long-term Republican vote trends, with accompanying tables, were created. Chart 1 and Table 1 are based on percentage of the vote and Chart 2 and Table 2 are based on vote margin. These charts, and the accompanying data tables are attached.

The shift in Florida county political sentiments based on presidential elections on a percentage basis ranged from Lafayette County increasing the Republican percentage of the vote by 21.7% to Orange County seeing a drop of 33.6% in the Republican percentage of the vote, a difference of 55.3%!

The shift in county vote margin in presidential elections ranged from St. Johns County increasing the Republican vote margin by 37,255 votes while in Broward County the Democrats increased their margin by 345,302 votes, almost ten times that of the Republicans’ gain in St. Johns County.

For clarification of what is meant by vote margin, St. Johns County, the best performing county in growing Republican margin between 1984 and 2020, increased its Republican vote margin from 9,841 votes in 1984 to 47,096 votes in 2020, a gain in margin of 37,255 votes. Lee County, the county which had the largest Republican margin in 2020, had a Republican vote margin of 54,995 in 1984 which grew to 75,552 votes in 2020, a difference of 20,557 votes. In margin gain, St. Johns County outperformed Lee County by 16,698 votes.

The generally poor performance in Florida’s higher population counties has led to Florida’s Republican share of the presidential vote falling from 65.32% of the vote and a vote margin of 1,280,431 in 1984 to 51.11% of the vote, and a vote margin of 371,686 in 2020.

There were nine Florida Counties whose Republican percentage of the presidential vote exceeded 80% in 2020. These high performing counties are target poor as these counties have little room for improvement short of growing their populations, which they hopefully will pursue. Optimistically, the positive changes seen in the 2022 election in many of the traditionally poorer performing, target rich, and more highly populated counties, will carry over to the 2024 presidential election.

These data demonstrate that there are factors not associated with campaigns which, over time, have an overwhelming effect on election outcomes. Republican operatives should take this traditionally quiet times between elections to exhaustively pursue the adoption of policies that will increase Republican market share and ideally give Republican candidates ammunition to use in campaigns.

There are innumerable challenges for Republicans to adopt market share growing strategies. These include

  • No funding mechanism, as nearly all Republican funds are used in campaigns.
  • Republican politicians and their strategists, who have successfully navigated the current system, seeing no need for new strategies.
  • A dearth of Republican non-campaign strategists.
  • Unlike the free market, where the capturing of a small percentage of market share allows alternative ideas to flourish, alternative political ideas are easily stifled by the existing status quo by simply ignoring the alternative ideas.

One of the most significant long-term factors in politics is the relative size of the Democrats’ favoring demographic of those who rent their housing. Democrats, as a political strategy, champion policies which increase the relative numbers of those who cannot escape rental housing. Vote trends suggests this is a highly effective Democrat strategy!

Housing is one policy area where Republicans could gain a campaign advantage. Democrats want relatively more renters. In this effort, they, their willing allies, and their non-willing, but ignorant opposition, adopt policies which subsidize rental housing, and which make the purchasing of a first home a near impossibility for most. This successful Democrat strategy should be pointed out to the Democrat rank-and-file by Republican candidates as a part of a traditional campaign strategy.

Those multitudes of Republicans who favor policies which will be referred to here as smart growth real estate policies, face a binary choice. Our Republic cannot survive without a super-majority of its voters being propertied. Smart growth policies create costs the housing market cannot overcome while corrupting current homeowners, who are more Republican than not, with unearned wealth as the smart growth policies unfairly increase the value of their properties. The binary choice is to keep smart growth programs in place and lose our Republic, or jettison smart growth policies and keep our Republic. The choice is this stark!

Housing policy changes take time to affect the electorate. The 2011 Florida legislature and Senator Rick Scott, who was then serving as Florida’s governor, jettisoned the enforcement arm of Florida’s smart growth program, which was made operational in the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, by eliminating the Florida Department of Community Affairs.

The political significance of Florida ridding itself of The Department of Community Affairs in late 2011 is not broadly understood. Traditional political analysts tried to figure out how President Trump carried Florida in 2016. Then the analysts puzzled over how Governor DeSantis defeated Andrew Gillum in 2018. Next, the analysts pondered how President Trump carried Florida by an even larger margin in 2020. Now the analysts are trying to make sense of how Florida experienced a red wave in 2022 while other states did not.

Competent state Republican governance and national incompetent Democrat governance surely played a role in the 2022 election, as likely did an influx of Republican voting Puerto Ricans, but so did the 2011 Florida legislature, and then Governor Scott, who made the Florida real estate market less burdened resulting in comparative growth in the Republican vote!

Florida Election Report 1984-2022

©Steve Meyer, Indian River County, Florida REC Member. All rights reserved.