Ryan Zettle

Inflation has impacted everyone but the younger generations will likely continue to see the effects of rising inflation for years to come. Rising inflation has an insidious effect: input prices are higher, consumers can purchase fewer goods, revenues and profits decline, and the economy slows for a time until a measure of economic equilibrium is reached. For millennials, rising inflation is the fourth financial crisis of their lives.They’ve experienced the dot com bubble burst as kids, the Great Recession as 20-somethings, the COVID-19 fueled the economic crisis and now rapid inflation. Gen Z experienced the last two of those four. Commodity prices have already gone up sharply around the world and many other prices seem to be headed the same direction. To fight COVID-19 many governments printed huge quantities of new money and many economists are predicting the result will be a sharp rise in inflation. For those sectors of the economy which suffer badly from inflation there will inevitably be significant increases in unemployment, which is likely to hit the younger generations hardest. What types of things will be affected by inflation?

Housing During Inflation 

Millennials and Gen Z are impacted by housing costs. Both generations are much more likely to rent than own homes which means they’re much more vulnerable to a sudden rent increase. “Gen Z has been hit harder by the financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic than older generations,” said Andrew Latham, managing editor of SuperMoney. “Seven out of 10 have had to make adjustments due to pandemic-related financial strain. They face crushing student debt, entered the workplace during a global pandemic-induced recession and shouldered the largest financial vulnerability increase. In addition, Gen Z members were more likely to borrow money and move to more affordable housing because of the pandemic than any other generation.

According to a report from PropertyShark, ”Because of student loans and high down payments, many young people who aspire to own their own place have been locked into the rental market far longer than previous generations. This, in turn, has been pushing rental rates to the highest they’ve ever been a boon for multifamily investors, but that rent burden coupled with college debt continues to keep many from saving enough for a down payment.” Even if the younger generations are able to buy a house, household goods like furniture cost up to 12% more.

Everyday Needs and Wages During inflation 

Millennials and Gen Z spend more monthly on gas than any other age group and gasoline is 50% more expensive right now. Gen Z is the generation most likely to use the laundromat, where costs have risen more than 7%. Even groceries are up 5% and expected to rise to 8% before the year is out. On the wage front, the younger generations will need to negotiate wage increases that match inflation which is hard to do for a number of reasons: an oversupply of workers; if their jobs can be automated; or if there is increased pressure on wages through increased immigration.

Investing during Inflation 

Stocks come in two categories: value and growth. Value stocks have strong current cash flows that will slow over time, while growth stocks have little or no cash flow today but are expected to gradually increase over time. When valuing stocks using the discounted cash flow method, in times of rising interest rates, growth stocks are negatively impacted far more than value stocks. Since interest rates are usually increased to combat high inflation, in times of high inflation, growth stocks will be more negatively impacted. This suggests a positive correlation between inflation and the return on value stocks and a negative one for growth stocks. 

For Adam Mlamali, a 20 year old stock trader, inflation is something he “constantly” studies to monitor and make decisions over his investments. “You need to be realistic with budgeting, spending, saving and even potentially investing,” he said. Adam, who moved to Birmingham to buy his first property, said a food delivery service, which he made a large investment in, was experiencing surging operating costs. “One of the alarming risks facing the company was the fact that due to inflation across the entire food delivery industry, drivers are being paid out 15% more per hour, leading to increased costs potentially affecting our returns,” he added. Right now there’s a big talk with certain investors and investment funds whether, is inflation transitory? Is it just a period that is going to end? Or is this actually here to stay?” Adam said certain investment vehicles “aren’t really performing now” as they were in the last few years due to rising costs.

If the job crisis continues and inflation keeps increasing, the effects will fall disproportionately on the shoulders of younger generations. Inflation is also particularly insidious for young people who want to have more say in our democracy because, as Milton Friedman said, “inflation is taxation without representation.” Even though increasing inflation can be scary, there are ways the younger generations can fight inflation: making ambitious demands for higher wages early and often; avoiding leaving cash in current accounts; and thinking of everything in terms of its replacement cost rather than its historic cost.

Written by: Erinn Malloy

Joe Biden has been called many names through his presidency. From taunts such as ‘Sleepy Joe’ to ‘lets go Brandon,’ republicans and conservatives have been more than vocal with their displeasure for Biden and his administration. In this article we will look at the different nicknames Joe Biden has been given throughout his presidency, and by default, also look at some of Biden’s biggest blunders while president.

‘Joe Hiden’

In a series of tweets from President Trump, the Republican leader called him “Joe Hiden” saying that Joe Biden had been “hiding” in the basement of his Delaware home during the campaign. “Joe Hiden’ gets off his airplane, grabs and shakes a rather stunned man’s hand (like in the old days), then touches his (Joe’s) face and mask with the same hand. No crowd, no enthusiasm for Joe today. Law & Order!” 

‘Sippy Cup Joe’

Fox News host Hannity displayed a sippy cup on air with the presidential seal on it, claiming Biden was currently asleep after having his “warm milky” from his sippy cup. Hannity pulled out the sippy cup on air to mock Biden over the White House calling a lid. (no further announcements or appearances are expected for that day) “Sippy Cup Joe” is also believed to be a combination of other options from Hannity’s list of nicknames. Other Hannity nicknames for Biden have included “Quid Pro Joe,” “Appeasement Joe,” “Basement Joe,” and “the Big Guy.”

‘Sleepy Joe Biden’ 

A nickname originally given by Trump, “sleepy Joe Biden” was in reference to Biden not having energy and being sluggish. The nickname was solidified by the public when Joe Biden fell asleep during the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland.n This came after “Sleepy Joe Biden” had warned U.S. military service members this past summer that climate change was the “greatest threat” to America’s national security. The threat must not be too imminent if we have time to nap during the meeting. 

‘Let’s Go Brandon’

During a NASCAR race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama. Brandon Brown, had won his first Xfinity Series and was being interviewed by a Sports reporter. The crowd behind him was chanting “F—- Joe Biden.” The reporter suggested they were chanting “Let’s go, Brandon” to cheer the driver. The phrase “Let’s go Brandon” has been used increasingly in republican and conservative circles. Veteran GOP ad maker Jim Innocenzi has no qualms about the coded slight. “Unless you are living in a cave, you know what it means,” he said. “But it’s done with a little bit of class. And if you object and are taking it too seriously, go away.”

‘Bare Shelves Biden’

A bit before Christmas, President Biden boasted that he had averted the supply-chain crisis: “The much-predicted crisis didn’t occur. Packages are moving. Gifts are being delivered. Shelves are not empty.” White House chief of staff Ron Klain called the supply-chain crisis “an overhyped narrative.” However for the last few weeks across America you can find a ton of stories about empty store shelves. The hashtag #BareShelvesBiden started being promoted by conservatives. Many on the left claimed it was a false narrative, but seeing as there was still no milk, petfood, or paper towels on the shelves this week it is safe to say there are supply-chain issues. 

‘Timin’ Biden’

One of the more horrible and disrespectful blunders Joe Biden has shockingly not been given a trending nickname for is constantly checking his watch during the dignified transfer of fallen soldiers from Afghanistan. After this horrific act of disrespect many conservative circles referred to joe Biden as “Timin’ Biden,” but the nickname never really took off. The ceremony was to honor 13 fallen soldiers who were killed by a suicide bomber. Mark Schmitz, whose 20-year-old son, Marine Lance Cpl. Jared Schmitz, who died in the attack, commented to multiple outlets about the situation. “They would release the salute and he looked down at his watch on every last one,” Hoover said. “All 13, he looked down at his watch… I actually leaned into my son’s mother’s ear and I said, ‘I swear to God, if he checks his watch one more time…’,” Schmitz recalled, “and that was only probably four times in. I couldn’t look at him anymore after that, just considering, especially, the time and why we were there. I found it to be the most disrespectful thing I’ve ever seen.” We can’t agree more. Where did you have to be Biden? Why were you openly counting down the time and checking your watch during such a solemn event? Where was the respect for the soldiers that fell for our country? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

A cold case team has been combing through evidence for five years in an attempt to solve one of World War II’s enduring mysteries. The cold case team has found the “most likely scenario” of who betrayed Jewish teenage diarist Anne Frank and her family during the holocaust.  Their answer is outlined in a new book called “The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Cold Case Investigation” by Canadian academic and author Rosemary Sullivan. “We have investigated over 30 suspects in 20 different scenarios, leaving one scenario we like to refer to as the most likely scenario,” said film maker Thijs Bayens, who had the idea to put together the cold case team, that was led by retired FBI agent Vincent Pankoke, to forensically examine the evidence. Bayens was quick to add that, “we don’t have 100% certainty. There is no smoking gun because betrayal is circumstantial.” 

What happened to the Frank Family?

The Franks and four other Jews hid in a secret annex, reached by a staircase hidden behind a bookcase, from July 1942 until they were discovered in August 1944 and deported to concentration camps. Only Anne’s father, Otto Frank, survived the war. Anne and her sister died in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. Anne was 15.

The diary Anne wrote while in hiding was published after the war and became a symbol of hope and resilience that has been translated into dozens of languages and read by millions. While much is known about Anne and the others from the secret annex, the identity of the person who gave away their location remained a mystery, despite previous investigations.

What did the Cold Case Team Find?

The cold case team’s findings suggest Otto Frank was one of the first to hear about the possible involvement of a prominent member of the Jewish community in Amsterdam. A typed anonymous tip delivered to Otto Frank after the war, names Arnold van den Bergh, who died in 1950, as the person who informed German authorities of where to find the Frank family. The Anne Frank House museum has welcomed the new research, but said it also leaves questions unanswered. The museum gave the researchers access to its archives for the cold case project.

“No, I don’t think we can say that a mystery has been solved now. I think it’s an interesting theory that the team came up with,” said museum director Ronald Leopold. “I think they come up with a lot of interesting information, but I also think there are still many missing pieces of the puzzle. And those pieces need to be further investigated in order to see how we can value this new theory.”

Arnold van der Bergh is believed to have given the location of the Frank’s secret annex hiding place to German Nazis to save his own family from being murdered in Nazi concentration camps. Cold case investigators say the hunt for the betrayer is a way of highlighting how Nazi occupation forced some members of a close-knit Amsterdam community to turn on one another. “We went looking for a perpetrator and we found a victim,” Bayens said. 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued two much awaited rulings. One of the rulings blocks the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandate for large employers. The Supreme Court is allowing a separate ruling for health care workers, when their facilities receive federal funding. 208 million Americans, or 62.7% of the population, are fully vaccinated, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The courthouse remains closed to the public. Lawyers and reporters are asked for negative test results before being allowed inside the courtroom for arguments, though vaccinations are not required. The justices heard arguments last week. Their questions then hinted at the split verdict issued Thursday.

Supreme Court Ruling for Large Employers

The Biden administration’s large employer COVID vaccine mandate was announced in early November, with an original effective date of January 4. The COVID vaccine mandate targeted over 84 million U.S. workers, roughly half of the U.S. workforce. The COVID vaccine mandate would have imposed penalties on U.S. employers with 100 or more workers that failed to ensure all of their employees, aside from those who qualified for an exemption, were fully vaccinated, or tested for COVID regularly. Employers could choose to offer a testing option, without having to pay for tests.

The Supreme Court ruling for large employers came in at a 6-3 decision to block the COVID vaccine mandate, which would have been issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). According to the majority opinion, the COVID vaccine mandate would be a first of its kind for OSHA. Congress has rolled out many “first of their kind” legislations during the COVID pandemic, but they refuse to pass legislation like OSHA suggests here. The OSHA regulation had initially been blocked by a federal appeals court in New Orleans, then allowed to take effect by a federal appellate panel in Cincinnati. Both had been challenged by Republican-led states. 

In addition, business groups attacked the OSHA emergency regulation as too expensive and likely to cause workers to leave their jobs at a time when finding new employees is already difficult. The National Retail Federation, the nation’s largest retail trade group, called the most recent Supreme Court’s decision “a significant victory for employers.”

Liberal Justices Dissent Workplace Ruling 

In dissent, the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices argued the Supreme Court was overreaching by substituting its judgment for that of health experts. “Acting outside of its competence and without legal basis, the Court displaces the judgments of the Government officials given the responsibility to respond to workplace health emergencies,” Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a joint dissent. President Joe Biden said he was “disappointed that the Supreme Court has chosen to block common-sense life-saving requirements for employees at large businesses that were grounded squarely in both science and the law.”

Supreme Court’s Ruling for Healthcare Workers

The administration’s health care worker COVID vaccine mandate applies to facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funds, requiring them to maintain a fully vaccinated workforce, with no testing alternative. The COVID vaccine mandate for health workers applies to more than I10.4 million workers at 76,000 health care facilities as well as home health care providers. The COVID vaccine mandate is administered by Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the rule administered by the Department of Health and Human Services.  Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices to form a majority.  “Both Medicare and Medicaid are administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has general statutory authority to promulgate regulations ‘as may be necessary to the efficient administration of the functions with which he is charged.’ One such function… Perhaps the most basic, given the Department’s core mission…  is to ensure that the health care providers who care for Medicare and Medicaid patients protect their patients’ health and safety,” the majority stated. The Supreme Court’s decision allows the Biden administration to enforce COVID vaccination requirements on covered health care facilities, with certain exceptions to accommodate workers who decline COVID vaccinations on medical or religious grounds. The rulings take effect immediately and will remain in place until legal challenges over their constitutionality are resolved. 

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in dissent that the issue was whether the administration has the authority “to force healthcare workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo.” He said the administration hadn’t shown convincingly that Congress gave that authority. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett signed onto Thomas’ opinion. Alito wrote a separate dissent that the other three conservatives joined as well. America’s feelings are obviously all over the board with this topic. Are you vaccinated? Has your employer required you to get vaccinated? If they did, would you find a new job or get vaccinated? What do vaccination numbers have to do with the labor shortage our country is facing? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday outlined a strategy to ensure a Senate floor debate on voting rights, after three separate attempts last year were stymied by Republicans. U.S. Senate Republican Mitch McConnell has criticized President Joe Biden’s push for a voting-rights bill. Biden has called for Democrats to drop the chamber’s long standing “filibuster” rule requiring 60 of the 100 senators to agree to advance most legislation, a move that McConnell said would irreparably damage the Senate. Biden plans to make a personal plea to Senate Democrats today, urging them to agree on changing or eliminating the filibuster so they can pass the voting rights bill. Under the plan, outlined in a Schumer memo to fellow Democrats, the House of Representatives will soon repackage two voter-related bills into one and pass it. It would then go to the Senate, where dropping the filibuster would prevent Republicans from blocking debate. “We will finally have an opportunity to debate voting rights legislation – something that Republicans have thus far denied,” Schumer wrote in the memo.

