Ryan Zettle

Cancel culture is now, unfortunately, a phenomenon ingrained into the background of life, politics, branding, social media, small social circles, and the workplace. In this series we look at people, businesses, and movements that have been cancelled. Our last installment told us about the origins of Cancel Culture. We also saw how PePe Le Pew and the band Mumford and Sons have been affected by the movement. Cancel culture, which former President Donald Trump called “the very definition of totalitarianism,” describes the phenomenon of frequent public pile-ons criticizing a person, business, movement, or idea. Here we will look at MyPillow and even Dr.Seuss.

MyPillow CEO Cancelled 

MyPillow CEO, Mike Lindell was cancelled after openly supporting the theory that former President Trump was a victim of election fraud resulting in him losing the election. Lindell’s Twitter account was “permanently suspended due to repeated violations of our Civil Integrity Policy,” a Twitter spokesperson told NPR. It was not immediately clear which posts from Lindell led to his removal from the social media platform. In an “interview” with NewsMax, Lindell was brought on to talk about Twitter banning his account which led to him being spoken over by interviewers. He was not allowed to speak more than a minute before he was being interrupted. Finally one of the interviewers, rather than listening to what Mike Lindell had to say, got up and walked off set in a moment many people are calling a “live cancellation.” Cancelling has had an effect on Lindell’s brand, MyPillow; retailers like Bed Bath & Beyond and Kohl’s have stopped selling MyPillow altogether. “They’ve attacked my company,” Lindell said. “They’ve attacked companies that I’ve worked with. … They’re trying to cancel me out. I just got off the phone with Bed Bath & Beyond … They’re dropping MyPillow.” Lindell was targeted by the Cancellation mob because he openly stood with Trump resulting in a loss of sales for MyPillow. Cancelling does not seem to have the same effect on everyone, in the next case being cancelled caused a surge of sales.

Dr. Seuss cancelled 

In 1936 Theodor Geisel was on a ship from Europe to New York when he started writing rhymes on the ship’s stationery during a storm. The rhymes morphed into “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street,” a book about a boy who witnesses outrageous and crazy things. The book started Geisel’s career as Dr. Seuss; he went on to publish more than 60 books that have sold some 700 million copies globally, making him one of the world’s most popular children’s authors. Over the past few years, people have called for Dr. Seuss’s cancellation more and more for the racial undertones that were drawn in his books. Dr. Seuss books are a staple in children’s literature but Learning for Justice, a left-wing educators group, has been trying to cancel the children’s author. The group under the Southern Poverty Law Center promotes racial and social justice being taught to students as young as five-years-old. All of the books being recalled by Seuss’s team are “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street,” “If I Ran the Zoo,” “McElligot’s Pool,” “On Beyond Zebra!,” “Scrambled Eggs Super!,” and “The Cat’s Quizzer.” The announcement that the six books would no longer be printed seemed to drive a surge of support for Seuss and his classics. Dozens of his books shot to the top of Amazon’s print best-seller list right after the announcement to stop publishing. Why do you think being cancelled has had a different effect on Dr. Seuss than others such as MyPillow CEO, Mike Lindell? 

Cancelling originally started as a movement in 2017 to take platforms away from people who didn’t deserve them. Cancel Culture goes against one of the first layers of our country’s foundation, the first amendment. Why should we have to be worried about being “cancelled” by society over things that should be categorized as free speech such as who you support in politics?  “We live in the age of cancel culture, but this isn’t something that started this week. It is something that they have been doing to us and others for years,” Eric Trump told The Associated Press. A movement that was designed to make society a more positive place and hold people of higher status accountable has left us walking on eggshells on social media, in the workplace, and within our own groups of “friends.” Our next installment will look at some of the craziest reasons people have been cancelled as well as a letter a lot of high profile people have openly signed which a lot of people on the left are calling problematic. 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

The Senate passed a $1.9 trillion aid bill on March 6 50-49. Republicans have lambasted the bill as too broad for a moment when the economy is beginning to rebound, and vaccinations are speeding along. They say that it does not prioritize getting people back to work and school. 

“This isn’t a rescue bill, it isn’t a relief bill, it is a laundry list of left-wing priorities that predate the pandemic and do not meet the needs of American families,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said earlier in the debate.

Republican lawmakers have objected to the total cost of the package and what it would add to the federal deficit. They considered that the level of funding might be unnecessary with the rebounding economy.

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been allocated to states heavily in debt from overly protective COVID precautions. Murderers, rapists, prisoners, and illegal aliens are all eligible for the stimulus.

A Highly Partisan Bill

The aid bill was passed by a narrow margin in both houses, the Senate especially. The House passed the bill on a near-party-line vote, with all 210 Republicans voting against and Wisconsin Republican Tom Tiffany not voting. All Democrats except one – Maine Rep. Jared Golden – voted for the bill. In the Senate, the bill was passed 50-49 on a party-line vote. The reason the bill could be passed with a majority rather than 60 votes was because the Democrats used the budget reconciliation process. Senate Republicans were also unable to filibuster.

Allocation of Money

The Biden stimulus bill focuses on aid to individuals rather than businesses. 54% of the current stimulus is allocated to individuals with only 4% allocated to businesses. 27% is allocated to government, and 15% is allocated to another party. In comparison, Trump’s December and March 2020 bills allocated 37 and 40%, respectively, to individuals. There was a much greater margin allocated to businesses (37 and 31%), and the government got much less money (9 and 10%).

There has been $2.2 trillion set aside for aid to individuals since the start of the coronavirus crisis, with the greatest proportion being unemployment benefits and stimulus checks. The aid has also been given for health coverage, nutrition, housing, childcare, and tax credits. It also gives money to dependents of families, and it has an income cut-off.

In total, $5.3 trillion has been set aside for covid relief, with the newest bill giving a large share.

A family of four in Massachusetts in which one parent lost a job would get around $66,000 in government assistance and a single job loser in Tennessee would get around $44,000.

The bill gives mortgage and rental assistance; targeted aid to restaurant, childcare, and airline industries; funding for vaccines and testing; aid to small businesses, schools, and tribal governments; and billions of dollars to state and local governments. The bill gives free COBRA health coverage who experience a loss of group coverage due to termination or reduced hours of employment. It is a very broad-based bill indeed. A lot of special interests got included in the bill.

Stimulus Bill Too Broad: Polls

Despite Republicans in Congress being united in opposition against the bill, the Republican Party is mixed. According to a poll released by Pew Research Center, 41% of Republicans favored the bill and 57% opposed it. Overall, 70% of Americans were in favor of the package and 28% opposed it. Very few- 6%- of Democrats opposed the bill and 94% favored it. A lot of Democrats (33%) believe that the bill spends too little.

Stimulus Bill Analysis

With the economy as it is, arguably some sort of stimulus bill is needed. That said, the newest Biden stimulus is very large at $1.9 trillion. This makes up a large proportion of COVID spending- roughly 36%. Giving aid to the government and individuals over businesses can work to inhibit job growth in the economy. Many businesses have struggled or closed down. Businesses have lost customers, and they need greater relief to get back. The income cut-off means that millions of Americans will receive no money at all, but at least families have a higher income cut-off. For the $600 check, the limit is $87,000 for an individual, $124,500 for a head of household, and $174,000. 

It is also problematic that almost anyone may receive the stimulus. Criminals and illegal aliens may receive it. It disproportionately favors states that enforced overly strong COVID precautions- states that enforced the lockdown for months and closed gyms, restaurants, and other places of social gathering. This inherently favors Democratic states.

Written by: Miranda Smith

Kia is telling owners of nearly 380,000 vehicles in the U.S. to park them outdoors due to the risk of an engine compartment fire. The recall applies to some models year 2016 through 2021 that do not have Smart Cruise Control. Smart Cruise Control is the feature that enables the vehicle to use radar and automatically maintain a safe distance from other cars on the highway. Until these recalled vehicles have been repaired, the safest place to park them is outside and away from homes and other structures.

Why are Kia’s being recalled?

An investigation of Kia and Hyundai engine fires in 2019 opened after the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety filed a petition seeking the investigation. When the inquiry began, the agency said it had owner complaints of more than 3,100 fires, 103 injuries and one death. According to the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration the electrical circuit in the hydraulic electronic control unit in these vehicles may short circuit, which could cause a fire in the engine compartment. Hyundai, which is a major shareholder in Kia, recently recalled 82,000 electric SUVs, which ended up costing roughly $11,000 per vehicle to fix. That recall was also due to fire risk due to a problem with the vehicle’s battery packs. These are not the only instances of Kia and Hyundai vehicles spontaneously catching fire as instances have surfaced all over the country in multiple models. The recent recall was issued for Sportage compact sport-utility vehicles from 2017 to 2021 and Sportage sedans from the same time period. 2016 to 2019 Candenzas are also included in the recall. The report says, “dealers will be instructed to install a new fuse kit which contains a 25A fuse instead of 40A. Kia will reimburse owners for repair expenses already incurred pursuant to Kia’s General Reimbursement Plan filed May 11, 2020.” 

Has your Kia been recalled?

If you have any of the likely affected models some things to watch out for are illumination of various warning lights on the instrument panel including tire pressure warning light, ABS warning light, and MIL warning light. Other signs include burning or melting odors and/or smoke coming from the engine compartment. Vehicle owners can visit NHTSA.gov/recalls and enter their 17-digit vehicle identification number to see if their vehicle is under recall. If it is, vehicle owners should call their nearest dealership immediately to schedule a free interim repair. Owners can also download NHTSA’s new SaferCar app for Apple or Android. You can enter information about your vehicle, carseat, or various other parts in the app and it will send notifications if a recall is issued. Owners will be notified starting April 30. Dealerships will replace fuses in the electrical junction box to fix the problem. Kia is denying U.S. allegations and according to Fox they want to avoid a “protracted legal fight,” but engine failure and fire problems with Hyundais and Kias have affected more than 6 million vehicles since 2015.

In November, NHTSA announced that Kia and Hyundai must pay $137 million in fines and safety improvements since they moved slowly to recall more than 1 million vehicles which had engines that could fail. The fines come from the behavior of the company involving recalls of multiple models dating to the 2011 model year. Kia was to pay $27 million and invest $16 million in safety performance measures. Another $27 million payment will be deferred as long as Kia meets safety conditions. If you drive a Kia, or any vehicle for that matter, it is always better to be safe than sorry and check for any recalls associated with your vehicle. 

Cancel culture is now, unfortunately, a phenomenon ingrained into the background of life, politics, branding, social media, small social circles, and the workplace. Cancel culture, which former President Donald Trump called “the very definition of totalitarianism,” describes the phenomenon of frequent public pile-ons criticizing a person, business, movement, or idea. Where did it come from? Why are thousands of people, businesses, and movements being “canceled?”