Is Biden Trying to Pull the Country Apart?

“Nowhere does the Constitution give a minority the right to unilaterally block legislation,” Biden said. “The American people have waited long enough. The Senate must act.” McConnell responded to this speech the following day, “Unfortunately, President Biden has rejected the ‘better angels of our nature.’ So, it is the Senate’s responsibility to protect the country. This institution was constructed as a firewall against exactly – exactly the kind of rage and false hysteria we saw on full display yesterday,” McConnell said. “The president’s rant yesterday was profoundly, profoundly un-presidential, incoherent, incorrect and beneath his office,” McConnell said on the Senate floor, referring to Biden’s speech in which he appealed for voting-rights legislation and called Republicans cowardly for not supporting it. McConnell accused the president of giving “a deliberately divisive speech that was designed to pull our country further apart.”

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters the administration was disappointed by McConnell’s opposition to the bill. “It is even more disappointing that someone who has supported and advocated for voting rights in the past … is on the other side of this argument now,” Psaki said. If Republicans remain united in opposition, even that bill will not pass the Senate unless all Democrats agree to change the filibuster. Centrist Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are opposed to the idea, saying it would cause turmoil with every change of control in Washington. Schumer has set a deadline for a vote on the election reforms by the Jan. 17 holiday honoring the slain civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr.

Why do Democrats want a new Voting Rights Bill?

Since Trump’s defeat, Republican lawmakers in 19 states have passed dozens of laws making it harder to vote. Democrats claim these measures “target minorities,” who vote in greater proportions for Democrats. Democrats see their voting rights bills as a last chance to counter those ahead of the Nov. 8 elections, when they run the risk of losing their majorities in at least one chamber of Congress. However with their new Voting Rights Measures, election fraud, which was debated this past election, will be much easier to perform. The Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act together would make Election Day a holiday, expand access to mail-in voting and strengthen the U.S. Justice Department oversight of local election jurisdictions with a “history of discrimination.” What about the districts who discriminate against republicans? 

Biden Fuels Political Fire

“Twelve months ago the president said that politics need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path,” McConnell said. “yesterday he poured a giant can of gasoline on the fire.” McConnell went on to say, “we have a sitting president — a sitting president — invoking the Civil War, shouting about totalitarianism and labeling millions of Americans his domestic enemies.” Republicans argue that the bills Democrats are proposing are an infringement of states’ rights to run their elections.  Trump supporters who have embraced his false claims of election fraud are now running for offices that could give them oversight over local elections. Democrats claim those supporters could use those posts to influence election outcomes. Are they scared to have someone who supports Trump witness the fraud and corruption, and end up being a whistleblower? 

A few independent parties believe the last election had signs of fraudulent activity. Democrats claim there was no fraud, and the measure they are attempting to pass won’t be riddled with fraud. Democrats say they want to make sure people are not discriminated against. What about the republicans who suddenly have found themselves labeled as “America’s bad guy?” Making sure groups are not discriminated against should include all groups, not just the ones you believe are the victim. Equality does not mean one group is given special treatment, while others are villainized. What would ending the filibuster and bringing in democratic voter reform mean for the Republican party? Do you believe Biden’s measures have merit? Or, are they vessels to hide corruption and ensure democrats keep control?

Written by: Erinn Malloy

So far, the federal response to the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic has paid out $3,200 to eligible adults: $1,200 under the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act in March 2020, $600 in a December relief measure; and $1,400 under the American Rescue Plan, signed in March by President Joe Biden. However, some advocates and lawmakers are pushing for another round of stimulus aid that would effectively send recurring payments until the pandemic ends, despite the current debt the United States finds itself in. While money stimulates the economy, at what cost?

Omicron Causes Economic Problems 

More than one-quarter of Americans struggled to pay their household expenses in December of 2022.  The unemployment rate stands at 4.2%, higher than the pre-pandemic level of 3.5%. Many Americans who continue to struggle with joblessness and a weak labor market have called for another round of stimulus checks. These and many other reasons have economists worried over the spread of the Omicron variant, which has closed college campuses and prompted the cancellation of high-profile events, including Broadway shows. The surge in Omicron cases is “hitting demand in the leisure, entertainment, travel and restaurant industries, as indicated by high-frequency data,” said David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Funds in a research note. “It will also lead to widespread absenteeism in early 2022, applying a significant drag to the economy in the first quarter, following a very strong fourth quarter.”

Petitions for a Stimulus 

Almost 3 million people have signed a Change.org petition calling on lawmakers to pass legislation for recurring $2,000 monthly payments. As of December, more than 95,000 people have signed a petition from the Senior Citizens League, an advocacy group for older Americans, to provide a one-time $1,400 check to seniors.  “It would help people buy an extra week of groceries for a few months,” said Mary Johnson, Social Security and Medicare policy analyst at the Senior Citizens League. “A stimulus payment would help them manage these higher rising costs.” Rising inflation in 2021 far outpaced the 1.3% benefit increase that Social Security recipients received at the start of the year. Even with the 5.9% cost-of-living increase that goes into effect January 2022, many seniors will fall behind inflation, which jumped 6.8% in November. 

Economists have pointed fingers at the three rounds of stimulus checks for contributing to inflation. Americans had cash in their pockets, so they boosted spending on goods. Combine that with the supply-chain crunch, and the result was sharply higher inflation, according to economists. According to Brad McMillan, the chief investment officer at Commonwealth Financial Network, “one cause of inflation has been an explosion of demand driven by federal stimulus,” he noted in a December report. “But that stimulus has now ended. Yes, we will continue to face inflation and supply problems, but they are moderating and will keep doing so.”

How likely is a fourth stimulus check?

Wall Street analysts say it’s not likely, but anything could happen. The Biden administration has focused on infrastructure spending to spark economic growth, betting that an investment in roads, trains and other direct investments will help get people back to work and spur the ongoing recovery. We are not too sure how this will work as the labor shortage is a culmination of many people not wanting to work for bad management, and the others putting off work until the government hand-outs stop.  

Battles in Congress Over Build Back Better Plan

Democrats are looking to pass the Build Back Better Act, a signature of Biden’s presidency, through a method known as reconciliation. It would allow them to bypass Republicans, but requires Democrats to be completely unified. President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act extends the Child Tax Credit, which is currently being paid in monthly installments, through the end of 2022. However, at a $2 trillion price tag, it faces a battle in the Senate. If passed, it would mean eligible guardians could continue to receive monthly checks for another year.

Current law allows parents who don’t have social security numbers to receive a payment if their qualifying child has a social security number. This includes children who were born in the United States but parents are undocumented. However, if the Build Back Better Act passes the Senate in its current form, it would strike that requirement from the record to make children eligible even if they don’t have a social security number. Does this mean even undocumented illegal immigrants will be eligible?

Letters about Stimulus Checks

The IRS will be sending out information about the third stimulus checks, which were disbursed in 2021. The letters are slated to start being mailed in late January. When you get one, don’t throw it away. “These letters can help taxpayers, or their tax professional, prepare their 2021 federal tax return,” the IRS said in a release. Labeled Letter 6475, “Your Third Economic Impact Payment,” the correspondence will include how much you received in stimulus money in 2021, including any so-called plus-up payments. You can use it to figure out if you can claim the Recovery Rebate Credit on your 2021 tax return. This credit will make up the difference between the amount of the third stimulus check you were eligible for, and how much you actually received. Stimulus checks are not taxable, but they still need to be reported on 2021 tax returns.

Additionally, many families have received or will receive another letter about the 2021 child tax credit (CTC) payments. Labeled Letter 6419, it will include crucial information about the CTC payments, such as how much your family received in advance and how many qualifying children the monthly deposits were based on. “Families who received advance payments need to … compare the advance payments they received in 2021 with the amount of the child tax credit they can properly claim on their 2021 tax return,” the agency said.

Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema haven’t signed onto the Build Back Better legislation and without them, it’s doomed to fail in the Senate as it’s unlikely to get Republican support. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up that sentiment in a tweet, “Instead of working together to fight COVID-19, Democrats decided to exploit the crisis by jamming through unrelated liberal policies they couldn’t pass honestly. A colossal missed opportunity for the American people.” Some of the big questions that go along with this whole debacle are: Where will the United States get the money to pay for stimulus checks? The United States is already in a very large amount of debt, what will another round of stimulus do for that? Where is all the money Biden is trying to spend coming from? What about the hard-working taxpayers who didn’t receive payments to help them? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

Colorado officials are urging residents to test for an odorless and colorless gas that can be deadly. Governor Jared Polis proclaimed January National Radon Action Month. The gas is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the country, killing up to 500 Coloradans a year. “Radon is a silent killer that more people should know about and have an easy-to-use product to detect on a weekly basis. PRO-LAB is dedicated to increasing awareness of this dangerous gas, to ensure all are safe,” said PRO-LAB founder and CEO James McDonnell.

What Is Radon?

Radon is a naturally produced radiation caused by uranium breaking down in soil. The gas is known to cause lung cancer, and it can seep into homes and workplaces through cracks and openings in floors and crawl spaces. Over many years of exposure, radon increases the risk of cancer. Some studies say Radon is one of the many forms of radiation that affect children more. A person is 10 times more likely to get lung cancer when combining the gas with the number one cause of lung cancer in the country, smoking. 

Radon In Colorado

Half of Colorado homes may have naturally occurring radon levels higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s recommended action level of 4 PCI/L. All of Colorado’s 64 counties are rated at increased risk for elevated radon. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment says you can buy a cheap test for as little as $10. CDPHE encourages the protection of families by testing for radon and provides links to reduced-cost kits. PRO-LAB is one of the providers of Radon Test Kits.

Radon Testing And Mitigation

 With a PRO-LAB Short Term Radon Test Kit, homeowners can find out whether their house has high radon levels by opening the kit’s vials and leaving them exposed to air for 96 hours. After the necessary exposure time, the vials are recapped and mailed to PRO-LAB’s laboratory for an EPA-certified analysis with guaranteed results within one week. PRO-LAB is the only test kit manufacturer that owns its own laboratory. If the kit produces a result higher than the EPA’s acceptable radon level, one should immediately call a professional radon mitigator to install a radon mitigation system. 

Mitigation systems can be pricey, but only take a few hours to install. Low income assistance is available for those who have high levels of Radon, but can’t afford a mitigation system. With so many things working against people and their health, Colorado wants you to be sure Radon is not one of them. It is always better safe than sorry. Do you think you should check your home for Radon exposure? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

Sudan’s Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok resigned on Sunday among the growing political issues and widespread pro-democracy protests following a military coup that ruined the country’s transition to democratic rule. Protests have been met with violent force from security officials.  Hamdok, a former U.N. official and face of Sudan’s transitional government, was reinstated as prime minister in November as part of an agreement with the military following the October coup. In that time he failed to name a Cabinet. Now, Hamdok’s resignation has thrown Sudan even farther into uncertainty.

Why is Sudan Having So Many Issues?

In April 2019, a popular uprising forced the military to overthrow longtime autocrat Omar al-Bashir and his Islamist government. Then the recent October military coup upended Sudan’s plans to move to democracy. Now, the military and protesters have attempted to come to a power-sharing deal until elections in 2023. However, the relationship between the military and protestors was strained considerably by the military takeover threatening to return Sudan to international isolation. The Forces for the Declaration of Freedom and Change, an umbrella group of Sudanese political parties and pro-democracy organizations, has rejected the deal and urges for the end of military rule. Many who accused Hamdok of allowing the military to dominate the government are still organizing anti-coup street protests which are being met with extreme force, in some cases. Allegations surfaced last month of sexual violence, including rape and gang rape by security forces against female protesters, according to the United Nations. According to the Sudanese Doctors Committee, which is part of the pro-democracy movement, many protesters have been injured and even killed. 

Sudan Protesters Met With Extreme Force 

On Saturday, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken urged security forces to “immediately cease the use of deadly force against protesters” and to hold those responsible for violence accountable. “We do not want to return to the past, and are prepared to respond to those who seek to block the aspirations of the Sudanese people for a civilian-led, democratic government.” 

This did not seem to hinder the Sudan security forces. Hours before Hamdok’s resignation speech, Sudan security forces violently dispersed pro-democracy protesters, killing at least three people. Sunday’s fatalities have brought the death toll of protesters to 57 during the current military coup, according to the Sudan Doctors Committee. Hundreds have also been wounded. The protests came despite tightened security such as blocked bridges and roads in Khartoum and Omdurman. Internet connections were also disrupted ahead of the protests, according to advocacy group NetBlocs. Authorities have used these same demeaning tactics repeatedly since the beginning of the coup.  Amid all of this violence and political turmoil, Prime Minister Hamdok has decided he is no longer fit to run the country. 

Hamdok Resigns as Prime Minister of Sudan 

Many have predicted Hamdok would step down, despite efforts to convince him to stay in office. In a televised national address Sunday, Hamdok called for all entities to agree on a “national charter” and “draw a roadmap” to complete the transition to democracy in accordance with the 2019 constitutional document. “I decided to return the responsibility and declare my resignation as prime minister,” he said, adding that his stepping down would allow a chance for another person to lead the nation and complete its transition to a “civilian, democratic country.” 

 “I tried as much as I possibly could to prevent our country from sliding into a disaster. Now, our nation is going through a dangerous turning point that could threaten its survival unless it is urgently rectified,” he said. “I have had the honor of serving my country’s people for more than two years. And during his period I have sometimes done well, and I have sometimes failed,” Hamdok said. He did not name a successor. The U.S. State Department took to twitter to urge Sudan’s leaders to “set aside differences, find consensus, and ensure continued civilian rule” following Hamdok’s resignation. The State Department also called for the appointment of the next government “in line with the 2019 constitutional declaration to meet the people’s goals of freedom, peace, and justice.” 

“It’s time for the deployment of an international mediator who can do the job Hamdok was incapable of — finding political compromise between the military, the street and the FFC, to rewrite a roadmap for going forward,” said Cameron Hudson, a former U.S. State Department official and Sudan expert at the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center. Do you believe it was the right move for Hamdok to resign and let someone else attempt to rule the country? Should he have at least named a successor? What will Hamdok’s resignation mean for Sudan going forward? When should the United States become involved, if at all? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

British socialite, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been found guilty of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by the American millionaire Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell could face up to 60 years in prison at her sentencing, the date of which has not yet been set. The most serious charge, sex trafficking of a minor, alone carries up to a 40-year sentence. Federal prosecutors lauded the decision. “A unanimous jury has found Ghislaine Maxwell guilty of one of the worst crimes imaginable – facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of children. Crimes that she committed with her long-time partner and co-conspirator, Jeffrey Epstein. The road to justice has been far too long. But, today, justice has been done,” Damian Williams, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said. “I want to commend the bravery of the girls – now grown women – who stepped out of the shadows and into the courtroom,” Williams added. “Their courage and willingness to face their abuser made this case, and today’s result, possible … This Office will always stand with victims, will always follow the facts wherever they lead, and will always fight to ensure that no one, no matter how powerful and well connected, is above the law.” The verdict capped a monthlong trial featuring sordid accounts of the sexual exploitation of girls as young as 14, told by four women who described being abused as teens in the 1990s and early 2000s at Epstein’s palatial homes in Florida, New York and New Mexico. Maxwell was remanded to Metropolitan Detention Center, where she has been in custody since the days after her initial arrest. 

What Happened During Maxwell’s Court Hearing?

Ghislaine Maxwell, who turned 60 on Christmas, denied the charges through her lawyers. Maxwell declined to take the risk of testifying, telling the judge: “The government has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt so there is no reason for me to testify.” Jurors deliberated for five full days before finding Ghislaine Maxwell guilty of five out of six charges. Maximum prison terms for each charge ranging from five to 40 years in prison. Maxwell faces the likelihood of decades behind bars, an outcome long sought by women who spent years fighting in civil courts to hold her accountable for her role in recruiting, grooming, and sometimes even joining  the abuse of Epstein’s teenage victims. As the verdict was read in court, Maxwell was stone faced behind a black mask. She did not hug her lawyers on the way out, a marked change from previous days during which Maxwell and her team were often physically affectionate with one another.

During the proceedings, a housekeeper testified he was expected to be “blind, deaf and dumb” about the private lives of Epstein, a financier who cultivated friendships with influential politicians and business tycoons, and Maxwell, who had led a jet-setting lifestyle as the favorite child of a media mogul. Pilots took the witness stand and dropped names, such as Britain’s Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump, of passengers on Epstein’s private jets. Jurors saw physical evidence like a folding massage table once used by Epstein and a “black book” that listed contact information for some of the victims under the heading “massages.” There were bank records showing Epstien had transferred $30.7 million to Maxwell. However, the core evidence presented was the testimony of four women who said they were victimized by Maxwell and Epstein when they were minors. Jane, a television actress; Kate, a former model from Great Britain; and Carolyn, now a mom recovering from drug addiction. The fourth was Annie Farmer, who chose to use her real name after being vocal about her allegations in recent years.

What did Maxwell and Epstein’s Victims Say?

Every victim gave roughly the same story, saying Ghislaine Maxwell used charm and gifts to gain their trust, then promising Epstein could use his wealth and connections to fulfill their dreams. The situation would change when Maxwell coaxed them into giving massages to Epstein that turned sexual. Maxwell played these encouters off as normal: After one sexual massage, Kate, then 17, said Maxwell asked her if she’d had fun and told her “You are such a good girl.” Carolyn testified that in the early 2000s she was one of several underprivileged teens who took up an offer to give massages in exchange for $100 bills, which prosecutors described as “a pyramid of abuse.” Maxwell made all the arrangements even though she knew the girl was only 14 at the time. Jane said in 1994, at 14, she was instructed to follow Epstein into a pool house on the Palm Beach estate, where he masturbated on her. “I was frozen in fear,” she told the jury, adding that the assault was the first time she had ever seen a penis. She also directly accused Maxwell of participating in her abuse. Maxwell’s lawyer asked Jane why it had taken so long to come forward. “I was scared,” she said, choking back tears. “I was embarrassed, ashamed. I didn’t want anybody to know any of this about me.” 

Annie Farmer described how Maxwell touched her breasts while giving her a massage at Epstein’s New Mexico ranch. She then described Epstein unexpectedly crawling into bed and pressing himself against her sexually. After the verdict was handed down, Farmer said she was grateful the jury recognized Maxwell’s predatory behavior. “She has caused hurt to many more women than the few of us who had the chance to testify in the courtroom,” she said in a prepared statement. “I hope that this verdict brings solace to all who need it and demonstrates that no one is above the law. Even those with great power and privilege will be held accountable when they sexually abuse and exploit the young.” 

Why is an Epstien Victim Suing Prince Andrew?

 Although Jeffrey Epstein’s victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre was not called as a witness in Maxwell’s trial, her lawyer David Boies said  “This is a great result. It is a great day for Virginia and for all of Epstein and Maxwell’s survivors. It is also a great day for justice and the justice system. The jury’s verdict vindicates the courage and commitment of all the survivors of Epstein and Maxwell, who against great odds for many years, stood up to bring them to justice. This is their verdict, this is their victory.” Ghislaine Maxwell’s Guilty Verdict could mean trouble for her good friend Prince Andrew in the lawsuit being brought against him by Giuffre. A source close to her said Giuffre has been preoccupied with the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, but she is in fact suing Prince Andrew, “Like most of the survivors she is very focused on the Maxwell trial. She is a very courageous and determined young woman [who has been] the subject of numerous attacks by wealthy and politically influential people. She has stood up remarkably well.” In her lawsuit, Giuffre is alleging she was sex trafficked to Prince Andrew by Epstein. Andrew strongly denies the allegation, saying he has “no recollection” of ever meeting Giuffre, despite the widely circulated photograph of him with his arm around her waist when she was a teenager.

Will Maxwell’s Case Affect Prince Andrew’s Lawsuit?

Prince Andrew denies all allegations despite their being photographic evidence and even witnesses to one of the sexual encounters. Those are just the public pieces of evidence, there are likely more to surface in court proceedings. One of those proceedings is scheduled to happen next week. A source close to Prince Andrew has insisted that Ghislaine Maxwell’s guilty verdict “shouldn’t affect the prospects of Andrew’s case at all.” Since Maxwell’s guilty verdict, Prince Andrew’s lawyers are determined to paint Giuffre as an enabler of Epstien’s circle of abusers, rather than a victim doing what she must do in order to survive in Epstien’s world. Her relationship with Epstien began as a minor, how can you see it any other way? 

A source for Virginia Roberts Giuffre said “this verdict obviously makes his case a lot more difficult. His argument is essentially the same as Maxwell’s: that these young women made it all up for money, and they were all just friends and there wasn’t any sex trafficking and the girls who are making these claims are liars and gold diggers. It’s all the same, blame-the-victim defense. This verdict demonstrates that you can’t obscure the overwhelming amount of evidence by these smokescreens, and that jurors are not prepared to blame the victim. This can’t be good for Andrew,” the Giuffre source continued. “But it’s hard to know what he takes on board and what he doesn’t. No sane person would have gone on television the way he did and just denied that photographic evidence, and shown a total lack of remorse.” 

Maxwell called the claims against her “absolute rubbish.” Maxwell’s lawyers and family said she was merely Epstein’s pawn, now paying “a blood price” to satisfy public desire to see someone held accountable for his crimes. Claims such as this could be understandable if Ghislaine Maxwell met epstein as a child and was manipulated into doing this after years of abuse, such as Giuffre. This is not the case for Maxwell, who met Epstein in her twenties, after her father had passed away. She completely understood what she was doing, and that what she was doing was wrong. She was not only doing what she had to in order to survive, she played major parts in the abuse. This is a week of celebration for the victims of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstien. Do you believe Prince Andrew should face the overwhelming evidence against him or continue to fight the allegations? Should the women who met Epstein as children be punished for doing what they had to do to survive in the messed up world he created for himself? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

Chinese citizens are lashing out against billionaire Elon Musk. Elon Musk’s space ambitions are being scrutinized by people of China after complaints surfaced that the China Space Station was forced to take evasive action to avoid collision with satellites launched by Musk’s Starlink internet program. China began constructing the space station in April. The station is expected to be completed by the end of 2022 after four crewed missions. This could be delayed due to the alleged events in the complaint. China’s complaints have not been independently verified. Nearly 30,000 satellites and other debris are believed to be orbiting our planet. SpaceX alone has deployed nearly 1,900 satellites for Starlink broadband network, and is planning more.  Scientists have urged governments to share data in order to reduce risk of catastrophic space collisions.

Why Is China Angry With Elon Musk?

In a post on China’s Twitter-like microblogging platform, Weibo, one user said Starlink’s satellites were “just a pile of space junk”, while another described them as “American space warfare weapons”. “The risks of Starlink are being gradually exposed, the whole human race will pay for their business activities,” another user posted on Weibo. These posts were posted in response to information surfacing that satellites from Starlink Internet Services had two “close encounters” with the China Space Station on July 1 and Oct. 21. “For safety reasons, the China Space Station implemented preventive collision avoidance control,” China said in a document published on the website of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. NASA was forced to abruptly call off a spacewalk at the end of November, citing risks posed by space debris. Musk tweeted in response that some Starlink satellite orbits had been adjusted to reduce the possibility of collisions. 

What Happened During China’s Alleged Complaints?

During both incidents, there were crew members on board, “which could constitute a danger to the life or health of astronauts”, the Chinese said in the note presented to the United Nations. The China Space Station has stayed in a practically circular orbit at an altitude of around 390km since it was launched on April 29. From May 16 to June 24, Starlink-1095 satellite maintained a steady descent from its original 555km-altitude orbit to around 382km, and stayed there. When two spacecraft are orbiting at the same height, there is a risk of crossing paths and collisions. Then China Space Station says they were forced to conduct “evasive maneuvers” on July 1 when the two spacecraft had a “close encounter.” 

The other satellite, Starlink-2305, changed its orbit in October with an “unknown” strategy and unassessable orbital errors, again forcing the China Space Station to implement collision-avoidance maneuvers.  According to satellite tracking information, Starlink-1095 continued to descend until it re-entered the atmosphere and burnt out in September, while the Starlink-2305 climbed from a 350km orbit to 550km from October to November.

What Does China Want the UN to Do?

China says they want the UN to remind all parties of the Outer Space Treaty to “bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space … whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities”. In March, SpaceX signed an agreement with NASA, promising to steer Starlink satellites out of the way if they got too close to the International Space Station or other NASA spacecraft. SpaceX says Starlink satellites are equipped with autonomous orbit changing features to avoid collisions, and other spacecraft do not need to maneuver in case of an encounter.

Musk has become a well-known figure in China. SpaceX is not the only entity of Musk’s the people of China are scrutinizing. Tesla’s electric vehicles have come under growing scrutiny from regulators, especially after a customer climbed on top of a Tesla car at the Shanghai auto show to protest against poor customer service. Do you believe the people of China’s complaints are warranted or should they trust the satellites as Musk says to? Do you believe the astronauts could potentially be in danger if they chose to trust the unmanned satellites to work correctly? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

A California man has been arrested and charged with murder after opening fire on his family at a Christmas gathering while they opened presents Christmas day. Austin Alvarez, 23, fatally shot his own grandmother and father’s girlfriend before fleeing the home on the 17000 block of Goodfellow Avenue in Reedley. Deputies responded to the home at about 1:45 p.m. and found Magdalena Alvarez and Meisa Rashid with fatal injuries. Alvarez is facing two charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder. His bail was set at $2.5 million. 

What Happened During the Shooting?

Officials said they learned through interviews that the suspect, Austin Alvarez, arrived at the home as Christmas gifts were being opened and began to fire. Bullets ended up  fatally striking Magdalena, 58, and Meisa, 39. “During the visit, Alvarez fired shots striking his grandmother and his father’s girlfriend,” the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office said in a news release. “As Alvarez was leaving the house, he noticed his father in a parked vehicle,” the sheriff’s office said in the release. “Alvarez fired shots in his direction, but did not strike him.” He then fled the home in a GMC pickup truck. 

Shooter is Found Hours Later

Thanks to a combined effort with the California Highway Patrol and the Reedley, Sanger, Orange Cove and Kingsburg police departments to find the suspect, Alvarez was ultimately arrested hours after the shooting. A team of officers eventually tracked Alvarez down near the intersection of American and Anchor avenues in Orange Cove, roughly 10 miles from the shooting scene, according to the sheriff’s office. The investigation into the shooting is ongoing and clear motive has not been established. This makes us wonder if there is an aspect of mental health in this case, or did some type of altercation occur? What could have caused Alvarez to snap the way he did? 

Alvarez was booked into the Fresno County Jail on two charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder, with a $2.5 million bail. It is unclear if his remaining family is supportive of the suspect. Though, it seems doubtful as he remains in custody as of this Monday morning, according to jail records. If Alvarez has been given a lawyer, they have not made any type of statement and remain unknown. This unfortunate tragedy could have ended a lot worse if we didn’t have law enforcement who serve and protect on Christmas rather than be with their families. The Fresno County Sheriff’s Office said a motive hasn’t been established and the investigation is ongoing  Anyone with additional information about this case is asked to contact Detective Richard Antunez at 559-600-8221 or Valley Crime Stoppers at 559-498-7867, www.valleycrimestoppers.org. 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

Calls are growing to change the 110-year prison sentence handed down to a truck driver who caused a fatal crash near Denver in 2019. A Colorado judge sentenced Rogel Aguilera-Mederos after a jury found him guilty on four counts of vehicular homicide and 23 other charges related to the accident. There has been considerable backlash, with more than 4.6 million people having signed the change.org petition, asking Colorado Governor Jared Polis to grant clemency to Rogel Aguilera-Mederos, or commutation for time served. Various groups and activists will convene at the state Capitol Wednesday to urge Polis to reduce Aguilera-Mederos’ sentence as soon as possible. Governor Polis’ office has received a clemency request and is reviewing the sentence, according to a spokesperson.  

Driver’s Lawyer Files Motion in Court

A motion filed on Tuesday, which will be a major part of wednesdays proceedings, says as follows: 

“As Colorado law required the imposition of the sentence in this case, the law also permits the Court to reconsider its sentence in an exceptional case involving unusual and extenuating circumstances,” the motion states. “This would allow for the conditions to be met for a modification of the defendant’s sentence as was discussed by the People in the initial sentencing hearing. The purpose for the People’s expedited request is so that the named victims in the case, as well as their families, have an opportunity to be heard by the trial court who is fully aware of the facts of the case,” the motion continues. “We have spoken to the living victims and the families of the deceased victims, and it is their specific desire to be heard on this modification, in this forum, as quickly as possible.”

Driver Gives Tearful Apology in Court

The sentence has since set off a torrent of criticism of prosecutors and Colorado’s sentencing guidelines. Even Colorado District Court Judge A. Bruce Jones seemed not to agree with it but said he was bound by state laws on mandatory-minimum sentencing that required him to impose the punishment to run consecutively as opposed to concurrently. Aguilera-Mederos said in court last week that he is devastated over what happened. While tearfully begging for forgiveness, he told the court that he “cries all the time” when thinking about the accident. “I would have preferred God taken me, instead of them,” he said while fighting back tears. “I don’t get to have my dad for the rest of my life, but I hope the defendant’s son can have his dad for the rest of his life,” one woman said in court. 