Origins of Cancel Culture 

According to Merriam-Webster the first instances of cancel culture as a term popped up in 2017.  The definition of “Cancel,” in the sense of it being related to Cancel Culture, is to withdraw one’s support for (someone, such as a celebrity, or something, such as a company) and especially on social media. The definition of Cancel Culture is the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure. Cancel Culture began as a positive movement coming after people with large platforms who didn’t deserve them such as Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and R. Kelly. They were cancelled due to their sex crimes. On the other end of the spectrum, cancel culture has turned into more of an internet bloodbath rather than a positive movement. People have recently begun to call out cancel culture itself as a negative movement, suggesting that the consequences of cancellation are too harsh in minor instances or represent rushed judgment in complicated situations. This is especially true for a Skidmore student, Hannah Davis, who is facing huge backlash for attempting to start a non-partisan groupon her campus called Young Americans for Liberty.  Students on the campus claimed the group would be full of racism and bigotry and even went as far as to threaten Hannah with physical violence. How many other people and brands has Cancel Culture taken down?

Victims 

Mumford and Sons recently lost their banjo player, Winston Marshall, after he endorsed an anti-antifa book. In a now-deleted tweet that sparked outrage, Marshall congratulated Andy Ngo for writing “Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy.” Marshall called the book “important” and praised the conservative author. This sparked outrage in his bandmates and leftist communities. He issued an apology which is now his only tweet and left the band. Some on the Right are calling his apology “caving to social justice warriors.” 

Cancel Culture will come for ANYONE not even cartoons are safe. This is the case for PePe Le Pew, a famous Looney Toon. We all know Pepe as the smelly, but adorable, skunk who is in love with Penelope Pussycat. It was claimed that his pursuit for the cat teaches boys “no doesn’t really mean no.” Pepe was not brought back for Space Jam 2 even though his one scene was going to highlight the importance of consent which would have fixed the exact reason Pepe was cancelled in the first place. These are only a few instances, people are cancelled every single day for reasons that don’t make a whole lot of sense. 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

President Joe Biden is being sued by a coalition of 12 states, led by Missouri attorney general Eric Schmitt, over the Green New Deal. “This order would result in new regulations that would significantly burden Kansas agriculture, energy production and manufacturing,” Schmidt said, “No president has authority to impose this massive job-killing cost on our economy by executive order.” The Green New Deal inspired the decision to calculate the costs of greenhouse gasses. In the 46 page complaint the states called calculating the costs of greenhouse gasses “inherently speculative, policy-laden, and an indeterminate task.”  The states want a judge to declare section five of Biden’s executive order unconstitutional and block the working group Biden created from implementing rules.

Why are 12 States suing Biden?

On his first day in the White House, Biden signed Executive Order 13990. In addition to stopping new oil and gas leases on public lands and revoking permits for the Keystone XL pipeline, which cost many people their jobs, Biden told federal agencies to calculate the “social cost” of greenhouse gas pollution by estimating “monetized damages” to inform future federal regulations. This includes changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damage from flood risk and the value of ecosystem services. “It is essential that agencies capture the full costs of greenhouse gas emissions as accurately as possible, including taking global damages into account,” Biden says in his order. “An accurate social cost is essential for agencies to accurately determine the social benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions when conducting cost-benefit analyses of regulatory and other actions.” The breakdown of the social costs, according to a working group created by Biden’s administration, shows $269 billion for carbon dioxide, $990 billion for methane, and $8.24 trillion for nitrous oxide totaling approximately $9.5 trillion. The group published interim social costs on Feb 26, but final rules will not go into effect until June 1, 2022. USA Today says Biden campaigned on being the “most aggressive” president on climate change, which he called “an existential threat.” His goal is to decarbonize the U.S. power sector by 2035 on the way to reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Claiming that Biden’s administration cannot set these values, the lawsuit from the 12 states claims that the action violates the separation of powers, “the most fundamental bulwark of liberty.”

The 12 States Suing

State attorney generals from Missouri, Arkansas, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah have banded together challenging Biden’s authority to implement the social cost criteria into regulatory actions. The lawsuit says, “Setting the ‘social cost’ of greenhouse gases is an inherently speculative, policy-laden, and indeterminate task, which involves attempting to predict such unknowable contingencies as future human migrations, international conflicts, and global catastrophes for hundreds of years into the future.” The complaint goes on to say “If the Executive Order stands, it will inflict hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of damage to the U.S. economy for decades to come, It will destroy jobs, stifle energy production, strangle America’s energy independence, suppress agriculture, deter innovation, and impoverish working families. It undermines the sovereignty of the States and tears at the fabric of liberty.” The lawsuit also talks about how “manure and flatulence from livestock” produces roughly one-third of methane emissions in the United States. This would mean social costs of producing meat, milk and eggs would add up to $268 billion annually. “Under President Biden’s executive order, which he didn’t have the authority to enact…hard-working Missourians who have lived and worked this land for generations could be left in the dust,” Schmitt said in a statement. 

This is not the first time the states have come together in a lawsuit against a president over climate change. The Obama administration was sued for implementing its Clean Power Plan aimed at slashing carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the challenge in 2015 and the program never actually came to action. Then in 2019, the Trump administration was sued for its attempt to weaken the previous effort to put national limits on carbon emissions from power plants. So far the Justice Department has not commented on the current suit according to multiple news outlets.

Written by: Erinn Malloy

After more than 400 entries, a new Colorado driver’s license design has been chosen after more than 55,000 Coloradans placed their vote. The Iconic Colorado contest launched in August of 2020. The contest received 407 submissions (280 front-side entries, 127 back-side entries) from 119 submitters. Three finalists were selected by a committee that included motor vehicle administrators, artists and Governor Polis. “The more I learn of the stories of Coloradons across our state, I always feel the sense of pride they have in calling Colorado their home,” said Polis. “This contest, these new driver’s licenses are an extension of that pride.” The public voted on the top three designs. In addition to the two grants, winners will be featured in all of the DMV’s relevant media releases as well as having their name featured on all Colorado identification credentials. 

Front of Colorado License Entry Winner

Matt Nunez, 26, placed first for front of license entries with his Mount Sneffels entry. He is a fifth-generation Coloradan from Colorado Springs. He comes from a long line of family members in military and government service, including his late grandfather, Joe Nunez, who served in the State legislature. Nunez spent his childhood abroad and across the U.S. before returning to Colorado after college. He began taking photos in high school and favors landscape photography after spending summers in Colorado during college. He works as an economic development professional for the city of Glenwood Springs. Nunez said the final entry product was a “labor of love,” as it took months to develop the photo. “I am a proud Western Slope resident and although it’s not Hanging Lake, which is our local crown jewel, I’m glad that I was able to help make western Colorado represented on our driver’s license,” Nunez said. Nunez’s work can be found on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

Back of Colorado License Entry Winner 

Gabriel Dupon’s submission features Sprague Lake located in the Rocky Mountains. Dupon is 19 and from Wellington. He is a Colorado native who loves to be creative and make the unknown extraordinary. He does this by taking pictures of the beauty that surrounds him and using it to inspire others with his work. Dupon runs his own photography business which does primarily portrait and event photography. Dupon also enjoys the many outdoor activities Colorado has to offer such as alpine skiing and rock climbing. Dupon said that he wanted to capture the lake in a new way and show people what they can’t see. Dupon says “This photo definitely displays iconic Colorado, but I would also say it conveys Colorado authentically.” 

Colorado License Runner Ups

Fred Lord began developing photography at age 12. After 14 years of mountain living he and his wife have retired to Northern Colorado. Jenn Cunningham, of Morrison, Colorado, is a fine artist who typically works in acrylics. She is inspired by the wonders of nature and wonderful animals. Jenn’s work can be found on Facebook, Instagram and Etsy. All of the entries really showed the beauty of Colorado and the wonderful things about the landscape and wildlife. “While this last year has been challenging for all of us in Colorado … This contest has certainly been a bright spot for so many people,” Governor Polis said. The new Colorado license designs will be released in fall of 2021. The photos look a little different when they are on the license because of the many security features from the DMV that protect against fraud and  identity theft.  Artwork will be screened down to 35% so elements like mountains, trees or birds may not print as spectacularly as they look in the original design but the licenses will show beautiful and authentic Colorado landscape.

What do you think about the new Colorado license designs?

Written by: Erinn Malloy

CBD gummies, CBD drinks, CBD supplements, CBD balms, CBD bath bombs, CBD vape juice, the list goes on. CBD seems to be popping up in some of the most interesting products sold, at some of the least expected places. CBD is seeming to be, in the holistic health community, the latest and most versatile addition to everything from ingestible to topical products. The list of delivery methods for CBD to enter the body is seemingly endless, which is what makes it so popular and versatile. You may have noticed a rise in the popularity of CBD-infused products in your local stores. Now, not everyone knows exactly what CBD is.

What Is CBD?

CBD is an abbreviation for the organic chemical compound Cannabidiol, a naturally occurring chemical produced by the cannabis plant. Although Cannabidiol (CBD) is a product of the Marijuana plant, it is not to be mistaken for THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol: the psychoactive compound of the Cannabis plant), this is a common misconception. CBD is just one of the many cannabinoids present in the marijuana plant, only one of which (THC) is psychoactive. THC is what is responsible for giving the user that notorious “high” feeling we’ve all heard about. What many people don’t know is that Humans, as well as many other animals, do indeed have a neurological cannabinoid

receptor system, similar to the opiate receptor system. The body actually naturally produces Endocannabinoids, or cannabinoids inside the body; as far as we can tell in neuroscience, CBD interacts with the endocannabinoid receptor system inside the brain which subsequently influences the activity of other neurotransmitters. The relevance of mention to the animal kingdom comes from the recent developing popularity of products like “pet tinctures”, which pet owners have started introducing into their favourite creatures’ diets for a variety of reasons. These products are specially made with pet-friendly ingredients and are usually produced for and marketed toward a particular species, since not all animals have the same dietary restrictions.

Tinctures are a concentration of CBD extract that is usually suspended in an ethanol or alcohol-based solution. There are also oil-based tinctures, but these are usually considered to be labeled or packaged as “CBD Oil”. The usefulness of these tinctures and concentrates is usually defined by the extent of its application; with these products, now along with the wide spectrum of CBD-infused products, these solutions can be added into your favorite cooking recipe or many other things for “dosing” your nutritional portions. 

Why Should I Try CBD?