Prosecutors Treat Case like a Joke 

Kayla Wildeman, the prosecutor in the case, has come under fire after a now-deleted Facebook post on her personal page showed an image of a trophy made from a brake shoe to celebrate the conviction. “Get yourself a trial partner as great as Trevor Moritzky,” the post reads. “He turned a brake shoe from a semi truck into a memento. What a special gift from a truly special person. I never asked for a new bff at work, let alone one that is old enough to be my father (no offense) but I sure am grateful this trial brought you into my career as both a colleague and a friend! Words will never convey how lucky I am to have gotten the opportunity to learn from you!” Mortizky is a senior district attorney who worked with Wildeman on the case, according to local reports. The piece was not from evidence in the case. A spokesperson said the joke was “in poor taste” and “handled internally.”

It is absolutely outrageous that people, who are essentially representatives of the states, could be allowed to make such a joke and keep their position. This was a horribly tragic accident, which ended in loss of life and many injuries. How could you think it would be okay to turn something that has deeply impacted so many people into a personal joke? Do you think the driver’s sentence should be reduced or commuted? Should the amount, or lack of, training the driver had been a factor that should have been determined? What do you think you would have done in this tragic situation?

Last year, Colorado voted to reintroduce wolves into the state’s forests.The narrowly-passed Proposition 114 was the first time a state’s voters have forced their government to re-introduce an imperiled species. The proposition directed Colorado Parks and Wildlife to develop a plan to reintroduce an undetermined number of gray wolves into the state, west of the Continental Divide, by the end 2023. This week we have seen the first wolf-related livestock fatality in over 70 years. The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association says a 500-pound heifer was found dead in Walden after being attacked and eaten by a pack of wolves. Colorado Parks and Wildlife is aware of the report and actively investigating, according to a spokesperson. “If it is determined to be caused by the wolves that have naturally migrated into the state, we will compensate the landowner through the current game damage program,” said Rebecca Ferrell, a Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokesperson.

Will Wolves Continue to be an Issue for Farmers? 

This is the question Colorado farmers and other raisers of livestock are asking themselves. Especially since gray wolf puppies were already seen in Colorado this year, now we see this attack on livestock. This unfortunate incident shows us several issues that must be addressed by the Wolf Restoration and Management Plan, including methods for conflict minimization and a funding source to “fairly provide the needed tools for prevention and compensation from wolf impacts.”  The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association said it’s encouraging Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and other wolf-related working groups, to “consider this wolf attack and the widespread impacts as a sentinel example of how livestock can be impacted by wolf introduction.” Wolves are not the only big predator that could potentially threaten livestock in Colorado. 

How Can You Keep Your Livestock Safe?

Predators that threaten livestock are often more intelligent than farmers would like them to be. According to Hobbyfarms.com, there are a number of options for predator control, exclusion and removal on your farm. From building fences to adding a donkey to the mix, there are predator control options for everyone. Here are some of the options they list for predator control.

1. Exclusion

The first place to start is preventing predation because once a predator establishes a pattern of attack, it’s difficult to break. Fencing is a farmer’s best friend in this case, and there are many types to choose from: Tall, woven-wire fencing buried partly in the ground will prevent predators from jumping over and burrowing under. An electric strand at the top will keep raccoons and opossums, which love to climb, from getting over. High-tensile, electric-wire fencing with strands spaced 6 inches at the bottom graduating to 12 inches at the top so predators cannot squeeze through is another option. If you keep your smaller livestock in a small, fenced lot, you could potentially put a mesh fence overhead. 

2. Guardian Animals

Properly socialized guard dogs, donkeys and llamas can be effective predator protection. Dogs are useful for land-based and aerial predators, but could “become friends” with other dogs preying on your animals. Donkeys and llamas are useful against dogs and coyotes. However, if you live in an area with a large presence of wild dogs or coyote packs, your llama or donkey could become prey to them. Each farming situation needs to be considered individually. 

3. Removing Attractants

Predatory animals are attracted to your farm for more than just your livestock. Keep your property clean so they have one less reason to visit. Leaving things like eggs, meat, and dairy in your compost pile can attract predators. Keep food for pets and livestock properly put away. Clean up the area properly after animals die or give birth. Lastly, keep small livestock in a confined predator proof area at night if possible. 

4. Lethal Force

Before taking lethal action against a predator on your farm, consider the legal and ecological implications. Predators such as hawks, owls and wolves are often protected species and cannot be harmed or killed. Other predators, such as bears, might require a permit for hunting. Even the less endangered animals causing problems on your farm still have a role in the ecosystem. Removing them from an area can invite other predators to move in or growth of pest species that they prey on, such as rats and mice. If you believe lethal force is your only choice for predator removal, first be sure you can legally hunt the animal, and get the proper licenses. If you are in Colorado, you can contact Colorado Parks and Wildlife for instruction on how to deal with an excessive predator problem. If you are not in Colorado, work with your local wildlife management especially if your predator problem is more than you can handle. 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife will continue to assist the public with any issues concerning local predatory wildlife, including wolves. It is hard to find a balance between humans and animals, especially when both are simply trying to survive. Have you had issues with large predators on your farm? Do you believe reintroducing wolves to Colorado was beneficial? Reintroducing wolves to Colorado could understandingly be seen as bittersweet. However, with the right precaution humans and predatory animals, such as wolves, can live side by side.

Written by: Erinn Malloy

President Biden’s Build Back Better plan is taking heat because the language used blocks federal funds from providing resources for religious child care providers. H.R. 5376 was passed by the House of Representatives leaving it stalled in the Senate. The Build Back Better plan  provides $390 billion for child care and universal pre-K. Part of the bill requires, however, that money not go towards facilities that “are used primarily for sectarian instruction or religious worship.” This means no daycares which are held in churches such as the popular southern daycare provider “WEE SHINE,” which commonly sets up in baptists churches on the east coast. The south is not the only group of people who use these options, for people in smaller cities and towns, often this type of option is the only option available. The closest large cities have facilities that are required to be covered by this bill, but are far away from these small town workers who may work in town, or a close smaller city who may have one or two child care centers which generally stay at capacity. 

What else does the Bill Say about Childcare?

Other provisions in the Build Back Better plan include potentially problematic nondiscrimination restrictions. They also risk forcing providers out of state-based universal pre-K programs, according to a letter multiple religious organizations sent to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) on Dec. 1. “While language in the BBBA [Build Back Better Act] does not preclude parents from selecting sectarian providers, the subsequent provisions in the bill text make it virtually impossible for many religious providers to participate,” read the letter, which was signed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, among others. While it’s unclear exactly how the legislative language will be applied, the letter pointed to a poll showing a substantial chunk of American families use child care centers “affiliated with a faith organization.” The poll conducted by Morning Consult and the Bipartisan Policy Center found: “In January 2020, 31% of households with a single parent or two working parents used center-based care, and over half (53%) of these families used one that was affiliated with a faith organization.”

What does Biden Say about the Bill?

Biden has defended the Bill, saying: “The Build Back Better framework will enable states to expand access to free preschool for more than 6 million children per year and increase the quality of preschool for many more children already enrolled. Importantly, parents will be able to send children to high-quality preschool in the setting of their choice — from public schools to child care providers to Head Start. The program will lead to lifelong educational and economic benefits for children and parents, and is a transformational investment in America’s future economic competitiveness.” 

Biden’s agenda here is supposedly making childcare more affordable in order for parents to join the workforce. What about small town America, Biden? What will those people who rely on religious based child care going to do? Should they drive extra hours they could be spending working, taking care of their child, or even taking a moment for themselves? Senate Republicans, including Utah’s Mitt Romney, say the Democrats’ Build Back Better plan would hurt religious working parents’ ability to find and pay for child care. Romney said the “Build Back Better” plan is fraught with problems because it was drafted without input from Republicans and without any hearings. “Is that the right way to get a piece of legislation done which affects, in this case, a pretty darn important thing: our children and raising our kids?” he said. “You might say Republicans don’t care about this. Actually, we do.” Many other Republicans have joined Mitt Romney in voicing their opposition.

What do Other Republicans say about the Bill?

The GOP senators say President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan will cost more than twice the $1.75 trillion Democrats claim, coming in around $5 trillion according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Richard Burr of North Carolina, said while the bill proposes $381 billion for child care and universal pre-K programs, the Congressional Budget Office pegs it at $752 billion if they remain in place for 10 years. “And that’s making an assumption that 34% of eligible young children live in states that won’t participate in the child care piece and 40% of eligible preschoolers live in states that won’t participate in a pre-K plan,” he said during a news conference in Washington, D.C. Burr said an analysis of the plan shows “middle-class families face an inflationary cost increase of $13,000 a year per child for child care.” The legislation also shrinks the supply of child care providers by “killing off faith-based providers, small family child care homes and kinship care,” he said.

Republican Ben Sasse out of Nebraska, said more than half of all American families who use institutional child care place their children in faith-based centers. “Biden ran to tackle a bunch of problems in the country, but religious day care wasn’t one that Americans identified,” he said. Sasse went on to call the move “just breathtakingly stupid.” He went on to say “I’ve never once heard a Nebraska family say, ‘The thing I really want is to make sure that religious day care is made bankrupt. Could you please send people to Washington and bankrupt religious day care?'” Do you or some you know use a faith-based daycare? Does your small church have a weekly daycare that helps to pay a lot of the church’s bills? Would you risk trusting another facility to take care of your child if it meant you could have free childcare? If you suddenly could not use childcare based out of a place of worship, would you have to go very far out of your way to use an approved facility?

Written by: Erinn Malloy

Recently major media, such as snopes, have been recently trying to cover the fact that major public health officials have known COVID vaccines have major health risks associated with them. Public health entities, and Leaders such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, admitted the COVID vaccines could actually make your case of covid worse, and you could end up more sick than if you hadn’t gotten the vaccine. The National Medical Library e-published an article from the Journal of Clinical Practice stating the results of a study of COVID vaccine subjects. In the study they realized COVID vaccines made some patients more sick. Now we see these leaders pushing for people to be vaccinated again. What type of agenda do they have for pushing these vaccines?

Vaccines Could Make People Sicker?

The article from the National Medical Library said, “COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated.” The article went on to say, “This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.” The fact that you can actually end up more sick, is something that patients should absolutely “adequately comprehend.” How many people have died due to the vaccine making them more sick than they would have been. Could COVID vaccines be contributing to variants such as Delta and Omicron? As of Dec. 10, there have been 791,130 COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. during the entirety of the pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of those deaths, 385,361 were in 2020 and 405,769 have been in 2021 as of December 2021. 

Fauci Knew Vaccines Made People Sicker 

In an interview with Mark Zuckerberg, which has stayed under the radar of the public since March 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted that the COVID vaccine could make people more likely to be infected by the virus. During that time period there were so many articles, and news pieces about COVID circulating, it is no surprise some things slipped through the cracks. “This would not be the first time, if it happened, that a vaccine that looked good in initial safety actually made people worse,” said Fauci in the interview. “If you vaccinate someone, and they make an antibody response, and then they get exposed and infected, does the response that you induce enhance the infection and make it worse? The only way you’ll know that is if you do an extended study, not on volunteers, but on the public.” In other words, vaccines were just one big experiment. Fauci is again pushing for people to get vaccinated, now that cases of COVID variants, such as the delta and omicron, are surging across the country. Yet, we don’t hear him openly tell people the major risks associated with the vaccines. Isn’t it unethical to push a medication without properly alerting patients to the side effects they could experience? A side effect is literally defined (1) as a peripheral or secondary effect, especially an undesirable secondary effect of a drug or therapy. (2) An unintended consequence of any action in addition to the intended consequence of that action. (3) An adverse effect, an unintended consequence of a drug or therapy; usually not a beneficial effect. Any definition you choose would qualify “this vaccine made you sicker” as a side effect. 

Fauci Covering Severity of Omicron?

Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief adviser to the White House on the coronavirus response, says early data appears to show that the omicron variant “does not make people more sick,” though he cautioned that scientists need more data before they reach any firm conclusions. He said omicron is cause for concern but not panic. “Thus far, the signals are a bit encouraging regarding the severity,” Fauci told CNN’s “State of the Union.” He said that while omicron is surging rapidly it does not appear to be resulting in high levels of hospitalizations. “But again, we’ve got to hold judgment until we get more experience” with omicron, Fauci qualified. “Boosters are going to be really critical in addressing whether or not we’re going to be able to handle this,” Fauci said. Does this feel a little like the twilight zone, or have we heard this all before? I wonder what other major side effects health officials have publicly announced but attempted to keep quiet at the same time, this time aorund. What happens if in a few months we begin to hear of major cases caused by the Omicron variant? Could the vaccines cause variants to make you even sicker? Still, with much unknown and the delta variant continuing to rage across the country, Fauci and other federal health officials are urging people to take mitigation precautions and get vaccinated. Can we even trust Fauci at this point? 

The delta variant is still the nation’s biggest threat. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky said it accounts for 99.9% of all cases in the U.S. and is driving up hospitalizations and deaths. No one can deny COVID is an ongoing issue for the world. The question is not, is COVID an issue. The question is, are vaccines making stronger variants and sicker people? What reason health officials have been quiet about vaccines possibly making people sicker? Any other widely advertised medication or vaccine has major risks included in the advertising, up to and including death. Why are COVID vaccines not marketed the same? What else is there to hide?

Written by: Erinn Malloy

The truck driver who crashed a lumber hauling 18-wheeler into dozens of stopped vehicles on a Colorado highway in 2019 was sentenced in a Jefferson County courtroom. Judge Bruce Jones handed down the verdict of 110 consecutive years in prison. Rogel Aguilera-Mederos, a 26-year-old immigrant from Cuba, barreled down I-70 in Lakewood on April 29, 2019. During court proceedings it was said he was “swerving so badly that he forced other cars off the road.” Aguilera-Mederos blamed this, and the whole crash, on the fact his brakes had failed. His truck then crashed into more than two dozen cars and four other semi-trailers that were stopped for an accident. The crash ruptured gas tanks, causing flames that consumed several vehicles and melted parts of the highway. This tragedy claimed the lives of four people and hospitalized six others.

The four men who died were all from Colorado: Doyle Harrison, 61, of Hudson. William Bailey, 67, of Arvada. Miguel Angel Lamas Arrellano, 24, of Denver. Stanley Politano, 69 of Arvada. 

What did the Prosecution say in Court?

The crash occurred while Aguilera-Medros was on a part of the interstate where commercial vehicles are limited to 45 mph because of a steep descent from the Rocky Mountain foothills, according to investigators. Prosecutors focused on his decision not to take any runaway truck ramps while traveling about 85 mph on Interstate 70 west of Denver. His defense attorneys claimed he did not know the truck’s brakes were smoking or that he would not be able to stop his truck, though others testified at the trial that they had seen them smoking. The judge also heard from the victims and family members of the victims, some through victim-impact statements read by the prosecution. Many of them said Aguilera-Mederos should have used the runaway truck ramp or veered off and away from the line of cars he crashed into.