CBD is thought and believed, but not scientifically or medically proven to assist in alleviating certain symptoms of conditions and ailments; although it is not, and should not, be used to prevent, treat or cure any disease or ailment in and of itself. There has not been an adequate amount of research to make such conclusions. Although, these correlations seem to be the entire basis of the marijuana debate and in determining the merit of CBD efficacy. CBD seems to be the most integral component of the medicinal application of the marijuana plant, only we have yet to determine what that specifically means, or what conditions or symptoms CBD would be best used for; not to diminish the medicinal value of the compound. As with any natural or synthetic supplements, consulting a medical professional should be on your list of to-do’s if you plan to join this craze, to see if it is, in fact, a good fit for you. All of this is only applicable to the readers who reside in such CBD legal states (see image). 

In CBD We Trust

As individual states have been doing their own research on the substance, there have been found to be great results in the effectiveness of introducing CBD into the body. Some have seen a similar benefit of what most states have already seen in their own medical marijuana programs. Considering these states reserve that certification for patients with a certain severity of ailments, CBD seems to be a good, non-psychoactive alternative useful and safe enough for the population over 21 to handle. Not to mention, the obvious economic benefits, so it is a mutually beneficial exchange.

What Does The Future Hold?

With the rise of the opioid crisis, medical science has developed a sense of urgency in the necessity of non-opioid pain management. Now, there has not been enough definitive research in the infancy of the CBD industry to clearly say whether or not CBD is the answer. Just as is the case with any SSRI’s, as well as pretty much any drug, the effectiveness of its use is heavily defined by the biochemistry of the user; so this may need to be something to find out individually. CBD works in different ways unique to the individual, which makes it an elusively utilized substance as far as any pinpoint use, which is why it’s so difficult to categorize in the medical field as far as its merit and benefit. In the grand scheme of things, is CBD the end all be all solution to the opioid crisis? Unfortunately, not quite so; but in the neurochemistry field, one thing is sure: it’s definitely a step in the right direction.

Written by: Tyler Laske

A Colorado Springs man has been accused of illegally killing over a dozen big game animals. Iniki Vike Kapu has pleaded guilty to poaching charges in three counties. The guilty plea comes after a long investigation by Colorado Parks and Wildlife officers following a citizen tip in October 2018 where a red truck was found abandoned in the Pike National Forest with a dead deer in the back with the meat spoiled. Colorado law requires hunters to prepare all hunted big game for human consumption or else it can result in class five felony charges.

 A decision by Colorado Parks and Wildlife last week from hearing examiner, Steven Cooley, suspended Kapu’s hunting privileges in Colorado permanently. “Mr. Kapu’s crimes against wildlife are the essence of what defines a poacher by taking wildlife without regard for the laws protecting them,” Cooley said. “Iniki Kapu is viewed as a serious threat to Colorado’s wildlife, and his violations are among the worst. The severity and level of indifference for wildlife in this case are rarely seen and cannot be tolerated.” Kupu’s hunting ban also extends to the 47 other states that make up the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact, which is all but Hawaii and Massachusetts. Kapu was not present for his suspension hearing but he has 35 days to appeal the decision.

Kapu was accused of killing 12 deer, 2 turkeys and a bighorn sheep ram. He pleaded guilty to illegal possession of wildlife twice in 2019 in Chaffee and Teller County. He then pleaded guilty again in February 2020 in Fremont County. Kapu also pleaded guilty to illegal possession of three or more big game animals. He was fined $4,600 and sentenced to six months in jail and three years of supervised probation in Fremont County. He also surrendered the weapons he used for poaching.

Agency wildlife manager in Colorado Springs, Frank McGee, gave this warning to any future poachers.  “Colorado Parks and Wildlife aggressively pursues anyone who illegally takes wildlife. When you poach, you are stealing from all residents of Colorado,” he said. “And your acts are an insult to all the hunters who follow the rules, who buy the licenses that pay for wildlife management, who respect the hunting seasons and abide by principles of fair chase.”

Anyone with any information about this case or knowledge of a possible crime against wildlife should contact Colorado Parks and Wildlife or your local Wildlife Agency. 

A Bill requiring Colorado homeowners to securely store their weapons in certain living situations has passed its first committee. The Bill would make it a misdemeanor to not safely secure weapons in living situations that include juveniles and people in the home who are ineligible to own firearms. HB21-1106 has sparked opinions from both ends of the political spectrum. Those who in support believe the Bill will lower the number of accidental shootings and youth suicide rates. 

New Colorado Gun Bill A “No Brainer?”

Dr. Maya Haasz spoke on behalf of Children’s Hospital Colorado testifying about the many cases of gunshot wounds she experienced during her time as a physician of pediatric emergency medicine. “The cry of any parent whose toddler has died is agonizing,” Haasz said. “When the toddler has been fatally shot playing with a sibling, when that death was entirely avoidable, the added layers of guilt and what-ifs add a new, almost tangible level of pain for everyone involved.” Democratic representatives, Monica Duran and Kyle Mullica, introduced the Bill. “This is about accident prevention,” Duran said. “And this is about saving lives.” Mullica commented on what would be considered safe storage. “Obviously, storing it in a safe would count as safe storage,” said Mullica. “A trigger lock or a cable lock counts as safe storage.”

Littleton, Colorado has passed a similar ordinance requiring gun store owners to lock up their inventory after hours due to gun store “smash and grabs” being on the rise. Viewers sent in comment to the Denver7 inbox saying things like they “support LittleRock’s decision” and called it a “no brainer.” Others were not happy with the new ordinance saying “So the city’s plan is to punish the victim of a crime while not bothering to try and find the actual criminals?” Old Steel Gun Shop, Giovanni Galeano, argues locking up all firearms at night would be costly and difficult to do. “It would be hard to believe that a city would want to put a business out of business.” Many gun owners practice safe storage yet accidents still happen. Many opposed to the Bill believe teaching gun safety is the most effective way to deal with these accidents. 

New Colorado Gun Bill Unconstitutional

Those against the Bill such as Erik Stone, a Teller County Commissioner and NRA-certified firearms instructor, believe the focus should be on teaching juveniles gun safety because the time needed to remove a lock could create a situation in which the gun is now useless for home defense. “In firearms classes, we actually talk about, first safety, always safety, that’s how you prevent firearms accidents. You don’t do it by creating laws that have penalties after an accident occurs. It’s completely ineffective.” “This bill is an egregious violation on our constitutional rights,” said Greg Trout during a committee hearing at the Colorado State Capitol. “It would give criminals an advantage when breaking into our homes and businesses. It gives them critical time to break through the door and perpetrate that crime.” The biggest question surrounding the Bill is whether the courts would find it constitutional. During District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008 the Supreme Court got rid of a law in Washington D.C. that required handguns to be stored disassembled or with a trigger lock. Supporters of the bill argued that the court’s problem with D.C.’s law was its wording didn’t allow gun owners to have a working weapon for self-defense. “This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional,” wrote Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia. 

Mullica and Duran argue this is not a gun grab or about infringing on anyone’s rights. Duran says, “You talk to a majority of gun owners and they believe in safe storage. But the fact is there are kids still getting hurt.” Do you believe HB21-1106 would be more effective than educating children about gun safety? Will the Bill help lower the number of firearm related accidents if it is passed through Colorado legislation? 

www.sebgorka.com

Dr. Sebastian Gorka was named as the newest Talk Show Host on the Salem Radio Network Platform, and began his show AMERICA FIRST on New Years Day, 2019. His ascent to this role could not have been more unusual, or more of a true “American Story.”

To find out how it began, you have to go back to the 1950s, to Communist controlled Hungary.

Hoping for freedom after the utter devastation of the Second War, the proud nation of Hungary was instead taken over by a Stalinist dictatorship subordinate to Moscow. One young man, who had suffered under the Nazis, decided to resist and so Paul Gorka created a secret Christian student organization to subvert the Communist stranglehold of his homeland. Paul was eventually betrayed by the British double-agent Kim Philby, arrested by the Secret Police, tortured and then given a life sentence for fighting for democracy and liberty.

After two years in solitary confinement, two years down a prison coal mine, and two years in the central political prison in Budapest, Paul was eventually liberated by the brave freedom fighters of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. With the 17-year old daughter of a fellow political prisoner, Paul escaped across the minefields along the border of Western Hungary to a life of liberty in the UK, where Paul and Susan would be married and their son, Sebastian, was born.

With parents who had lived as children under fascism and then escaped Communist Hungary, Sebastian was raised to love freedom. And his love of talk-radio developed early. As a child he would listen late into the night to the shows of the London Broadcasting Company with a small transistor radio under his pillow. It was with this special family background, and growing up under the influence of the Conservative warrior Margaret Thatcher, that Sebastian learned how to fight totalitarian ideologies, be they Fascism, Communism, or Global Jihadism.

He would end up serving in the British Army reserve in a Military Intelligence unit, then after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in the first freely-elected Conservative administration in Hungary. The after the 9/11 attacks he became a professor on a Pentagon-funded counter-terrorism program run out of Germany.

In 2008 he moved to America with his family where he continued to work for the Defense Department and become a proud American citizen in 2012. He obtained his doctorate in Political Science from Corvinus University in Budapest and was a fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. In Washington, he served as Associate Dean for Congressional Affairs and Relations to the Special Operations Community at National Defense University and has also taught on the Masters program at Georgetown University.

In 2020, President Donald Trump named Gorka to the National Security Education Board. This board provides strategic consultation and was established by congressional act in 1991.

Dr. Gorka has briefed the CIA, the DIA, the US Navy Seals, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, served as an expert for the DoJ during the Boston Bombing trial, and testified before Congress on the threat of Global Jihadism. He remains a guest instructor at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, at Fort Bragg, the home of the Green Berets.

Gorka writes for The Hill and has written two books for Regnery Publishing. His first “Defeating Jihad,” was a national best-seller and his latest, released in October, is called “Why We Fight…Defeating America’s Enemies with No Apologies.” Before launching his SALEM show, “AMERICA FIRST with Sebastian Gorka,” he was an advisor to candidate Donald J. Trump and served on the staff of the White House in 2017 as Deputy Assistant to the President for Strategy.

An amendment has been proposed by House Democrats to lower the voting age to sixteen. The amendment was introduced by Representative Pressley as an amendment to the constitution, which currently states that the legal voting age is eighteen. This statement is found in the 26^th Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment was part of the HR 1 voting rights package. The vote was unsuccessful and killed at 125-302 with the majority of Democrats voting in favor (125-93). 

Pressley has been outspoken in her view on lowering the voting age. She claims, “A sixteen-year-old in 2021 possesses a wisdom and a maturity that comes from 2021 challenges, 2021 hardships, and 2021 threats”. She goes on to call sixteen and seventeen-year-olds “courageous” for facing their “challenges”. She also claimed in February that she was “shocked” it was a polarizing issue.  She herself is a member of “the Squad”- a group of six House members known for their progressive views. She made this comment during a Facebook Live conversation with Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Ibram X. Kendi. Kendi claimed that lowering the voting age is an example of anti-racist policy.