What did the Truck Driver say in Court?

Before he was sentenced Monday, Aguilera-Mederos broke down as he addressed Judge Jones and sobbing relatives of the men he killed. “I’m begging for forgiveness from everyone,” he said, according to KDVR. “It is hard to live with this … A part of me will be missing forever as well. This was a terrible accident, I know. I take the responsibility, but it wasn’t intentional. I am not a criminal. I am not a murderer … it is not me. I have never thought about hurting anybody in my entire life, and my Jesus Christ, he know that,” he told the court. Aguilera-Mederos told the court that he was an immigrant from Cuba who’d been “working for the American dream.” “I was not out robbing a bank or a store. I was not out shooting up crowds or a school. I was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol … I was working for a better future for my family,” he said.

What did the Driver’s Family say in Court?

Before Judge Jones handed down his sentence, family and friends of Aguilera-Mederos spoke in support of the 26-year-old. His attorney argued that his actions were a series of negligent decisions, and he was overwhelmed with the situation. He contended that the judge was not bound by the mandatory-minimum sentences laws, citing previous court cases, and urged the judge to consider a lighter sentence. Jones disagreed but opened the door for a review. 

What did the Judge say in Court?

The judge acknowledged that Aguilera-Mederos did not intend to harm anyone, blaming sentencing guidelines for the steep sentence of 110 years in prison, to be served consecutively. “If I had the discretion, it would not be my sentence,” the judge said. “I accept and respect what the defendant has said about his lack of intent to hurt people, but he made a series of terrible decisions, reckless decisions,” the judge said, according to the report.

 Do you agree with the judge’s sentencing? Could this horrific tragedy have been completely avoided? Did he not realize how dangerous of a situation he was in? If so, did he really know what he was supposed to do? Do you think we should question the training procedures of the Houston based company he was driving for? What do you think you would have done differently if you were the driver of a runaway truck? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

Abortion, perhaps more than most other issues, has divided the United States for decades. A new decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the 48-year-old decision that forbids states from outlawing abortion, would be the product of more than 40 years of tireless conservative activism. The change could come as early as next summer. We are now seeing how some Democratic states plan to respond. California clinics and their allies in the state Legislature have revealed a plan to make the state a “sanctuary” for those seeking abortions. The California Future of Abortion Council, made up of more than 40 abortion providers and advocacy groups, released a list of 45 recommendations for the state to consider if the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. These plans include things like paying for travel and procedures for patients from other states.

Who Wrote California’s Plans for Roe V. Wade Overturn? 

Some state lawmakers have helped write California’s plans for the event of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Toni Atkins, the San Diego Democrat who leads the state Senate, is one of the contributors. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom started the group himself. “We’ll be a sanctuary,” Newsom said, adding he’s aware patients will likely travel to California from other states to seek abortions. “We are looking at ways to support that inevitability and looking at ways to expand our protections.” California already pays for abortions for many low-income residents through the state’s Medicaid program. California is one of six states that require private insurance companies to cover abortions, although many patients still end up paying deductibles and co-payments. These same rules will likely apply to out of state patients. 

California Plans to Cover Abortions for Out of State Patients 

California plans to perform state-funded abortion services for patients from other states. California’s financial resources have soared throughout the pandemic, fueling a record budget surplus this year. Next year, California’s independent Legislative Analyst’s Office predicts California will have a surplus of about $31 billion. These are the funds they plan to use for abortions for out of state patients. California’s Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, got a sneak preview of how people might seek abortions outside of their home states when a Texas law outlawing abortion after six weeks of pregnancy was allowed to take effect. California clinics reported a small increase in patients from Texas. It’s unclear exactly how many people will come to California for abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we can guess… a lot. The Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, said 132,680 abortions were performed in California in 2017, or about 15% of all abortions nationally. That number includes people from out of state as well as teenagers, who are not required to have their parents’ permission for an abortion in California. Planned Parenthood, which accounts for about half of California’s abortion clinics, said it served 7,000 people from other states last year. Now, California abortion providers are asking California to make it easier for those people to get to the state. 

What Will California Cover for Out of State Patients?

The plans recommend using funding to help patients seeking abortions for travel expenses such as gas, lodging, transportation and child care. The plans ask lawmakers to reimburse abortion providers for services when patients can’t afford to pay, including out of state patients who have an income low enough to qualify for state-funded abortions under Medicaid if they were to live there. However, as stated earlier, all of these conditions could cause a huge influx of people. This large amount of people coming in from other states “will definitely destabilize the abortion provider network,” said Fabiola Carrion, interim director for reproductive and sexual health at the national Health Law Program. She said out-of-state abortions would also likely be later term procedures, which are more complicated and expensive. While California’s plans call for actions to ease this inevitable complication, will their solution actually help?

Scholarships for Medical Students Who Pledge for Abortion

The plans ask California lawmakers to help clinics increase their workforce by giving scholarships to medical students who pledge to offer abortion services in rural areas. “We’re looking at how to build capacity and build workforce,” said Jodi Hicks, CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. “It will take a partnership and investment with the state.” Abortion opponents in California are also preparing for a potential surge of out of state patients seeking abortions, only they hope to convince them not to do it. Jonathan Keller, president and CEO of the California Family Council, said California has about 160 pregnancy resource centers designed convince women not to get abortions and provide a resource during the pregnancy. He said about half of those centers are medical clinics, while the rest are faith-based counseling centers.

Clinics Against Abortion in California 

Many of the centers are located near abortion clinics to entice patients to seek their counseling before opting to end pregnancies. Keller said many centers are already planning on increasing their staffing if California begins to get an increase of patients.“Even if we are not facing any immediate legislative opportunities or legislative victories, it’s a reminder that the work of changing hearts and minds and also providing real support and resources to women facing unplanned pregnancies… that work will always continue,” Keller said. “In many ways, that work is going to be even more important, both in light of the Supreme Court’s decision and in light of whatever Sacramento decides they are going to do in response.”

Do you believe California should become a sanctuary for abortion services? Should California be performing state funded abortions for out of state patients? Will this inevitable influx of medical students to the abortion sector cause even more shortages in the medical field? If more students end up in the abortion sector, what will happen to traditional clinics and offices? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

All private sector employers in New York City will now be required to get a Covid-19 vaccine mandate by December 27, according to the city’s mayor Bill de Blasio. This means everyone who works in the city will now be subject to a vaccine mandate, whether or not they are in the private business sector. Children, ages 5 – 11 in New York will now also be required to show proof of at least one shot before being allowed access to indoor dining, fitness or entertainment, the mayor announced. Adults will now be required to show proof of two vaccinations for those areas. All of this basically means that unless you get the vaccine, you might as well stay home in NYC because you won’t be allowed… well, anywhere. Many city officials say this is to keep everyone safe, and prevent cases from rising. Will this mandate actually do that? Or, will this mandate cause the labor shortages to slide down even farther? 

Why Is NYC Making Vaccines Mandatory? 

De Blasio said the need for this new vaccine mandate is due to the potential for additional cases, emergence of the Omicron variant, and the coming of cold weather forcing people to congregate inside more frequently. At a press conference, de Blasio said, “the more universal they [the mandates] are, the more likely employees will say okay, it’s time. I’m going to do this. Because you can’t jump from one industry to another or one company to another. It’s something that needs to be universal to protect all of us.” According to de Blasio, what they really don’t want to see is the kind of spike in cases that requires a shutdown or stay-at-home orders now being put in place in parts of Europe. “We need to take very bold action. We’re seeing restrictions starting to come back. We’re seeing shutdowns,” he said. “We can not let those restrictions come back. We can not have shutdowns in New York. Our health care leadership was adamant that this was a step we could and must take,” he said. “We know from extensive conversations over months with private sector employers what their concerns are. The number one thing I’ve heard … is that we must avert shutdowns.”

Will NYC Vaccine Mandate Hold up in Court?

The mayor is confident the mandates will hold up in court. “Our health commissioner has put a series of mandates in place. They have won in court, state court, federal court every single time. And it’s because they’re universal and consistent. And they’re about protecting the public right now from a clear and present danger,” de Blasio said.  However, in instances such as the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for employers with 100 or more workers, the mandate has been held up by court challenges. Many major employers, including some Wall Street banks and tech companies with offices in the city, already have their own vaccine mandates in place. Other business leaders are concerned about navigating the maze of federal, state and city health policies. For instance, unlike the city, New York State does not have a vaccine mandate for private employers.

Details about how the rules will apply to businesses are due to be announced December 15. The rules will not allow employees to opt out of vaccination through regular testing, as a proposed federal mandate for employers with 100 or more workers will do. The vaccine mandate rules will require workers to have at least one vaccination dose by the December 27 deadline.The penalty that will be imposed on businesses that do not enforce the mandate were not disclosed. “It is part of life that there have to be some consequences,” de Blasio said. “We’ll figure out what makes sense between now and December 15.”

Business Owners Angry Over Vaccine Mandate

The announcement of the new vaccine mandate caught business leaders off guard. “We had no heads up,” Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, an influential business group, told CNN. Wylde said she was “surprised” to learn about the new health restrictions through the media. “It’s unclear if the city has authority to issue such a mandate,” Wylde said, adding that “Employers do not want to be enforcement agents.” Wylde said there is concern over a lack of coordination for federal, state and city health policies. “Public health protocols generally, and vaccine mandates, should be coordinated and consistent with each other,” Wylde said. De Blasio claims the businesses he spoke to about Covid were supportive of the new vaccine mandate. “I’ve heard from so many business leaders, including in those sectors, like finance and tech, that the best thing for them is for the government to lead the way,” he said. “It’s always better for the private sector if the government sets a single, universal standard, so they don’t have to … say to their employees, ‘Hey, this is something we’re going to do on our own.”

Will New NYC Mayor Keep New Vaccine Mandate?

The mandate itself will begin only four days before the end of de Blasio’s eight-year term in office.  Mayor-elect Eric Adams, who is currently traveling outside the country. Adams will take office on Jan. 1 about a week after the vaccine mandate is set to go into effect. De Blasio told reporters that he had spoken to Adams, and although he said he would not speak for Adams, he’s confident that the new mayor wants to follow the advice of medical professionals and keep the vaccine mandate in place. “In every conversation we’ve had about fighting Covid, he’s been really consistent on the point that he is feeling urgency, about these new threats, and that he understands my job is to keep New Yorkers safe until Dec. 31,” he said. “I feel very, very good about the conversations we’ve had.” And he said that the medical professionals he has spoken to are united in the need to increase the rate of vaccination, and their belief that a vaccine mandate will work to do that. De Blasio may be confident the new NYC mayor will keep this mandate but Adam’s spokesman said that the mayor-elect would evaluate the measure once he takes office.

Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown law professor who specializes in public health, said “New York City has considerable home rule and very broad public health powers, but Mr. de Blasio did not get specific authorization from the City Council to enact the mandate, and an inevitable avalanche of legal challenges could argue that the mayor is overstepping.” A group of retailers pushing back against the mandate cited labor shortages in their opposition. A survey of employers last month found that a number of respondents with vaccine mandates had seen a surge in resignations. This is likely due to the fact that some people don’t wish to be vaccinated, (as is their right) so they leave their current job for a company with relaxed regulations, that won’t force them into making medical decisions against their will. What were months and millions of dollars in incentive payments for if de Blasio’s end game was just to require everyone get vaccinated? If you were mayor-elect Adams, would you ax this new mandate once you were sworn into office?  

Written by: Erinn Malloy

Rita’s reality check on this crazy world, with her unique take on the big issues facing us all.

View Website

Radical Left-wing student activists at Arizona State University have taken to protesting Kyle Rittenhouse attending sharing space with them. If you don’t know, Rittenhouse ended up shooting three people and two ended up dying. This all occurred during what was essentially a Black Lives Matter protest. The shooting was deemed self defense and, despite the best effort of the prosecution, the court was unable to find evidence the shooting occurred with malicious intent. Rittenhouse had been signed up for classes online via ASU. This angered many left-wing students, who say they refuse to allow it. Protests against allowing Rittenhouse to attend ASU have broken out, sparking counter-protests from conservative students. Our biggest question: why is Kyle Rittenhouse an issue at ASU for left-wing students, but violent felons, domestic abusers, and other people who caused some type of damage with malicious intent, are not? 

ASU Students Don’t Care Rittenhouse is Innocent 

Many students can be seen here at the rally spouting blatant smears and lies about Rittenhouse being a “white supremacist killer,” as well as holding up signs calling for “death 2 America.” Many of the students who are protesting against Rittenhosue attending ASU are part of a group called Students for Socialism. “I’m marching because killer Kyle should not be going to this campus,” one student, Farha, told Fox News. “That is White supremacy at its peak and it does not belong at ASU.” One of the radical left-wing student, freshman Zein Hajaig, admitted to the Associated Press that he doesn’t even care that Rittenhouse is “legally not a murderer. I don’t think anyone with a prior charge of those sorts would even be able to attend here. I think we all know it goes without saying he was there to intimidate and hurt people of color or people who are supporting the Black Lives Matter movement,” he said. Apparently, Hajaig believes that anyone who’s ever been charged with a crime, even if the charge was created in error, should be barred from studying at colleges and universities. So what about teenagers who are charged with manslaughter or accidental death because of a mistake and get out at 18? Should they also not have a right to school, and better themselves? Should someone who has gone through traumatic events that resulted in loss of life not be allowed to contribute to society? If someone wants to get an education and to better themselves, why is it anyone’s business where they go? Especially if they have been found not guilty or served their time. 

ASU: Rittenhouse is not Currently Taking Classes 

ASU issued a statement right after the initial trial when Rittenhouse admitted to being enrolled in ASU during court testimony. “Kyle Rittenhouse has not gone through the admissions process with Arizona State University and is not enrolled in the Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation. ASU can confirm that Mr. Rittenhouse enrolled as a non-degree seeking ASU Online student for the session that started Oct. 13, 2021, which allows students access to begin taking classes as they prepare to seek admission into a degree program at the university,” they said. Now, in a statement issued in the last week, the university revealed that Rittenhouse, by choice, is no longer enrolled in any online classes. “Kyle Rittenhouse has not gone through the ASU admissions process. Our records show that he is not currently enrolled in any classes at ASU,” the University said. So, this group of radical students, who seem to have an extreme dislike for America, have driven an individual, who was deemed innocent of wrongdoing, away from getting an education. Would they act this way if any given felon tried to attend their university? No, they wouldn’t. They are demonizing someone who went through a horrific event and found themselves in an impossible situation. The court deemed Rittenhouse not guilty… that is good enough for anyone else who has faced charges, been found not guilty, and attended university after. Why is it not good enough in this case?