The amendment to lower the voting age was first attached to HR 1 in 2019, and the amendment failed after getting just 126 votes in the House. Some states, including Hawaii, have also considered lowering the voting age to sixteen.

Poor Political Knowledge

The problem is that a voting age of sixteen is simply too young. Sixteen-year-olds and teenagers in general do not have a great knowledge of politics. According to Southern Poverty Law Center, only 8% of high school seniors can identify slavery as the cause of the Civil War. If they do not know the correct cause of the Civil War, how are they supposed to understand racism and its implications in our society? Only one in four Oklahoma high school students could name the first president of the United States in a survey conducted by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. A 2012 National Election Studies report found the youngest age group to have the lowest political knowledge. Younger voters have also witnessed fewer election cycles, been exposed to less political news content, and have less experience based around politics.

Major Life Changes

No one can argue that a younger person has more life experience than an older person, but most key changes occur around eighteen. It is at the age of eighteen when someone is generally considered an adult. At eighteen, high school students generally graduate. Graduation generally serves as the gateway to a career, college, or military service. Fewer sixteen and seventeen-year-olds hold down jobs than eighteen and nineteen-year-olds., according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Eighteen-year-olds can get married and buy houses. These changes and experiences greatly influence the perspective of a young person.

Peer Influence

High school students are much more susceptible to peer influence than adults. High school students do not make many major decisions. They go to school as they are told and usually live under a roof with their parents. They are a bit naïve from lack of life experience, making them quick to fall for promises and generally not think things through.

“Courageous” Sixteen and Seventeen-Year-Olds

Going back to Pressley’s comments on the challenges sixteen and seventeen-year-olds face in our current climate, it is worth noting that education has negatively been impacted by the coronavirus. Sure, it has been challenging for sixteen and seventeen-year-olds, but it has been challenging for everyone. Whether someone has been through “challenges” or not should not decide the right to vote. School lockdowns starting in spring 2020 reduced instructional and learning time and placed students at a risk of becoming disengaged. An educated populous is key to having a successful democracy. Current students have had a lower-quality education than their older peers.

Ploy for Democrats to Receive More Votes

I see the whole argument for a lower voting age as a ploy for Democrats to receive more votes. It does not, to me, sound like a good idea. It is worth noting that younger generations have the highest percentage of Democrats. According to a graph published by Gallup, the highest percentage of Democrats by age is nineteen, with the graph starting at nineteen. It is more or less an amendment to turn the voting pool in their favor.

Conclusion

House Democrats have proposed a bill that has not been passed and would radically change our democratic process. Within it is the amendment to drop the voting age to sixteen. Sixteen-year-olds have less political knowledge, less experience, more peer influence, and weaker education than adults. 

Written by: Miranda Smith

Whether it’s increasing or decreasing, our country is always impacted by inflation. When there is a high demand for a certain product or products that causes the price of those items to increase, which causes inflation to rise. In 2020 inflation started to rise due to the high demand for bathroom tissue, sanitizer wipes, sprays, and hand sanitizer. The prices of these very popular and much needed items have all increased in price. Inflation also refers to the broad increase in prices across a sector or industry like the automotive industry and the energy business. Eventually, inflation will effect the whole country’s economy. During the extreme cold weather which brought some snow and ice to many states, milk, bread, and eggs have caused inflation to rise. In many of our grocery stores today, the prices for milk and eggs are on the rise, due to inflation.

 Rising Inflation

Rising inflation is always a money maker. In the winter, spring, and summer months, we also notice inflation of fuel prices at the gas pumps. In most cases, fuel costs cause inflation to rise especially when it’s a season in which a lot of people are traveling. The rising cost of movie tickets at the box office also contribute to rising inflation. Over the past year, our much needed stimulus payments have helped inflation to rise, because, we all used some of the funds from our payments to purchase much needed items. With tax season upon us, Americans are expected to do the same with their tax refunds, some will go shopping, some will go on trips, others will pay rent, utilities, or other bills, which is always a part of our country’s inflation. 

Dollars and Cents

Even though it makes us all frustrated to think about our dollar losing value, economists consider a small amount of inflation as a sign of a healthy economy. Inflation can also be very damaging for the economy, when it gets out of hand and rises a lot. Inflation that is not checked can bring down the economy of a whole country. In 2020, Americans spent more than any other year. Financial experts also suggest investing in stocks and bonds and saving for a rainy day. Inflation will always be with us, but it’s how we spend our finances that will cause inflation to rise or fall.

Written by: Gary Taylor

Coca-Cola is facing major backlash from people online over their “diversity training,” in which employees are told to “try to be less white.” Coca-Cola has responded to allegations of anti-white rhetoric after an internal employee leaked screenshots of the seminar. Karlyn Borysenko, an activist for banning critical race theory, shared images on Twitter of the “racism training.” The slides on the course, ‘Confronting Racism,’ included tips for staff on how to be “less white.” 

Being “Less White” According To Coke 

The slides included tips such as “be less arrogant, be less certain, be less defensive, be more humble, listen, believe, break with apathy,” and “break with white solidarity.” The presentation tells employees in order to confront racism, they must understand “what it means to be white, challenging what it means to be racist.” It goes on to say white people in the United States and other western nations, are “socialized to feel that they are inherently superior because they are white,” and “that by age 3 to 4, children understand that it is better to be white.” This builds a false stigma that all white people are racist. This course was found in Coca-Cola’s curriculum on Linkedin. The biggest question, did they use this course as mandatory training? 

Does Coke Use “Less White” Training Materials

According to Snopes they were able to confirm Coke does have the course under their materials on Linkedin but that does not mean it is mandatory viewing for all employees. Coke has denied using the “be less white” materials, however, Snopes has been unable to confirm that. Borysenko said the screenshots were sent by an “internal whistleblower” from Coca-Cola, who told her the course was “required.” Her tweet from Feb. 19 now has 36.6k likes and 30.5k retweets. LinkedIn has pulled the course featuring DiAngelo, the author of “White Fragility.” “The Confronting Racism course featuring Robin DiAngelo is no longer available in our course library, at the request of the 3rd party content provider we licensed this content from,” Nicole Leverich, vice president of corporate communications, told Newsweek in an email. “We provide a wide variety of learning content, including more than 270 courses on the topics of diversity, inclusion and belonging. We will continue to add new courses to help people learn the skills they need to be more successful in their career, including the foundational skills we all need to be effective allies and help build a more equitable future.”

DiAngelo maintains she was unaware of the course. “The slides included were not created by Dr. DiAngelo,” said her rep, Caitlin Meyer. “She was unaware that the videos had been re-edited in this way, or that they were being marketed as a course/training on anti-racism, since the way the content was put together did not accurately represent the way she would facilitate that type of work.” Coca-Cola maintains the “be less white” presentation is not mandatory and they will continue to refine their curriculum. 

Republican Senators Mitt Romney and Tom Cotton proposed a Bill, Higher Wages for American Workers Act, that would raise the federal minimum wage to $10 an hour by 2025. This raise comes with mandatory use of the E-Verify system which is designed to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers.

Why $10, Not $15?

The Congressional Budget Office released a document called ‘The Budgetary Effects of the Raise the Wage Act of 2021’ which highlights what would happen if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15 by the ‘Raise the Wage Act’.  According to the document employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers, the number of people in poverty would be reduced by 0.9 million. Backers of the Higher Wages for American Workers Act say a $10 wage would cost no more than 100,000 jobs and would raise wages for approximately 3.5 million Americans. Both plans are to follow the same timeline and be completely implemented by 2025 if they are approved. What are the stipulations that go along with the Bill presented by Romney and Cotton?

E-Verify And $10 An Hour

The E-Verify system is designed to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers. The Bill says that use of the E-Verify system will be mandatory.  The senators said the Bill would provide benefits to Americans raising the pay floor and preserving jobs for documented workers “Our legislation would raise the floor for workers without costing jobs,” Mitt Romney said in a statement, “We must create opportunities for American workers and protect their jobs, while also eliminating one of the key drivers of illegal immigration.” Requiring employers to use “E-verify” ensures that businesses are hiring documented workers. The Bill would increase the penalties for anyone who hires an undocumented individual. According to USA Today, Tom Cotton says the current system is “unfair” to millions of workers who see businesses employ undocumented laborers for cheaper pay. “Ending the black market for illegal labor will open up jobs for Americans. Raising the minimum wage will allow Americans filling those jobs to better support their families,” he said. “Our bill does both.” 

Who Benefits From A High Minimum Wage?

So far four states have mandated E-Verify be used for all new hires including Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Many other states and the federal government require it for certain occupations. The states with the highest minimum wage are currently California, Washington, and Oregon with minimum wage and tipped wage being at least $12 an hour or more. Do you believe the minimum wage should be raised to $10 an hour or $15 an hour?

Nearly three dozen House Democrats have written a letter to President Joe Biden urging him to relinquish the sole ability to launch nuclear weapons. The letter was posted on Twitter by Politico. It is currently not a requirement for the President to meet with advisors before ordering a launch of nuclear power. The military is required to honor the strike as long as it goes along with the Laws of War. 

The Letter About Nuclear Weapons

According to Fox News the letter says “…Vesting one person with this authority entails real risks.” It goes on to say “Past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that caused other officials to express concern about the president’s judgment.”  This is referring to the fear that Former President Donald Trump would start a nuclear war in 2017 when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a public hearing on the subject.The other concern is that any President coming into office has the sole authority to start a nuclear war. “While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering a nuclear attack, there is no requirement to do so,” the letter adds. “The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war. Under the current posture of U.S. nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.” How would the military react to an order that was illegal? 

How Would The Military Handle A Request To Launch Nuclear Weapons?

According to Officer, Gen. John Hyten, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military will only follow legal orders. “I provide advice to the president,” Hyten said. “He’ll tell me what to do, and if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m gonna say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ Guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”  This seems to make it hard for a President to start a Nuclear War but it’s not impossible for them to launch Nuclear Weapons. Why does the President have this authority in the first place?  

Why Does One Person Have The Ability To Launch Nuclear Weapons? 

During the Cold War, the idea of nuclear war meant having to respond, by launching our Nuclear Weapons, within minutes to Soviet weapons coming towards the United States. Time would be of the essence making sense to leave the decision to one person. You wouldn’t need time-consuming consultations with Congress. The letter gives suggestions such as the President receiving approval from the Line of Succession, such as the Vice President and the Speaker of the House before they are able to launch Nuclear Weapons. The letter adds that “neither of whom can be removed by the President if they disagree to concur with a launch order.” Is changing this policy constitutional? 