Rittenhouse Will Attempt to Attend ASU Next Year 

Not all students are against the idea of sharing university space with Rittenhouse. Dacy, another student, told Fox News she was marching with the conservative counter-protestors because she believes in a right to self-defense. “He’s an American who has committed no crime,” she said. “He contributes to society the way any other American contributes to society who is not imprisoned. We should have zero bias towards him whatsoever, of what school he goes to or where he wants to be educated at, because he was acquitted,” Dacy continued. “He has not committed any crimes, so he is free to go where he wants to go.” Nick, who carried a sign in support of Rittenhouse, said: “I would understand if there was more controversy, if there was no evidence of what happened that night, but there is clear evidence that he did defend himself, and the fact that we have opposition just proves the fact that they didn’t watch the trial or they just don’t love this country.” Spokesperson, Dave Hancock, confirmed to Fox News that Rittenhouse plans to attempt to attend ASU in the fall. “Amid his most recent semester, Kyle’s professors at Arizona State University recommended a compassionate withdrawal of his online classes. Now that the trial is behind him, Kyle is eager to enroll in more classes. He is hopeful that attending Arizona State in person will soon be an option,” Hancock said. There would be technically no rule to preclude him from reapplying. Rittenhouse said in recent interviews he is considering studying to be a lawyer or a nurse. But the radical socialist students claim “we won’t let him.”

Republican Matt Salmon, who is running for Arizona governor, slammed the protests as an “ongoing harassment campaign” of someone who was not convicted of a crime. In a statement, he also criticized university officials for not speaking out more. “It is time for the far-left to respect our judicial system, and it is time for administrators at ASU to stand up for the rule of law and protect their students from these thugs.” These students can’t possibly know the background of everyone at the school. There could be people attending their school who have been charged with similar crimes and found not guilty. The only reason these students have an issue with Kyle Rittenhouse is because his trial was made extremely public. They know the headlines but didn’t do actual research into the case. The court of law couldn’t find evidence of Rittenhouse being a murderer, yet left-wing students ignore that fact. Why are these students allowed to harass and bully a fellow student into dropping out of school? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

While school shootings remain rare, there have been more in 2021 than in any year since at least 1999, according to a Washington Post database that tracks acts of gun violence on K-12 campuses during regular school hours.Tuesday’s shooting in Oxford was the deadliest school shooting in more than three years. Oxford High School student 16-year-old Tate Myre was one of the four teenagers killed when student Ethan Crumbley, opened fire at the school. Tate Myre laid down his life for other students when he attempted to disarm Crumbley, according to witness reports. 14-year-old Hana St. Juliana shared a heart breaking text exchange where she told her father she loved him and he was the best dad before her tragic death. 17-year old Madisyn Baldwin, and 17-year-old Justin Shilling were also killed, and 8 other students were injured. Then the rest of the entire staff and student body have lasting deep emotional damage. A mountain of evidence suggests the shooting was planned, though that will be for the court of law to ultimately decide. In response to the horrific incident many are calling for tighter gun control laws. This situation, at least from the outside, seems to be less an issue of gun control and more an issue of mental health awareness and knowing what your kids are doing in general. 

Evidence Suggests Crumbley Planned the Shooting

Evidence that suggests Crumbley planned the shooting in advance includes a video law enforcement officials say he made the night before the shooting that detailed his plan for killing students. A journal was also recovered from his backpack that detailed his desire to “shoot up the school,” officials said. Law enforcement officials said a social media post on Crumbley’s page showed the gun used in the attack. It was purchased just four days before the shooting, by Crumbley’s father, investigators said. The night before the attack 15-year year old Crumbley changed his Instagram bio to “‘Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.’ See you tomorrow Oxford.” 

What Happened During the Shooting?

Investigators said the suspect walked into a school bathroom around 12:50 local time Tuesday with a backpack and walked out with a gun in hand. He then walked down the hallway “aiming the firearm at students and firing,” officials added. Senior Mitchell Williams fled his classroom as soon as he heard the gunshots. “It was horrific. It was really startling, hearing everyone come out and not knowing where the gunshots would be next,” said Williams. “It’s really sad and no one really knows what to do because of it and it’s something that should have never happened.”

A video which has surfaced on social media since the shooting shows one student saying Crumbley was “living up to his word.” Which makes us question: If people knew Crumbley was planning this type of event, why didn’t the school do more to prevent it? Another video that has surfaced on social media shows a classroom full of students and someone, allegedly Crumbley, is at the door of the classroom asking to be let in, claiming to be the sheriff’s office. During the exchange the person on the outside of the classroom used the word “bro,” which raised a red flag with students. The students in the classroom decided not to let the person in, but rather exit from what looks to be either a large window or glass classroom door located opposite the threat, running to the safety of the REAL sheriff’s office. 

What Happens to Crumbley Now?

Michigan prosecutors acknowledge their decision to file a terrorism charge was not a usual charge filed during school schootings. “It’s not a usual, typical charge,” Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald said Wednesday. She explained that Crumbley would be charged as an adult with four counts of first-degree murder, seven counts of assault with intent to murder and 12 counts of possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, as well as one count of “terrorism causing death.”

The terrorism charge was chosen to address the harm caused to those who suffered from the violent rampage but who were not killed or injured. “The children [who were killed] and those that were injured, they are the victims in the first-degree murder charges and the assault with intent to murder, but what about all these other children? What about all the children who ran, screaming, hiding under desks?” McDonald said at a news conference. “What about all the children at home right now who can’t eat and can’t sleep and can’t imagine a world where they could ever set foot back in that school? Those are victims, too, and so are their families, and so is the community. And the charge of terrorism reflects that.” Terrorism is not the only unusual charge the prosecutor’s office has considered as part of this case.

Crumbley’s Parents Possibly Facing Charges

Officials have said that Crumbley’s father bought the semiautomatic handgun used in the shooting four days before-hand, last friday. It is currently unclear how Crumbley obtained the gun from his father. McDonald says “gun owners have a responsibility to secure their weapons, particularly when young people are involved. Prosecutors will make a decision soon on whether to charge Ethan Crumbley’s parents.” Could such charges, though rare, be warranted in a case like this? After all, with the mountain of evidence that suggests the shooting was planned and even openly spoken about well in advance, this is an issue of not being aware of what your child is doing or getting them the help they clearly needed. Isn’t knowing what your child is doing online, how their mental health is, and addressing troubling behaviors that are brought to your attention, your number one responsibility as a parent? 

The school had a meeting with Crumbley’s parents the same morning the shooting occurred, according to Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard. “We have since learned that the school did have contact with the student the day before and the day of the shooting for behaviors in the classroom that they felt was concerning,” he said. “In fact, the parents were brought in the morning of the shooting and had a face-to-face meeting with the school. The content of that meeting of course is part of the investigation.” Why did the school allow him to be in school if he had openly made these threats? This is clearly a case of negligence on behalf of the adults involved in the life of a young man who was clearly very troubled, and needed help. This does not in any way excuse his actions, he knew right from wrong, it is sad he was troubled and needed help but that does not excuse his actions. However, we have to look at these facts in order to prevent an event like this shooting from occuring due to adults not getting troubled children the proper help. 

Schools Close Due to Copycat threats

Many schools have closed Thursday, Dec. 2 in response to numerous reports of threats of violence spreading across social media. Sheriff’s deputies were in multiple schools Wednesday, Dec. 1 investigating “copycat” threats, Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said at a Wednesday news conference. “There’s some weird anomaly where every time something happens like this in the country there’s a whole bunch of copycat threats and texts and pictures, and it really burdens law enforcement all across the nation,” Bouchard said. This shows that other students who may be bullied, as some outlets suggest Crumbley was, or just have a desire to be seen in some way, may abuse these types of tragedies to gain a feeling of power. Something that needs to be addressed through some form of mental health help, otherwise could lead to major social issues in the future. 

Colorado has been no stranger to school shootings, or even more recently, violence in and around high schools in Aurora. This violence resulted in enhanced security measures and mental health resources. Colorado seems to realize the issue does not lay within gun control, but in the declining mental health of today’s youth. Today’s youth finds themselves in a set of weird and extreme circumstances. It should not be a shock that those extreme circumstances are breeding mental health issues and personality disorders. The issue is not within tighter gun control laws, the issue is we don’t address the mental health of teenagers until it is too late. 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

Colorado has recently seen a rise in violent crimes. The instances range from fatal accidents, senseless acts carried out in anger, and victims doing what they must to survive. Stabbings and shootings have both been seen as recently as over the past holiday weekend. In all of this violence there have been many victims who were fatally wounded. One of the biggest questions: what is causing this surge in violence?

Woman Stabs Home Invader 

Police with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office said the incident happened at a home in the 10400 block of Ammons Street in Westminster on Monday. According to a police statement, the male victim was a “home invader” who broke into the property. He engaged in a “physical altercation” with one woman living in the house. In a statement, the sheriff’s office said, “upon arrival, deputies discovered one deceased adult male inside the residence. According to a female witness who lives at the residence, the male forced entry into the home and was stabbed by another female resident during a physical altercation between the male and witnesses.” Deputies said the man was known to the residents. The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office says they are investigating the death thoroughly.

Man Stabs Denver Rescue Mission Staff Member

Denver police a staff member at the Denver Rescue Mission was stabbed and killed this past Saturday night. Police responded to the area near 48th Avenue and Dahlia Street outside of the men’s shelter at 4:45 p.m.. The victim is only described as a 30-year-old man. The victim was taken to the hospital where he later died. Witnesses who also work at the facility told police the victim was stabbed in the area of his ribs. Police say they arrested a man, identified as Christopher Christian, who now faces a charge of first degree murder. Witnesses told police Christian was asked to leave the facility the night before due to a physical fight with another resident, and not return for 30 days. The stabbing victim was not involved in that decision or the fight. 

These instances are not the only stabbings colorado has seen this year. In october a group of 5 male teens stabbed an uber driver when he couldn’t fit them all in his vehicle safely. Those young men were never found. Then, back in January, a man stabbed 8 people in Colorado Springs before he was detained. According to Statista, 1,739 people in the U.S. were murdered by people who used knives or other cutting instruments to carry out the killing in 2020. It was the third most common way a victim was murdered in the United States, behind unstated firearms at 4,863 and handguns at 8,029. Colorado is no stranger to gun violence. 

Five Injured in Aurora Shooting

According to Fox News, five people were being treated at a hospital overnight after a shooting in Aurora, Colorado, according to authorities. All five victims were expected to survive, police wrote on Twitter. The shooting was “possibly connected to a large party,” a police post read. No arrests were immediately reported. It was unclear how many suspects were linked to the case, police wrote in a Twitter message.The shooting occurred in the area of East Colfax Avenue and Dayton Street, according to police. A heavy police presence was in the area, the department wrote.

Denver Woman Shoots Jefferson County Man 

A Denver woman was arrested Sunday after a man was found fatally shot inside of a camper in Jefferson County, according to the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office. Deputies responded to gunshots just before 1 a.m. in the 11000 block of Cochise Circle in Conifer. The victim was dead when deputies arrived. The suspect in the shooting, 36-year-old Sarah Kalan, fled but was quickly found and taken into custody. Deputies have not released the identity of the victim or any information about how Kalan is connected to him. According to public records, Kalan was arrested and charged with attempted first-degree murder in 2006 in El Paso County, a charge which was later dropped for second-degree assault with a deadly weapon. Records indicate she was sentenced to six years in prison in that case.

6 Teens Injured in Aurora Shooting

Six teenagers were wounded a week and a half ago in a shooting near a high school in Colorado, authorities said. Aurora police said there are likely multiple suspects responsible for the shooting, all of whom remain on the loose. The shooting occurred in Nome Park, across from Aurora Central High School, just before 1:00 p.m. Five students between the ages of 14 and 17 were found wounded at the scene, and an additional 18-year-old student self-transported to the hospital with “minor” injuries. Aurora Police Chief Vanessa Wilson said initial evidence suggests that some suspects may have been on foot, while others were in a vehicle. She said there were multiple shell casings of different calibers at the scene.  “When I got the call, my heart dropped,” Wilson said at a press conference on Monday afternoon. Wilson said she believes first responders “saved a life.” In a statement late Monday night, police said first responders applied tourniquets to two of the victims to stem their bleeding. 

Man Shot Outside of Colorado Springs 7/11

One person was injured in a shooting near the Olympic Training Center early this morning (Tuesday). Police were called to the area of North Union and Willamette just before 12:30 a.m. on reports of a shooting and found a single victim at the scene. The man’s injuries were serious but reportedly not life-threatening. Officers didn’t confirm the exact location, but an employee at the 7-Eleven on the corner of Union and Willamette tells 11 News the shooting occurred outside the store. 

These are just a few incidents out of many. These don’t include the incidents which the media never reports, or that never get reported in the first place. Why is violence seemingly on the rise in Colorado? Will these numbers continue to rise? What causes people to become so violent? Could this surge in violence be linked to a surge in drug use, which is seen not only in Colorado but across the U.S.? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

How would you react if your partner asked you to add a romantic third party to your existing relationship? Would you be open minded or is that something which is completely off the table? This is the situation many people, especially in our younger generations, are finding themselves in. In recent times we have seen the practice of polygamy and other similar relationship styles, such as polyamory, explode in generation Z especially in cultural subsets. Could media glorifying polygamy, such as the Tiger King series, be responsible for this sudden surge we see on Tinder-style dating apps and social media, especially TikTok, of couples seeking to add third parties in their relationship? Why is this alternative lifestyle suddenly gaining traction and popularity? Could the US be headed towards legalizing polygamy and polyamory in the future?

Polygamy Vs. Polyamory

Polygamy and polyamory fall under the broader umbrella non-monogamy. Polygamy is a relationship style in which a relationship consists of more than one spouse at a time. Polyamory is having more than one romantic partner, not necessarily all spouses, with all parties aware of one another. The term “Ethical Non-Monogamy” is often used to describe people who practice polygamy or polyamory. This term is used to differentiate the two communities from other forms of non-monogamy such as infidelity, “open” relationships, and swingers. True ethical non-monogamous relationships have set boundaries that have been openly communicated and are practiced in a way, so everyone is safe and happy in the relationship.

A paper published in the journal Psychology & Sexuality found that those in ethical non-monogamous relationships are seen in a more positive light than either swingers or those in open relationships. Those in polyamorous relationships were regarded as more moral, motivated by loyalty, and family-oriented than swingers and those in open relationships. According to an article from BBC published in March 2020, people engaging in polygamous relationships are less likely to have anxious and avoidant attachment styles due to the open communication required to make sure the relationship is healthy.

Who Practices Polygamy and Polyamory?

People who engaged in polygamy and polyamory in the United States range from those religious practitioners of Islam or the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), who are often personally and politically conservative. These religious groups often practice polygamy and, often, men take more than one wife. Then on the opposite ends of the spectrum we see polyamory practiced by cultural subsets who are generally liberal and progressive. Significant overlap is seen with non-monogamy and Pagans, gamers, the goth or alternative sectors, and science-fiction enthusiasts, and LGBTQ community. People within these sects, and Gen Z alone, are 15 percent more likely to be in an alternative relationship style, such as polygamy or polyamory.

 Where are Polygamy and Polyamory Legal Today?

Today, most countries that permit polygamy, such as India and countries in the middle east, only allow people of certain religions such as Islam practice it. In others, such as Russia and South Africa, polygamy is illegal but not criminalized. In those countries we see significant instability socially and economically. Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a right to plural marriage because it would lead to gender imbalances if ‘the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives.’ Similarly, the same-sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch has argued that polygamy allows ‘high-status men to hoard wives’ and destabilizes society. While arguments could be made that we have significantly higher populations of LGBTQ in the US so the numbers should even out across the board, historically speaking, the dynamic of one many with many wives has been the most common seen in polygamous and polyamorous relationships.

Despite having many religious freedoms in the US polygamy is still illegal. However, According to PewResearch.org researcher, Stephanie Kramer during the February 2020 Utah passed a bill to reduce the penalties for adults who voluntarily live-in polygamous relationships, making the practice an infraction, a low-level offense that is not punishable with jail time. When it comes to legalization of anything, in the past we see one state decriminalize, and within a few years, a snowball effect causes whatever was illegal to be legal almost anywhere. Would you vote to legalize Polygamy or Polyamory if given the opportunity? Do you think non-monogamous relationships could negatively affect the already fragile social stability of the US?

Written by: Erinn Malloy

One of President Joe Biden’s boldest moves was to ban new oil and natural gas leasing on public land and water. Now, just after President Biden told world leaders that his administration is committed to slowing climate change with “action, and not words,” his Interior Department oversaw one of the largest oil and gas lease sales in American history. The Biden administration will be opening more than 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to auction for drilling. Energy companies, led by Exxon Mobil, placed bids on 1.7 million acres; it’s unclear how much of that will later be developed. The Trump administration, which first proposed the Gulf of Mexico sale in 2017, estimated it would generate 21 million to 1.12 billion barrels of oil and from 55 billion to 4.42 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Oil and gas companies stocked up on leases during President Donald Trump’s term but the sites being currently examined were not touched. More than half of the land that was leased during that time by energy companies is currently nonproducing, an analysis found. This new gas and oil lease is different because production levels are at the highest ever seen in the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf is one of the best basins in terms of oil and gas discovery prospects.

Biden Followers Outraged Over New Leasing 

Environmentalists and other Leftist groups are outraged over the new gas and oil lease auction. “This is an administration that campaigned on dealing with climate change,” said Drew Caputo, an attorney at Earthjustice, which sued to stop the sale. “That’s why this lease sale is so disappointing, because it is the most significant action that the administration will have taken on oil and gas development and it goes in the wrong direction.” Environmental organizations argue there’s more that Biden could have done to stop the sale in an effort to make America “green.” Brettny Hardy, an attorney with the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice leading a lawsuit against the Interior Department, argued the Biden administration could have filed a more aggressive appeal in court, declined to hold the sale this week or withdrawn some of the areas in the Gulf from leasing.”The sale is going to lock in [oil and gas] production for years to come,” Hardy told CNN. “By that time, we need to be moving away from fossil fuels in order to survive. This lease sale is a really critical juncture and is sending us in the exact opposite direction.”

Many people on the left and environmentalists believe the Justice Department also could have argued that the environmental risks involved with new gas and oil leases conflict with the National Environmental Protection Act. “It simply does not make sense to put oil company profits over the future of an inhabitable planet,” said Christy Goldfuss, senior vice president for energy and environment policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “The Biden administration must take control of the federal leasing program with its existing authority to fulfill their promises to current and future communities across America. We cannot afford this risky, damaging, and inconsistent approach to managing America’s public lands and ocean.” Though many on the left wish to argue the environment sees the biggest impact if oil and gas leasing continues, the economy could be affected in worse ways if it doesn’t. An analysis published in August by the Conservation Economics Institute, commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other conservation-based nonprofits, found that a pause in onshore oil and gas leasing would have “negligible” economic impacts in the short term.

Biden Administration Resumes Gas and Oil Lease Sales

More than a dozen Republican states filed a lawsuit challenging the pause, saying it would cause undue harm to the energy industry and state economies that are reliant on fossil fuel production. Republican lawmakers and fossil fuel companies have been quick to point a finger at the Biden administration’s climate policies as the cause of energy prices surging, and claim lease sales like the one in the Gulf can alleviate prices. Another big issue with pausing leasing on gas and oil is the laws in place which are designed to prevent just that from happening. “The law is pretty clear,” said Erik Milito, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, a trade group for offshore energy companies. “The law states the Interior Department must have a leasing program in place and it must maintain that leasing program, so it’s hard for the Interior Department to just cancel lease sales without a rational basis.” Earlier this summer, a federal judge in Louisiana sided with those points, issuing a nationwide preliminary injunction. Judge Doughty was nominated in 2017 to the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana by former President Donald Trump. “Millions and possibly billions of dollars are at stake,” Judge Terry Doughty wrote in his ruling. 

The Biden administration is now forced to open drilling once again, according to White House press secretary Jen Psaki. “We’re required to comply with the injunction; it’s a legal case and legal process,” Psaki told reporters Monday. “But it’s important for advocates and other people out there to understand that it’s not aligned with our view, the President’s policies or the executive order that he signed.” The Biden administration is appealing the injunction but agreed to resume Gas and Oil Lease sales in the meantime. “They can be held in contempt if they don’t comply with the court order and so I think they’re looking at the litigation risk and making a judgment call,” said Hilary Tompkins, an environmental attorney at Hogan Lovells, who served as solicitor of the Interior Department during the Obama administration. Additional gas and oil lease sales are scheduled in Wyoming, Colorado, Montana and other Western states early next year. Do you think we should be creating new oil and gas leasing in the gulf of Mexico? Do you believe the economic impacts of not drilling outweigh the environmental impacts we face if we do?

Written by: Erinn Malloy

A building currently named the Staples Center has been home to the NBA’s Lakers and Clippers, the NHL’s Kings, and the WNBA’s Sparks and will change its name after 22 years of operation. The 20,000-seat downtown Los Angeles sports building has been the Staples Center since AEG opened it in October 1999. Along with sports tenants, the building has hosted 19 Grammy Awards ceremonies, three NBA All-Star Games, two NHL All-Star Games and countless high-profile concerts, performances and important public events, including memorials for Michael Jackson, Nipsey Hussle and Kobe Bryant. The American office-supplies retail company, Staples, had a 20-year naming agreement with the building costing around $150 million. Since that agreement has expired, the name will change when the Lakers host the Brooklyn Nets in the NBA’s annual Christmas showcase.The new name change agreement has been made between the home of the Lakers and a well known cryptocurrency exchange. 

Former Staples Center Renamed by Crypto.com

Crypto.com is a cryptocurrency exchange headquartered in Singapore. Crypto.com has been on a global sports spending spree over the past year, striking deals with Formula One, the UFC, Italy’s Serie A, Paris St-Germain and the NHL’s Montreal Canadiens. The former Staples Center will be renamed by crypto.com. A new logo and other assets for the building will be unveiled on Christmas Day, when the Lakers play the Brooklyn Nets, and the building’s signage will be replaced by June 2022. The cryptocurrency exchange will be paying the home of the Lakers $700 million for the name change agreement over the next 20 years, according to the Associated Press.

Largest Name Agreement in Sports History

 The AP’s source spoke to the outlet on the condition of anonymity due to the fact that, what is likely the richest naming rights deal in sports history, was not supposed to be public information yet. The downtown Los Angeles sports building’s new name agreement also dubs Crypto.com the “official cryptocurrency platform partner of the Los Angeles Lakers and the LA Kings,” according to a press release. Crypto.com co-founder and CEO Kris Marszalek said “We’re very excited about partnering with AEG and investing long term in this city, starting with Crypto.com Arena in the heart of downtown and using our platform in new and creative ways so cryptocurrency can power the future of world class sports, entertainment and technology for fans in LA and around the world.” 

The name change, however, has not settled well with many Los Angeles sports fans. “Never. Calling. It. Crypto,” one person tweeted. “I can’t handle a name change of the house that Kobe built. It’s Staples Center forever.” Vanessa Bryant, the wife of the late Lakers great Kobe Bryant, who died along with their 13-year-old daughter Gianna in a helicopter crash in January 2020, posted a similar sentiment on her Instagram story. Along with a post of the name change news, she wrote, “Forever known as ‘the house that Kobe built.'” Many fans say they would welcome a name change that pays respect to Kobe and Gianna Bryant. Do you believe the downtown Los Angeles sports building should be renamed for Kobe? What do you think of the new Crypto.com arena? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

Many rumors surrounded Former President Donald Trump as he left office. One of those rumors was that Trump was planning on quitting the Republican Party to start his own party. Between the beliefs like the election was stolen and the riot at the capitol was started by Trump, it is hard to know what to believe when it comes to the Former President. One journalist/ author claims Trump backed out of the plan to start his own party because the RNC threatened to retaliate against him if he did. In the same book, they claim Trump wanted to leave in order to punish the GOP in some way. What does Trump have to say about these claims? 

 RNC Threatens Retaliation Against Trump 

The RNC threatened to retaliate against Trump, costing him millions of dollars, according to the book “Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show” by ABC News Chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl. If Trump formed his own political party, the RNC threatened they would stop paying legal bills from challenging election results, as well as give his large email list to Republican candidates for free. Trump made money renting out the list, estimated to be worth $100 million, to other Republican Leaders. Trump changed his mind five days after the threat was made, according to Karl’s book. He also claimed RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called Trump to “wish him farewell.” Karl describes the call, which Trump’s son was also on, as “very unpleasant.”

“Donald Trump was in no mood for small talk or nostalgic goodbyes,” Karl wrote. “He got right to the point. He told her he was leaving the Republican Party and would be creating his own political party. The president’s son Donald Trump Jr. was also on the phone. The younger Trump had been relentlessly denigrating the RNC for being insufficiently loyal to Trump. In fact, at the Jan. 6 rally before the Capitol riot, the younger Trump all but declared that the old Republican Party didn’t exist anymore.” After Trump told McDaniel he was “done” with the RNC, she implored him to stay, saying if he didn’t “we will lose forever,” Karl writes. “Exactly,” Trump reportedly said. “You lose forever without me.” A source who claimed to have witnessed the conversation between Trump and McDaniel said Trump spoke as if destroying the party was punishment for the mistreatment from Republican leaders. Karl recently said on “Good Morning America,” “Trump didn’t care if the move destroyed the party that brought him to the White House.”

Did Trump Really Want to Leave the GOP

The day before Trump left office, The Wall Street Journal reported he told several aides and others associates that he wanted to start a new party called the “Patriot Party,” but he backed away from it days later. On Jan. 25, the Trump campaign filed a notice with the Federal Election Commission saying “Patriot Party” groups that had popped up were not authorized by Trump or his campaign. “It’s a totally made up and fabricated story, it’s fake news,” Trump said in a statement provided to The Hill. “Jonathan Karl is a third-rate reporter working for ABC Non-News,” the former president added. McDaniel also denied the story. “This is false, I have never threatened President Trump with anything,” McDaniel said. “He and I have a great relationship. We have worked tirelessly together to elect Republicans up and down the ballot, and will continue to do so.”

Despite rumors of mistreatment and borderline blackmail Trump is allegedly on the receiving end of, support for the former president has grown recently in the GOP. An October Pew poll found 67% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe Trump should remain a major national political figure, up from 57% in January. With support for Trump increasing, could we see Trump run for office again at some point? The Former President’s daughter-in-law, Lara, is believed to be running for senate and his son, Donald Trump Jr. is believed by many political strategists to be running in the 2024 presidential election. Would you ever consider re-electing Donald Trump, or voting for his children? People say Donald Trump wanted to leave the GOP and start his own party, a plan thwarted by the RNC. The former president says that is fake news… What do you say?

Written by: Erinn Malloy

The US Supreme Court of California recently began hearing a case involving the claims of three Muslim men who are suing the FBI for illegally surveilling Muslim community. Yassir Fazaga, a former imam at the Orange County Islamic Foundation, along with Ali Uddin Malik and Yasser AbdelRahim, both members of the Islamic Center of Irvine, say the FBI targeted members of Muslim communities based on their religion. The FBI has acknowledged running a surveillance program at several California mosques, but maintains the surveillance program was legal and carried out for reasons not having anything to do with religion. During the initial trial, the district court agreed some classified and secret evidence could not be heard in court. The US Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the case again, as well as decide if district courts should be able to use classified evidence when determining if secret government surveillance is lawful. 

When did the FBI Conduct Surveillance Illegally? 

The civil rights group representing the three men who are suing the FBI, ACLU, says it all began in Orange County, California during 2006 when an FBI informant started illegally surveilling prayer groups and making videos in mosques, homes and businesses. The FBI says the surveillance program began after a “home-grown” terrorist on the most-wanted list had been seen coming out of a mosque there. At the time, relations between Muslims and the FBI had become tense, so the head of the Los Angeles FBI office held a town hall at the Islamic Center of Irvine to assure the audience the FBI was not surveilling them in any way. “If the bureau is going to come to the mosque,” he told the Muslim community, “We will tell you we’re coming for the very reason we don’t want you to think you’re being monitored.” At the same time, the FBI was recruiting and training undercover informant, Craig Monteilh, to help catch anyone recruiting and training terrorists. As Sam Black reported for This American Life, “The FBI later confirmed in court that Craig was an undercover informant. A district attorney also stated in court that Craig did work with Agent Kevin Armstrong and that Craig had given the FBI ‘very very valuable information.'” The FBI informant recorded conversations and discussions, as well as took photos of license plates and people who were coming to the mosque. Many members of the Muslim community claim the FBI informant was “literally instigating, enticing people, trying to get them to become terrorists.”

FBI Illegal Surveillance Informant turned Terrorist?