Is Changing The Policy For Launching Nuclear Weapons Unconstitutional? 

Republican Senator, Mike Lee, of Utah said on Fox and Friends that it is weird and unconstitutional to change the launch code policy that gives the President the power to launch Nuclear Weapons. “Look, there is one argument or another with regard to whether or to what extent we ought to be involved in foreign conflicts at any moment. One could have one opinion or another about at what point it is appropriate for Congress to declare war rather than have the president order discreet strikes. The fact is the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This is why we subject presidents to a very rigorous review process. That is they have to win elections. Once they’ve won an election you really do have to pick that horse and then ride it. You’ve gotta let the president be the commander-in-chief…” Democratic Senator John Tester says we have to cut older weapon systems that are no longer effective and the world has moved past. Do you believe the world has “moved past” Nuclear Weapons? 

Some Vaccines May Not Stop Transmission

There have recently been three supposedly safe and effective vaccines against the COVID-19 pandemic virus- Pfitzer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca . It is unknown whether the Pfitzer or Moderna vaccines can cause asymptomatic carriers. These COVID vaccines have only been proven to prevent illness, not transmission. A vaccinated person may still be able to get infected and spread the virus without showing any symptoms. This is a problem for herd immunity. These vaccines may not protect unvaccinated people from getting the virus. 

The AstraZeneca vaccine has shown that it, unlike the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, can stop the spread of the virus. A test conducted at Oxford showed that the vaccine can reduce transmission from asymptomatic carriers. People in the UK trial tested themselves regularly for infection from the virus, and there was a difference in the spread of the virus between the placebo and vaccinated group.

Herd Immunity

Typically, vaccines protect from both illness and transmission. This is how we achieve herd immunity. Only a certain percentage of the population must be vaccinated before the disease is unable to spread. The percentage of vaccinated people required to achieve herd immunity varies according to the disease and how easily transmissible the disease is. COVID has a case reproductive number has been estimated to fall between 2.39 and 3.44. This means that, on average, COVID has the ability to spread from an infected person to 2.39 to 3.44 other people. COVID has a much lower reproductive number than measles, which is 14-18. This means that COVID has a potentially lower bar for herd immunity than measles. It has been debated whether the herd immunity for COVID would be 60-70% or even up to 90%. Fauci has gradually nudged the percentage up from 60% to just under 90%. He based the numbers on the percentage of American surveyed who said they were willing to receive the vaccine. It is unknown how many people would need to be immune to achieve herd immunity.

Why is the COVID Vaccine Different?

The COVID vaccine is a new type of medicine. It uses bits of genetic material called messenger RNA, specifically a sequence of codes for a spike protein in the coronavirus. That particular protein in the SARS-CoV-2 virus helps it attack people’s cells. The mRNA, enfolded in bubbles of fat teaches the human immune system to fight the virus instead of allowing it to spread in both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

AstraZeneca is different in that it places the spike protein in an adenovirus that usually infects chimpanzees, modified so that it cannot replicate anymore. Having a “dead” virus is the typical for a vaccine. This teaches the body to stop transmission.

Efficacy

The Pfizer vaccine has a success rate of 94.1% according to a New England study. The Moderna vaccine has a success rate of 95% according to the CDC. AstraZeneca, on the other hand, has a much lower efficacy. It is estimated to have a success rate between 59 and 86%. Studies on the vaccine show conflicting evidence. It is unclear whether or not the FDA will approve of the AstraZeneca vaccine due to its low efficacy. However, the current discrepancy between US supply and demand may push the FDA to approve the vaccine.

Vaccines Approved of by the FDA

The FDA has only approved of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization. Jassen and Novavax are still in phase 3. AstraZeneca may or may not be approved. An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Taking into consideration input from the FDA, manufacturers decide whether and when to submit an EUA request to FDA.

Once submitted, FDA will evaluate an EUA request and determine whether the relevant statutory criteria are met, taking into account the totality of the scientific evidence about the vaccine that is available to FDA.

The FDA sees the approved vaccines as “rigorously tested” and generally safe after being tested by tens of thousands of study participants with a two month follow-up.

Current Situation

Since vaccine distribution began in the U.S. on Dec. 14, more than 57 million doses have been administered, reaching 12.4% of the total U.S. population, according to federal data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The U.S. is currently administering over 1.8 million shots a day. The addition of other vaccines to the lineup could increase vaccination rates.

Big Picture

The current COVID vaccines may not protect against transmission, so it might be advisable to socially distance unless you have had the vaccine yourself. The AstraZeneca vaccine does not have great treatment rates but is proven to stop transmission. Fauci plays to the public ear, himself not knowing what the actual percentage is to get herd immunity. The FDA considers the currently approved vaccines to be safe. So far, millions of people have received the vaccine, but there is still a long way to go.

Google removed Former President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign app from the Play Store. The app originally went up during the 2016 election. The app had apparently stopped working according to Google. Google did not specify what the faults were. The original purpose of the app was to provide campaign news, schedules and a place for donations.  The IOS version seems to still be up. According to TechCrunch  when you visit the main screens of the IOS version you are met with an error message but it does not affect your ability to browse past content. 

The Android version of the app has been suspended. Google told Insider “The Trump 2020 campaign app recently stopped working and we reached out to the developer multiple times in an attempt to get them to address the issue, people expect that apps downloaded from Google Play provide a minimum level of functionality and our policy is to remove non-working apps from the store if they are not fixed.” Many reviews before it was suspended said things such as  “will not open,” “the app doesn’t even work,” “absolutely terrible doesn’t even work,” and “wouldn’t open keep saying check connections.” One user implied the issues were Google’s fault, saying “worked great, until Google canceled it.” 

Google maintains the app has not been banned, only suspended for non-functionality, and can be reinstated when the developers update the app. It is unclear what the faults are exactly but according to Android Police when they tested the app, before and after its removal, it would get stuck at the loading screen with a spinning ”T.” The app had not been updated since October 30, 2020, says app store intelligence firm Sensor Tower. This could have been a key factor in the app no longer functioning correctly.

Parler, a social media app used predominantly by conservatives, has come back to life after more than a month. The platform was taken off Apple, Google, and Amazon stores and servers. The website is currently up and running and waiting for users to make their new accounts. Parler has even gained a new interim CEO, Mark Meckler. Why was Parler taken down in the first place? 

Parler Being Singled Out

During an interview with Fox and Friends, Chief Policy Officer of Parler, Amy Peikoff, made it clear they felt Parler was singled out. Parler received backlash for “allowing violent speech” this is something they have made it clear they do NOT support. Peikoff said Parler is “a non-partisan town square in which people of varying viewpoints can have productive discussions. Force and threats of force stop those discussions.” Google and Apple both took Parler from their app stores around the same time. Piekoff says Google did not contact Parler removing the platform from the Play store. Peikoff says Parler was “set up,” a theory that doesn’t seem too far fetched.

Parler Was Set Up

It doesn’t seem right for Parler to be removed for “violent speech” when on Twitter, around the same time, one of the trending topics was #hangmikepence. They allowed this trend for hours after they permanently banned Former President Trump. Twitter is obviously trusted to resolve issues themselves and don’t lose their spot as the 6th most popular free social app on Google Play Store. Why wasn’t Parler given the same opportunities to remove violent content? Peikoff believes it is because the platform believes in Free Speech which is now seen as a conservative view and not a promise this country was built on. Peikoff also stated many accounts that had violent writings seemed to be parody accounts. This theory and even further back up by the fact that #parlerapp on Tik Tok has 6.6 million views with the top videos all being videos from around the time Parler was shut down. These videos show people flaunting how they were going to destroy the app with ratings and fake accounts “like they did Trump’s app.” The videos show screen recordings of people making fake accounts and posting violent speech. Parler was set up and singled out for being a place conservatives felt safe. Their safe space was taken down and for a while they were greeted with a message reminding people why Parler was created in the first place. Now they are back up and running, giving users a place they can go once again.

Parler Back Online 

Parler has made a comeback with interim CEO Mark Meckler. Former CEO John Matze was fired from the Board of Directors and gave statements saying the app was trying to censor him which is odd given the foundation of the platform is free speech. Peikoff called these statements “inaccurate and misleading.” Parler is on the hunt for a new CEO while their website gets back up and running. They are currently using a hosting platform called SkySilk. SkySilk seems to have faith that Parler will be able to moderate their app perfectly fine. SkySilk said it believes Parler is “taking the necessary steps to better monitor its platform. Skysilk does not advocate nor condone hate, rather, it advocates the right to private judgment and rejects the role of being the judge, jury, and executioner,” the company said. “Unfortunately, too many of our fellow technology providers seem to differ in their position on this subject. … SkySilk will support Parler in their efforts to be a nonpartisan Public Square.” The website had a design and logo change and is ready for new users.

Written by: Erinn Malloy

An exchange with a Politico reporter led white house aide to resign after his derogatory and threatening comments made headlines. Politico reporter, Tara Palmeri, and her male co worker contacted white house aide, TJ Ducklo, while writing an article about his relationship with a reporter who was assigned to cover the white house. This was an assigned story not one the reporters were pursuing independently. Ducklo, who did not want the story to be run, contacted Palmeri. The phone call was full of threats and offensive language such as Ducklo telling Palmeri things like “I will destroy you” referring to her career. 

Whitehouse aide blows up at reporter 

Tara Palmeri is the co-author of Politico’s Playbook newsletter. She was given an assignment to write about the potential conflict of interest that is raised by the relationship between whitehouse aide, TJ Ducklo, and Axios reporter, Alexi McCammond, who covered the Biden campaign according to vanity fair. Both Palmeri and her male co-worker contacted Ducklo but he called Palmeri shortly after Biden’s inauguration in January. According to Vanity Fair, during the off-the-record call Ducklo made derogatory and misogynistic comments. He accused Palmeri of only reporting his relationship because she was “jealous” that an unidentified man in the past had wanted McCammond and not her. Ducklo also accused Palmeri of being “jealous” of his relationship with McCammond. Ducklo also threatened to end Palmeri’s career if she ran the story saying “I will destroy you.” All of this is coming weeks after President Biden issued a statement on his first day in office about the standards he expects from his staff in regards to how they treat people. 

Does the standard apply to white house aides 

His first day in office President Biden issued a statement saying “I am not joking when I say this: If you are ever working with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot. No ifs, ands, or buts,”  Playbook highlighted this and asked, “Serious question on our minds this morning: Does this standard apply to how mid-level press aides treat reporters?” After the initial incident Politico editors contacted White House staff the following day. When those calls were finished Ducklo sent Palmeri an email apologizing. He was then suspended for a week without pay and told he would not be allowed to work with any Politico reporters. Whitehouse secretary Jenn Psaki said “And that, in our view, was a — was an important step to send the message that we don’t find it acceptable,”  referring to not working with anymore Politico reporters. She also called the one-week suspension a “serious punishment.” This seems like a step down from Biden’s promises but Psaki did not acknowledge why Ducklo would not be dismissed. In response to the incident Ducklo has decided to resign. 