Fazada, who is a therapist, is angry he found a recording device in his office left there by the FBI informant. The device recorded the personal and confidential sessions he had with his patients for over a month. Craig Monteilh testified that his FBI handlers considered Fazada to be a radical because he “directed students on how to conduct demonstrations and encouraged them to speak out.” Fazada wants the FBI to destroy all the information that was gathered, especially recordings of counseling sessions. “You couldn’t go into a Catholic church in the confession room and put bugs there because that would just be a violation of these people’s rights and their religious freedom,” he said. “That applies to people in therapy as well. It applies to people in a mosque, a synagogue, a church, any place of worship.” In addition to acts such as this, the FBI informant began asking many questions about jihad, and suggesting members of the Muslim community carry out terrorist attacks. The FBI informant confirmed making the suggestions. “I said we should carry out a terrorist attack in this country. We should bomb something.” Upon hearing this two of the men he’d been hanging out with, freaked out and contacted the director of the Council on American Islamic Relations in Southern California. ACLU lawyer, Ahilan Arulanantham, said the FBI informant “started, at his FBI handlers’ behalf, to try to incite violence, but he scared a bunch of people, when he was talking about things like bombing, Jihad and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (and) they reported him to the FBI.” According to Sam Black, the FBI then started to investigate their own informant. The Muslim community now believes this was just another way to leverage people and get them to inform on each other. These events are why three of the people who were surveilled illegally, sued the FBI. 

The FBI Being Sued for Illegal Surveillance

So far, none of the people or the places of worship have been implicated in any public criminal activity or federal charges. When the men sued the FBI for illegal surveillance in 2011, the agency invoked state secrets privilege to block the lawsuit in order to prevent disclosure of evidence that could threaten national security. The state secrets privilege hides information when the government believes “there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military [or other] matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged,” it says in court documents. A federal district court agreed with the FBI orignally, but a panel of judges reversed that decision on appeal in favor of the Muslim men. The appeals court said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 allows a judge to evaluate secret evidence and determine whether the government can keep some or all of it secret. The men’s lawyers claim, in a case like this FISA displaces the “state secrets privilege,” created by the Supreme Court in the 1950s. The FBI counters that FISA was not meant for cases like this and courts must dismiss the case if the government certifies a threat to national security. Here the government has made that certification, contending that this case cannot be litigated “without risking disclosure of state secrets.” In its brief to the court, the FBI said that it “does not lightly” invoke the state secrets privilege and the Attorney General has personally approved the assertion. 

Fazada is not buying that argument. “There is no one to see the merits of what you (The FBI) are doing. And national security just becomes this blanket that you can cover anything you want with it.” The Biden administration has defended the FBI saying, “the Executive Branch has the critical responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. State-secrets privilege helps enable the Executive to meet that constitutional duty.”  Do you believe the FBI illegally surveilled the Muslim community? Do you believe the men suing the FBI are justified? The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in the case by the end of June 2022.

Written by: Erinn Malloy

So many things have happened throughout history. It is easy to forget everything good or bad that has been recorded happened to people just like you and me. It is easy to say “oh that is just history,” and not give things a second thought. What if we told you major things in history happened all throughout November? It can be mind blowing to think, things which we never thought could happen to us, happened to people just like us, on days much like any other day we have. As you read this list, the hope is you can gain perspective about time and the world we live in… or maybe just learn random facts, and that’s okay too.

November 1, 1969 

The Beatles’ “Abbey Road” album went #1 in the US for 11 weeks. The Beatles went on to be a worldwide sensation for a few years before breaking up. 

November 2, 2020

Baby Shark by Pinkfong became the most-watched video on YouTube with over 7.04 billion views during the height of the pandemic. 

November 3, 1970 

US President Richard Nixon promised gradual troop removal of Vietnam. 

November 4, 1922

British archeologist, Howard Carter, discovered the intact tomb of the Pharaoh Tutankhamun in Egypt, underneath the tomb of his father Ramsey.

November 5, 1937 

Adolf Hitler informed his military leaders in a secret meeting of his intentions of going to war. The holocaust would follow shortly after. 

November 6, 1860

Republican Abraham Lincoln of Illinois elected the 16th President of the United States of America. Lincoln ended up abolishing slavery durning his time as president before being assinated by John Wilkes Booth. 

November 7, 2020

Former Vice-President Joe Biden was declared the winner of the US Presidential race, four days after the US election, ending the time of President Donald Trump. Many believe this election was won by voter-fraud. 

November 8, 1965 

 US, Australian and New Zealand forces launched Operation Hump, a search-and-destroy operation near Bien Hoa in South Vietnam.  Lawrence Joll, a medic, was wounded and risked his life to save his battlemates. He became the first living person of color to receive the US Medal of honor since the Spanish-American War.

November 9, 1984 

Wes Craven’s horror film “A Nightmare on Elm Street” premieres in the US. The franchise ended up having many different movies and remakes. 

November 10, 1940 

Walt Disney began serving as eyes for both of the happiest places on earth. He became an informer for the Los Angeles office of the FBI; his job is to report back information on Hollywood subversives. 

November 11, 1918 

WWI Armistice signed by the Allies and Germany comes into effect and World War I hostilities end at 11am, “the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.” All fighting ceased and the battlefields had what witnesses called “ an eerie peaceful silence.” 

November 12, 1890 

Mabel Loomis Todd publishes the first edition of “Poems by Emily Dickinson.”

November 13, 1992

Riddick Bowe wins the undisputed world heavyweight boxing crown with a unanimous points decision over Evander Holyfield in Las Vegas; first of their 3 meetings.

November 14, 2002 

Film “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” is released, based on the 2nd book of the series by J. K. Rowling. The Harry Potter franchise went on to be one of the most best selling book and movie franchises of all time. 

November 15, 1777 

Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, is approved by the Continental Congress.

November 16, 1939 

Al Capone was freed from Alcatraz jail. He went right back to a life of gangster mafia crime and would end up back in prison in a few years. 

November 17, 1558 

Elizabeth I, took the English throne upon the death of her cousin, Queen “Bloody” Mary of scotland. Mary attempted to take Elizabeth’s life in order to have no one opposed to her taking the English throne for herself. 

November 18, 1978 

In Jonestown, Guyana, 918 members of the Peoples Temple were murdered and committed suicide under the leadership and direction of cult leader Jim Jones. 

November 19, 1998 

Vincent van Gogh’s “Portrait of the Artist Without Beard” sold at auction for $71.5 million.

November 20, 1945 

The Nuremberg war trials began as 24 Nazi leaders were put on trial before judges representing the victorious Allied powers. Many Nazis were sentenced to death and prison, or used by the government. 

November 21, 1989 

Law banning smoking on most domestic flights was signed by US President George H. W. Bush. Shortly after, most restaurants and public spaces banned smoking other than in designated areas. In modern times the law even includes vaping. 

November 22, 1963 

US President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald while he rode in an open-topped motorcade in Dallas, Texas.

November 23, 2019 

The Sumatran rhino was officially declared extinct in Malaysia after the last known specimen, 25-year-old Iman, died of cancer in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. 

November 24, 2020 

Covid-19 surge in the US gathered further pace with the death toll of 2,200 highest since May and new cases averaging 175,000 a day. This was the peak of the pandemic in the US. 

November 25, 2019 

Baltimore’s 2nd-year quarterback Lamar Jackson becomes first QB in NFL history to throw for 3,000 passing yards and rush for 1,500 yards in his first 2 NFL seasons as the Ravens beat LA Rams, 45-6.

November 26, 1791 

The 1st US cabinet meeting was held at George Washington’s home in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph attended.

November 27, 1895 

Swedish chemist Alfred Nobel established the Nobel Prize, which went on for years and years after him. 

November 28, 1720 

Anne Bonny and Mary Read were tried, found guilty of pirating, and sentenced to death in Spanish Town, Jamaica, although their discovered pregnancies won them stays of execution. The two women pirates were believed to be in a ployamorous relationship with each other and  a member of their crew. 

November 29, 1935

 Physicist Erwin Schrödinger published his famous thought experiment “Schrödinger’s cat”, a paradox that illustrated the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The experiment would go on to be taught to psychology students world-wide. 

November 30, 2004

Longtime “Jeopardy!” champion Ken Jennings of Salt Lake City, Utah finally lost, leaving him with $2,520,700 USD, television’s all-time biggest game show win. 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

After entering office in January, Biden rescinded a cross-border permit for the Keystone pipeline over “environmental concerns.” ​​Now, the Biden administration is talking about shutting down Line 5, an important Michigan pipeline. Line 5 is part of a network that moves petroleum products, including crude oil, from Western Canada to Escanaba, Michigan. Over 540,000 barrels of these products are transported on this important Michigan pipeline per day.

White House Shutting down an Important Michigan Pipeline?

 The White House says they are studying the impact of shutting down Line 5. A day after Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm warned that Americans will have to pay more to heat their homes this winter, reports surfaced saying the Biden administration was considering shutting down the important Michigan pipeline. White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy met with environmental groups about the important Michigan pipeline last month. A source who attended the meeting told Politico a decision on shutting down Line 5 could come after a vote on Biden’s $1.85 trillion Build Back Better Act. Fox News reporter Steve Doocy asked the White House press secretary why the administration is “considering” shutting down Line 5, which carries oil and gas liquids from Canada through Wisconsin and Michigan. Press Secretary Jean-Pierre claimed that was not true but then admitted “the Army Corps of Engineers is preparing an environmental impact to look through this​.” Politico also reported the Department of Energy having an “ongoing discussion” about the impact shutting down Line 5 would have on energy markets. All of this indicates preparation for shutting down the important Michigan pipeline 5. 

Shutting Down Line 5: Republicans views

Biden’s talk of shutting down Line 5 has been sharply criticized by Republican lawmakers and other members of the government. Republicans have warned Biden this move could result in gas prices shooting up. Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Biden’s energy secretary, predicted that heating prices will rise this winter as a result. “Yeah, this is going to happen. It will be more expensive this year than last year.” Propane prices have risen 50 percent just in Michigan from last year. Shutting down this important Michigan pipeline could cause that to spike even more, and in places other than just Michigan. Over a dozen Republican lawmakers signed a letter and sent it to Biden. “This irresponsible action will hurt farmers, businesses, and families. President Biden has already done enough to weaken America’s energy security and international alliances, and the consequences of terminating Line 5 would only heighten these growing challenges,” the letter says. “As we enter the winter months and temperatures drop across the Midwest, the termination of Line 5 will undoubtedly further exacerbate shortages and price increases in home heating fuels like natural gas and propane at a time when Americans are already facing rapidly rising energy prices, steep home heating costs, global supply shortages, and skyrocketing gas prices,” wrote Bob Latta, a representative of Ohio, to Biden. 

Jason Hayes, the director of environmental policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, blasted the Biden administration for the talk of shutting down the important Michigan pipeline. He told Fox News that shutting down Line 5 is “just one more example of [the Biden administration] being divorced from reality. I hope it doesn’t end like this, but where I see it going is unfortunately the same thing that happened in February in Texas: People freezing in their homes.” Let’s hope the Biden administration comes to their senses about shutting down the important Michigan pipeline 5 before that happens. 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

President Joe Biden’s package proposals and policies have led to major  disagreement, even between progressive and moderate Democrats, for months. Joe Biden’s administration is pushing another large social package they say would pay for health care, education, raising children, caring for elderly people in their homes, tax breaks and electrified vehicles. Republicans and people on the right have openly spoken against the debt and other implications the large social package would have. However, Democrats and The White House remained confident Senator Joe Manchin would support Biden’s plan. Press secretary Jen Psaki in a statement, “we remain confident that the plan will gain Senator Manchin’s support.” In addition to hoping to pass the large social package, Congress faces critical deadlines in the next five weeks to avoid a government shutdown and avert an unprecedented default on the federal government’s debt with likely economic consequences. Now, Manchin is one of two Senators who have become holdouts, stalling the passage of the large social package. 

Senator Joe Manchin becomes One of Two Holdouts

Whitehouse Democrats assumed Senator Joe Manchin would signal support for Biden’s large social package. However, Senator Joe Manchin has become one of two holdouts for Biden’s large $1.75 trillion social package. Manchin said the large social package is filled with “shell games” and “budget gimmicks” that would end up costing more than $1.75 trillion. The two holdout senators, whose votes are needed, say they’re open to voting for Biden’s large social package, if it “moves our country forward.” In the same thought, Senator Joe Manchin said he’s “equally open to voting against” the large social package if he believes it would negatively impact the US more than it would help. Senator Joe Manchin believes lawmakers should focus on the smaller infrastructure package but they seem to want the passage of the large social package first. 

“While I’ve worked hard to find a path to compromise, it’s obvious: Compromise is not good enough for a lot of my colleagues in Congress. It’s all or nothing, and their position doesn’t seem to change unless we agree to everything,” Manchin said, according to Reuters. Manchin said it’s “time to vote” on a recently stalled $1 trillion infrastructure package the Senate passed with the support of 19 Republicans. Joe Manchin is urging Democrats to quit holding the smaller infrastructure bill “hostage” as negotiations continue on the large social package. Senator Joe Manchin said, “Enough is enough. It’s time our elected leaders in Washington, all of us, stopped playing games with the needs of the American people in holding a critical infrastructure bill hostage.”

Why did Senator Joe Manchin Become a Holdout?

Republicans strongly opposed the large social package and are giving no votes. This means Democrats have to do their best to unite progressive and centrist lawmakers around the large social package. Senator Joe Manchin has become a holdout because he is angry over progressives holding the smaller public works bill “hostage.” He wants Democrats to push ahead with the smaller public works bill of roads, highways and broadband projects that had already been approved by the Senate but is being stalled by House progressives. Senator Joe Manchin doesn’t believe lawmakers should be able to use the small infrastructure package as leverage, while they try to win commitments for Biden’s large social package. Joe Manchin will “not support a bill that is this consequential without thoroughly understanding the impact.” He believes it is necessary to understand how implementing the large social package could affect the economy and federal debt. Progressive lawmakers understand the hesitancy from holdout senators and Republicans but have demanded no vote on the small infrastructure package until the large social package was assured Senate passage. “This is not how the United States Congress should operate,” Manchin said. 

The Senate is divided 50-50, with Democrats holding the majority because of Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote. This means any Democratic senator basically has effective veto power. Senator Joe Manchin becoming a holdout could be the beginning of some democrats standing against a government which is currently leaning pretty far left.  We currently see this view of not being willing to let the big government pick and choose what to do in order to pass their own agenda, emerging from the Democratic party. Could we be seeing the beginning ripples of a wave of moderate Democrats which would be easier for Republicans to work with? Even if that isn’t the case, we definitely could be seeing a split being the created democratic party between people who support Biden and people who want to help the country. How Biden’s administration, lawmakers, and especially other Democrats respond this will affect the future of the US. Biden recognised this when he visited Capitol Hill on Thursday to plead with Democratic lawmakers to support the large social package. In a meeting Biden told Democrats, “I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that the House and Senate majorities and my presidency will be determined by what happens in the next week.”

Written by: Erinn Malloy