White house aide resigns over “I Will Destroy You” threat 

The White House announced Ducklo’s resignation. “We accepted the resignation of TJ Ducklo after a discussion with him this evening,” Jen Psaki said in a statement. The conversation occurred with the support of the White House chief of staff, Ron Klain. Psaki added the White House was committed to treating others with dignity and respect. Ducklo posted on Twitter saying he wanted to “learn from it and do better.”  He also said “I used language that no woman should ever have to hear from anyone, especially in a situation where she was just trying to do her job.” 

There has so far been no comment from Palmeri regarding the incident. The White House says the incident was over Ducklo’s personal life not over their policies and does not align with how they want to treat people. They did not comment on why it took so long for action to be taken and struggled to answer questions regarding Ducklo working with female reporters in the future; both of these issues were fixed by Ducklo’s resignation. 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

For better or worse, nowhere in the constitution does it mention political parties. By looking into the writings of the founders, it seems apparent they never would have thought that our current party system would exist in the form it does today, and would have almost certainly seen it as detrimental to the republic if they could. Quite honestly, the founders would likely be shocked and appalled by the state of many of the union’s institutions as they exist today. One might say, destination screwed…

John Adams wrote in a letter to Jonathon Jackson, October 2nd, 1780. – “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

The Origin and development of our two major party system

As much as Donald Trump has spoken about “draining the swamp”, much of this rhetoric is undermined by the lack of talk about electoral reform. Credit where credit is due, he has diminished record-setting numbers of government regulations that burden our economy, and the overall number of bureaucrats retiring outnumbers those joining the force. However, among the many reasons Donald Trump was elected (no, not Russia, racism, or ignorance), was that he was an outsider who presented an opportunity to “Shock the system” and shake things up.

People all across our country from progressives to libertarians and everyone in between have felt abandoned by our political establishment. Politicians make big promises to the people on the stage, then retreat to their dens where they call up massive corporate lobbies to fund them in exchange for political favors. We all know it. Obama and Romney’s top campaign contributors were literally the same 10 corporate interests. The whole point of a democracy is to grant the blessing of public confidence in our government and assure that the government exists with the consent of the people.

So the 2 party system…how did we get here?

Over the course of our country’s history, there have been quite a number of political parties, although most never gain any traction and most have been extremely short-lived. Today the 3 most notable minor parties are the green party, the libertarian party, and the constitution party. The Libertarian Party is the oldest, and as of 2019 libertarians held office in 176 minor positions in government.

However, since 1852, we’ve elected without exception either a republican or democrat to the presidential office. Before that, it was either a democrat or a whig, before that we had a democrat party or the national republican party, before that the democratic-republicans vs the federalists. George Washington is the only president to be elected without a party affiliation.

The party system is seemingly an inevitable part of America’s political design. Groups with like-minded agendas will always congregate, and some arbitrary name will be given to represent the said group, so at some point, political platforms are inevitable in any large scale democratic process. But without some form of ranked voting, the very nature of democratic electoral processes manifest themselves eventually into two opposing political parties, which can be characterized by opposite world views, described by Thomas Sowell as the constrained and unconstrained vision. Jonathon Haidt has actually done some very interesting work into the psychology of moral foundations and how that corresponds with political alignment. He calls it, “Moral Foundations theory.” Essentially he tried to pinpoint a list of moral categories that can be consistently distinguished from each other through multi-variable analysis. He ended up, eventually, with six moral foundational categories.

“1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. In the original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as the theory was reformulated in 2011 based on new data, it emphasizes proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives

3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”

4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

We think there are several other very good candidates for “foundationhood,” especially:

6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.

Essentially he found that Political liberals drastically emphasize the Care/harm foundation, with additional support from the Fairness/cheating and Liberty/oppression foundations, and actually shirk the other foundations like loyalty to in-group, respect for tradition, and purity. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all six foundations, including Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation. ”

But this tendency of multi-party system’s to inevitably devolve into a duopoly is called Duverger’s Law. It basically claims that as one party gains an advantage, lesser parties will naturally diminish and converge as people will cast their vote for the “Lesser of two evils” which reinforces the cycle of diminishment of lesser parties until only two are left. And the media go along with it. After all, the first major newspapers were created as the communication branches of the first political parties.

The founders were correct to dread the nature of political parties, and the prospect of two great opposition parties dominating our electoral process. Any two-party system will devolve into the ugly politics we see today, as the acquisition of power becomes more and more dependent on demagoguery and opposition tactics. And it’s that divisiveness in our society that is the most vulnerable aspect of our national security. After all, a divided house can’t stand.

As it stands today, almost no topic in the political discourse receives as much bipartisan disdain as our essentially two-party system and the social and political ramifications thereof. There feels like an almost unbridgable divide in our political discourse as if the very social fabric of the country has been coming apart. And it is almost certain that whoever wins the presidential election will not have the large, bi-partisan confidence of the people, but will nevertheless enjoy the full approval of our financial elite.

This feeling is intensified drastically with exposure to our mainstream news media or social media environments. The truth is, our social fabric IS being actively eaten away by the polarizing nature of duopoly political systems. And a consortium of private banks and corporate interests have asserted massive influence over our politicians, mainstream media, and even the electoral process itself, and lobbies extensively to keep any third party candidate from having any chance of emergence.

There are laws in place, in which the government matches the money raised by political candidates once they’ve broken a certain threshold of the organically raised fund. This threshold is set at a level that is almost exclusively available to candidates of one of the major two parties. In so many ways, our current party system is irredeemably undemocratic and bent towards demagoguery and opposition campaigns, and our media entities exist as mere extensions of this tragedy.

This system has manufactured tremendous division amongst the general population, there are very opposing philosophical beliefs held by conservatives and liberals. But the differences in our elected major party politicians are mostly aesthetic. Of course, the parties battle it out for control of the 3 branches of government, the opposition party doing everything it can to disrupt, create gridlock, and even just embarrass the members of the other party. But behind the scenes, both parties take massive amounts of lobbyist money from the military-industrial complex, big oil, big pharma, big tech, even foreign governments, and a consortium of other wealthy entities.

This is seemingly far more money than any grass-roots fundraising campaign can compete with. Both sides will cater to their lobbyists, both are united in keeping the patriot act in place, and both will fill their cabinets with candidates suggested to them by the banks. Worst of all, both parties, and any significant political actor within them are manipulated by a cabal of central banking interests who will give unlimited resources to their preferred candidate, pay off the heads of the national party to block a popular candidate from nomination to disrupt a campaign. Manufacture a recession, finance civil unrest, or fund foreign military aggression to stop a sitting president, or outright assassinate any political entity which poses a substantial threat to the debt-money system that makes it quite literally impossible to ever escape their financial domination.

Our country is in the midst of an identity crisis, a zenith in the conflict of visions. It is a largely ignored crisis greater than any of the problems that the opposing political parties rightly point out. It’s more destabilizing than the growing levels of wealth inequality, more unsustainable than our mass unregulated immigration. As destined for failure as our fraudulent reserve notes. Those money printers continue to be pushed to the brink of their capacity, by both parties.

So what the hell can we do? It’s time to propose some alternatives.

Ranked Choice Voting

Two-party systems are necessarily winner-take-all. As in, whoever gets the most votes wins. This may seem reasonable prima facie, but let’s dig in a little. When considering primaries, a presidential candidate may win only 29% of the popular vote. That means that 71% of the population isn’t getting what they want. Thinking that ‘winner takes all’ voting is democratic in a numerical sense is a convenient illusion.

This leaves smaller parties with no chance. Ever been chastised for throwing your vote into the ‘trash can’ of votes? Ever heard people opine about how you’ve got to choose the lesser of two evils as if still voting for someone evil was as fine and dandy as mom’s apple pie? And how many times have you said something along the lines of ‘man I really don’t like the guy I’m voting for but the other one just sucks a whole bag of things I’d rather not apply my own lips to’?

Ranked choice throws all these obnoxious and karen-esque arguments out the window. You can finally express your fealty to the anti-HOA party without worrying that you’d be better off using your ballot as TP. Ranked choice would allow you to pick the anti-HOA party as your first choice, the Green party as your second, the conservative as your third, and whatever virtue-signalling corporate cutout is representing the liberals as your last choice.

I’m sure this would prove how tired many Americans are of our corporate duopoly. No longer beholden by shame, voters could push for the candidates they actually wanted and know that whoever wins in the end will have to have achieved more than 50% of the vote. The parties with the fewest votes along the ranking system would be cast out from the ballot, in which case the next choice on everyone’s ballots would go toward determining the majority. This way, we’d make sure that the candidate who won would actually have managed to win the popular vote in their community.

20 cities and 4 states have already gotten on board with ranked-choice when it comes to primaries. However, one state (Maine) is looking to take it a step further and use ranked-choice voting for the whole of their general election.

Countries that already use ranked-choice include:

Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, and Australia.

This system will also greatly reduce negative campaigning because they have to appeal to people who aren’t just in their base. With ranked-choice, you’ve got to make yourself and your policies actually look good (and hell, you’ll have to actually have policy-solutions lined up – what a concept!) to win the primary votes of as many people as possible, and the secondary votes of all of those who prefer your political competition. Maybe you’ll be able to trash on the other guys a little bit, but not in the fantastic style of our current political races.

Ranked-choice voting will also put an end to gerrymandering, which is just another way to say politcal red-lining.

Democracy Dollars

Two of America’s favorite words, side by side.

Not only does the rhetoric give us that warm and fuzzy ‘merica f*** yeah feeling, but the idea of ‘democracy dollars’ stands up to the ‘Citizen’s United’ law and seeks to make political campaigns more about people and less about corporate money.

Democracy Dollars were proposed as a solution to campaign funding issues by Andrew Yang, who ran in the Democratic primaries. He was predictably ousted from prime-time and received far less attention than the other candidates, likely because Yang was less an establishment democrat then an ideologue and reformist.

Democracy dollars would work like this: every American gets 100 ‘dollars’ in the form of a voucher, which could possibly be tax deductible. This would be a “use it or lose it” voucher, you could store them up fpr years and donate a larger amount later, nor could you redeem it for any other purpose. (Although I’m not ignorant enough to believe that some clever entities wouldn’t find a way to low-key pay-off people to spend their Democracy dollars in a particular way. I’m sure some of that would exist, but that susceptibility seems less corrupted than our current system, in my opinion. And in the opinion of 7 out of 10 Americans who feel as if our politicians are being controlled by shadowy outside wealthy forces. Which they are!

People could spend these “democracy dollars” on the campaign or campaigns of any politicians they chose. This way, the politicians whom people wanted to run would get the most funding. This would essentially serve as the reverse of our current system, where we make political decisions after being bombarded with ads and propaganda.

As it is today, less than 5% of the population donates to political campaigns. How many would contribute if it didn’t come “out of pocket?” Certainly not 100%, Americans are lazy. But if even 20% were to utilize this policy, we would completely wash out the current levels of lobbyist money. If 50% did, we would outspend lobbyists 4 to 1. And if one thing is true about Washington, it’s that money talks.

Of course, this would demand that people go out of their way to do political research. And it’s not unthinkable that lobbyists would just drum up campaigns that said ‘don’t throw your precious democracy dollars into the the third party trash can’, and electioneering would get all weirdly meta. But a multi-party, ranked choice voting system, could counter that relatively effectively.

Direct Democracies

What if we, the lazy electorate, decided to dive head-first into civic duty by giving ourselves the chance to write laws? What if we weren’t always beholden to our ‘representatives’, but to ourselves directly?

Though many may nominate ‘direct democracy’ as mob rule (rightly, in some cases) it stands that some countries with this sytem of governance are doing very well. Let’s examine them in some more detail.

Switzerland, known for it’s alps and yodeling beauties, has a system of direct democracy. They know a thing or two about the stratification of political parties – in fact, one of these came to prominence with the moniker ‘anti-powerpoint party’ because of their believe that this software was wreaking havoc on the economy.

To amend the constitution, Switzerland (which holds popular votes 4 times per year) must hold a ‘mandatory’ referendum and eke out a double majority, with its ‘cantons’ (there are seven in total and they rotate the title of ‘president’ yearly) and people both voting in a majority. Switzerland seems to be one of the few countries with an IQ high enough to distrust its elected officials to fulfill their promises.

Branching off from this infinite wisdom, the Swiss are also skeptical of elected officials writing and proposing new initiatives. They therefore allow any Swiss citizen to draft an initiative, and if they can find 6 others to onboard it then they can start collecting signatures. Once 100,000 signatures have been gathered the proposal will go in front of the country, needing the aforementioned double-majority to become law.

Make no mistake; people propose all kinds of wonky initiatives. I met a Swiss guy in China who told me his neighbor’s mission in life was to keep farmers from cutting off the horns of their bulls – and his initiative was well on its way to 100,000 signatures. My friend voted in favor of it.

Strangely, though, less than half of the eligible voting population ever turns out to vote. The paradox of direct democracy, as measured by a few countries that operate with some form of it, is that fewer voters turn out when they believe everyone has a voice. Goes to show that people trust their fellow man far more than they trust politicians.

But what about other direct democracies (in Europe)?

Look no further than little Liechtenstein, a mountain kingdom of fewer than 50,000 inhabitants. It’s got the world’s highest purchasing power parity and their per-capita income is more than double the United States’ – a whopping $139,000 USD. Liechtenstein also boasts Europe’s wealthiest monarch, an ironic twist for a nation that runs on direct democracy. The real kicker is that the prince didn’t inherit this wealth but rather accrued it through business.

Did I mention that this country is also highly capitalist and rated as one of Europe’s best nations to do business in? That’s right – the free market and true democratic freedom prop one another up in little Liechtenstein.

Let’s take one of the West’s most contentious issues at the moment – citizenship rights. Liechtenstein has shirked the burden of laws and committees that decide who can and can’t immigrant – instead, immigrants live in the community for a certain amount of time before their neighbors vote on whether or not they can become citizens.

Better be on your best behavior if you want to become a citizen, then. Liechtenstein proves that it’s the people of a country who ought to decide which new people get to stay and vote. After all, any new citizen will be allowed to participate in direct democracy alongside their neighbors.

Written by: Liberty Revolt

During an interview with Norah O’Donnell President Biden said he believed former President Trump should not receive classified briefings as is custom. The interview itself focused on a wide range of topics from if Biden believed Trump should be impeached and if changing minimum wage would be introduced to the Senate with the current stimulus bill.

Biden Says Trump Has No Need For Briefings. 

When asked directly if President Biden believed Donald Trump should have access to intelligence briefings he responded with “I think not.” He was asked to elaborate. Biden said “because of his erratic behavior unrelated to the insurrection.” The President agreed with his previous statements calling the former President “Dangerous” and an “existential threat.” O’Donnell asked Biden his worst fear if Trump continued to receive intelligence briefings. He then went on to say “I’d rather not speculate out loud. I just think that there is no need for him to have the intelligence briefings. What value is giving him an intelligence briefing? What impact does he have at all, other than the fact he might slip and say something?” Biden isn’t the only person who has made it clear they don’t think Trump should have access to Intelligence briefings. 

People who don’t think Trump should have access to intelligence briefings. 

Sue Gordon, a former Principal Deputy Director of Intelligence in the Trump administration, wrote in an op-ed. “My recommendation, as a 30-plus-year veteran of the intelligence community, is not to provide him any briefings after Jan. 20,” Gordon argued Trump is a “potential security risk” in light of his “significant business entanglements that involve foreign entities.” Democratic Representative Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House of Intelligence Committee, said on Face the Nation  “There is no circumstance in which this president should get another intelligence briefing, not now and not in the future.” He goes on to mention intelligence partners around the world safeguarding information and how that makes us less safe. Rolling Stone quoted Senator of Maine, Angus King, having similar opinions. “There’s a grave danger of him inadvertently or willfully revealing classified information.” King also said “There is no upside. There is no reason that he needs to have this information.” Isn’t this the same stuff people have been accusing Trump of while he was President? Has this affected the president’s current standing in relation to receiving briefings? Are they allowed to ban Trump from receiving briefings? 

Can they ban Trump from receiving Intelligence briefings? 

According to the National Security Act of 1947 (title VIII section 801 a) the President shall, by Executive order or regulation, establish procedures to govern access to classified information which shall be binding upon all departments, agencies, and offices of the executive branch of Government. This means that Biden can potentially ban Trump from receiving Intelligence Briefings. Most former Presidents are allowed to receive Intelligence briefings in the event their advice is needed. The biggest fear seems to be leaking information which Trump was accused of many times throughout his presidency. According to the NY times Trump openly talks about wanting to run for President again and another fear is him using the Intelligence to fit his “political agenda.” Most of the pushback seems to be coming from the Left. There was a lot of call from the Right back in November for, at the time, President-elect Joe Biden to receive Intelligence Briefings. Why aren’t they supporting Trump the same way now? According to CNN, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said “The intelligence community supports requests for intelligence briefings by former presidents and will review any incoming requests, as they always have.” This means if Trump were to request an intelligence briefing his request would be reviewed like any other former President. CNN also reported a Senior Administration Official had confirmed Trump currently had not requested any Intelligence briefings. Do you think former President Trump should be banned from receiving Intelligence briefings? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

Keystone Pipeline Concerns

As citizens of the United States of America, whether democrat, republican, or independent, we are all united through one common goal, to see our country succeed. More than one month after the Biden Administration has taken office, President Biden’s “Executive Orders” are crippling our country rather than helping it. One of the biggest projects in our country’s history, The construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline has been revoked by the stroke of an ink pen. The XL Pipeline was supposed to stretch from Canada all the way to the Gulf coast. Construction on the 1,700 mile pipeline has already begun all together, 60,000 direct, indirect, and induced jobs have been cut due to the cancellation of the construction of the pipeline.  It was projected that the pipeline would carry roughly 800,000 barrels of oil each day. Billions of dollars in personal income would be generated for both US and Canadian workers and their families.

Reconsider Executive Order

When the pipeline first became a reality, Keystone XL committed to making sure that the pipeline was operating at a net zero emissions level on its first day of service. This week, Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin has asked President Joe Biden to reconsider the executive order that put the brakes on the construction of the pipeline. The pipeline controversy has already spanned through four presidencies. According to Senator Manchin, pipelines “continue to be the safest mode to transport our oil and natural gas resources, and they support thousands of high-paying American union jobs.” Although President Biden is focused on global warming and climate change, Senator Manchin has urged Biden to act in a bipartisan way. As one of the largest and most reliable partners in trading with the US Senator Manchin says that he believes that revoking the construction of the pipeline could have a negative effect on safety, jobs, and energy security.

Other members of congress also believe that Biden made a big mistake in his decision to halt the construction of the pipeline. Manchin and his colleagues are continuing to work diligently to get the oil and the gasoline flowing freely again benefitting everyone in these United States of America.

Weld County… Wyoming?

Weld county residents, led by Cristopher “Todd” Richards, are attempting to “move a county to a different state.” They are looking to join Wyoming, leaving Colorado over the concerns that lawmakers are not paying attention to the needs of rural communities over the major cities.  There is a committee called “Weld County Wyoming.” During a meeting for “Weld County Wyoming” a local pastor, Geoffrey Broughton, said Weld County was a better fit for Wyoming because Colorado was “at war with three major economic drivers for Weld County: small businesses, agriculture, and oil and gas.” The committee’s goal is to add a measure to the November 2021 ballot that would encourage county commissioners to “engage and explore the annexation of Weld County.” They have gathered the support of some of the local government; Weld County Commissioner and Colorado State Senator, Vicki Marble, publicly entertained a motion to secede in 2019. Wyoming’s Senator Mark Gordon has expressed his liking of the idea saying he would love for it to happen. A petition to move the county currently has 9,700 signatures. Advocates say Weld county identifies with the political views of Wyoming more so than Colorado. There are other members of the Colorado Government who don’t like the idea.

Local Government Pushback

There has been pushback from some members of the local government. The mayor of Erie, Jennifer Carroll, said in a statement to Fox31 there are a lot of considerations Weld County voters must take into account. “Income tax, personal property tax, corporate state income tax, retirement income tax, gas tax, severance taxes on oil and gas, and water rights to name a few.” Greeley City Council Member, Tommy Butler, told KDVR-TV “I absolutely love living in Colorado. For those that don’t love living here, there are certainly less ridiculous ways of moving to Wyoming.” Jared Polis, Governor of Colorado, also took to Facebook saying “Hands off Weld County, Governor Mark Gordon. Weld County is a thriving part of Colorado and Weld County residents are proud to be part of our great state. I do hear from so many Cheyenne residents, on the other hand, that they are culturally, economically and socially more connected to Colorado than Wyoming….”  Will the voters be the deciding factor? 

Do Voters Want Weld County, Wyoming?

“As the Mayor of Erie, I respect the process and the cornerstone of voting,” said Jennifer Carroll. “Ultimately, the people will choose the outcome. In my role, I can help residents discover the risks and benefits of such a measure. This measure will undoubtedly require a great deal of pre-education for voters.” She is correct. Weld County voters will be the ones to determine the outcome, however, are they the only ones who make these choices? To put it simply, no. This would have to be approved through the legislature of both Colorado and Wyoming. The issue would then have to go to congress. The citizens of Colorado would also have to have a vote. Colorado doesn’t seem to have any plans to back moving the state line.  What will moving the county, and by default the state line, do for Colorado and Wyoming? 

“We’re moving a line” – Weld County Wyoming

Moving the line would have an impact on many things such as taxes, social programs, and population of both states. The population of Wyoming would increase by close to fifty percent. This would make Vermont the least populated state. Wyoming, with about 579,000 residents, has long celebrated its standing as the country’s least populated state since the 1990 U.S. Census. Colorado has a population of around 5.7 million. If Weld County joined Wyoming Colorado’s population would drop to around 5.4 million. Local residents of Weld County told Colorado Home Weekly things like “I feel like Erie is very much Colorado and not Wyoming” and the Colorado Government doesn’t seem keen on letting Weld County go. Do you think Weld County should join Wyoming and stay part of Colorado? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

The Fair Repair Act (LB67) was first introduced in 2014 to combat software rights that restricted the ability for individuals to repair equipment that runs off computer software. This has always been a right for people, although the ability to do it was virtually impossible and many would need vast knowledge on computer technology to “Hack” systems in order to conduct maintenance on equipment. Many of these systems have copy rights that restrict users from obtaining software codes making it impossible to legally conduct routine repairs. 

Biting The Hand That Feeds You, Literally

John Deere is one of the largest providers of agricultural farm equipment, yet after spending fortunes on equipment owners must return to manufactures for maintenance in order to keep their equipment running. Repairs and transportation of dead-lined equipment cost farmers thousands of dollars a year and consume hours of potential workdays. Manufacture warranty policies restrict consumers from performing repairs without certified maintenance licensing, although owners do reserve the right to conduct these processes, obtaining supporting software is impossible. The Fair Repair Act seeks to regulate the restriction on availability to tools need to conduct routine maintenance. Companies that sell these technology-based goods will be required by law to provide access to essential tools and software that is needed, for a minimum of 10 years.

Twenty states have already pushed for Maintenance laws that aid owners in repairable maintenance. This movement has gained the attention of big corporations that operate on software, Apple and Microsoft have been opposed to these laws as it will allow owners to conduct processes through third party IT companies, which will cause manufacturers to lose profit. Europe based countries have already passed similar laws and many Information Technology operations have allowed users to make simple repairs such as part replacements and software refurbishing legally. The current situation has made many arguments that this law will hamper cyber security allowing offensive technology intel to leak from independent user equipment. LB67 does not allow for users to illegally alter information provided from original manufactures, it solely allows the ability to conduct repairs. 

Defense Savings

U.S. military leaders are also taking a stand against warranty restrictions. Officers of the United States Marine Corps have made statements forwarding the dire need for availability to repair equipment. Maintenance Logistics Officers have complaints about the long turnaround time it takes for manufactures to repair equipment as it obstructs Performance of Marine Corps Units both deployed and stateside. Officers are thoroughly trained on the equipment they receive, and many can personally repair the items themselves, yet many cannot conduct repairs as it voids the warranty and service contracts between the U.S. government and equipment manufacturers. Passing this bill will save taxpayers millions on defense spending and aid military forces in mission success. Items such as generators, computer based heavy equipment and other assets the military utilizes will be able to have trained specialists operate on this software without the need of direct manufacturer maintenance. 

Right to Repair Act: Legislation

States such as Nebraska have seen legislation excuse the need for this bill and says that manufacturers need to reserve the right to their software as it is not needed for repair, yet anyone who owns an iPhone can tell you different. Other states have also seen adverse opinions from their government officials as major software companies have shown discomfort in the bill, implying that they will simply no longer offer the sale of their goods in the states the bill is passed. The use of these rights pursuing non-approved manufacturing operations will make warranties and guarantees nulled void. Manufacturers will also restrict the use of their equipment in other states under the Fair Repair Act, rendering owners helpless when maintenance is needed.  

Current States Pursuing Similar Bills

CA, NA, OR, WA, MT, ND, SD, MN, MO, IL, IN, GA, VA, WV, NY, VT, NH, MA, NJ, HI

By: Charlie Alvitre

Three recently passed agriculture bills have angered Farmers and sparked six months of protest in India. The bills were proposed as giving farmers more freedom to control their own trade and expand their own markets but according to farmers they have major issues. Protests stayed peaceful until recently when they turned violent. This violence has prompted internet shutdowns in 14 of the 22 districts in Haryana state near New Delhi. 

The Bills That Caused Protests

Farmers and agricultural workers, who make up nearly 60 percent of India’s population, are outraged over three pieces of agricultural legislation passed in September by India’s parliament with support of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The three bills decrease trade regulations on goods, allow for trading online and interstate, enable farmers and buyers to enact exclusive contracts, and limit the government’s ability to regulate essential commodities.  The farmers believe the deregulation will increase competition giving corporate buyers all the power. Giving buyers access to more suppliers gives them the ability to drive prices down. This is further enforced by the bill removing minimum prices for items.  Farmers say this practice was barely helping them to squeak by already. 

Outrage Sparks Protests 

The protest began in August ahead of the three bills passing. According to the NY times many of the protesting farmers are members of the Sikh religious minority and come from the states of Punjab and Haryana. Protests began as peaceful. Thousands of farmers camped outside of New Delhi in tent cities demanding the three Bills be repealed. Al Jazeera reported there were deaths reported from mostly natural causes. The cold, heart attacks, and motor vehicle accidents on the way to protests claimed the lives of dozens of peaceful protesters. This changed on India’s 72nd Republic Day. 

Farmers Protesting In India Turn Violent 

Tuesday January 26, 2021 a demonstration that was supposed to be peaceful ended with protesters forcing their way through police barricades. The tractor parade turned violent as protestors fought with police and ran a rebellious flag up the ramparts of the Red Fort. Videos show protestors using tractors to break through barricades. One protestor was reported to have died when their tractor flipped over. Why did violence erupt? Has the government attempted to listen to demands of protesters?

What Has The Indian Government Done?

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres asked for peace and to respect peaceful protests. The government has cut internet access to many protest sites in retaliation to violence. The Supreme Court has issued an injunction temporarily pausing the implementation of the laws but farmers still demand the Bills be repealed completely. With farmers protesting in India daily, we currently don’t have an end in sight.

Written by: Erinn Malloy

The past few weeks in the stock market exchange has been a challenging concept to understand. Terms such as ‘Hedge Funds” and “Short Selling” are tactics used that would not seem so devastating. Like, what is so wrong with funding hedges and then selling them? No, we’re not referring to the hedges your neighbors grow in their front lawn that you must end up paying for to be groomed. This is an economic breakdown of the Reddit attack and how it’s ultimately affecting risk investors on Wall Street. 

Why Are Hedge Funds Risky?

Hedge Funds are a risky method that investors take up in order to acquire allotted lumps of cash to hoard into their own bank accounts. This tactic is approached by first taking out a large unsecured loan which they will use in cooperation with a broker who holds large amounts of stock. These investors will buy a high quantity of shares on borrowed money, then turn around and sell them to individual investors. Essentially large investors are borrowing stocks from brokers in order to sell them and in the end make a profit. Now this doesn’t seem like a bad concept, right? Well let’s look at an example. 

An Investor takes on a loan of $2 million dollars, this is already a risk because it’s an unsecured loan. The investor will then find a stock with a high price per share, let’s say $100, this will produce a total of 20,000 shares. These shares are then sold to individual investors or other firms, utilizing the theory that the share price will collapse to a lesser dollar amount. The Investor will then buy the stocks back (that are now at a lower price), sell them back to the stock exchange or borrowed broker, and collect the difference. The whole theory involves a gamble on the bet that the share price will drop significantly, in some situations these career investors also have some inside knowledge. Fundamentally, this takes the money from the little people who investor spare money in hopes of a more enjoyable retirement, and places in the pockets of wealthy investors. 

Potential Profit

Let’s break down the profit margin of this example. The investor buys $2 million in stock producing 20,000 shares at $100 dollars per share. The price then falls in two weeks to a petty $8 dollars per share, which the investor is lucky to buy back, and then sell again or return to its borrowed broker. Essentially the Investor made $92 per share equaling a total profit of $1.84 million, a grand scheme for someone who does this for a living. This whole process is referred to as “Short Selling”, This can turn mass profits over a course of a few weeks or months. 

Teaming Up Against Hedge Funds

Now where does it go wrong? An individual with little amounts of income (No I’m not saying they’re poor, they’re just not Warren Buffet rich) cannot personally take on competitively with these investors to beat them at their own game, but how about 170,000 reddit users with a few thousand to spare. Reddit users, led by screen name user Wallstreetbets, collaborated by agreeing on specific stocks to buy (I.E. GameStop, AMC, and now Doge coin) to all invest in, this jacked up the cost of the shares. Since these Hedge Fund investors had invested in the same stocks with the intention of the price collapsing this hindered the chance of a profit and ultimately costing the Investor millions. 

Let’s say that same investor who bought 20,000 stocks at $100 per share had been one to buy those stocks that were mentioned earlier. The stock price is currently $100 per share then skyrockets to $300 per share virtually costing the bet investor $200 per share for a grand loss of $4 million dollars. Also, to keep in mind, this was funded by a loan that must be now paid back. This method could eventually lead to a bankruptcy depending on how much debt was accumulated over the course of many unsuccessful bets. This will eventually end up costing taxpayers, when methods like this are utilized the little people always end up paying. Too Big to Fail investors need to be held accountable for their shady business tactics and not the people they use as an investment. Short Selling practices have become a primary source of income for wealthy individuals, career investors call this an attack on the wealthy, as if it’s an entitlement. 

Short Selling

Short Selling practices have been brought to the light of how Wall Street has been operating over past decades, gaining the attention of Infamous investor Jordan Belfort the man portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in The Wolf of Wall Street. Other individuals such as Elon Musk, the Tesla engineer and billionaire that surpassed Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, also has had trending posts of the situation. Stock Market exchange practices have seen the height that strength in numbers can bring. Individual business investors have pushed back against wealthy investors to show what the American people can bring to the table when they work together. Making this one of the biggest feats in business economics since the last stock market crash in 2008, proving how brutal the Bull and Bear can be in the stock market exchange. 

Written by : Charlie Alvitre

On January 28, 2021 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gave a weekly briefing at the white house where she called some members of the House of Representatives “ the enemy within.” This is coming after a month of “memorable Wednesdays,” as Pelosi called them, referring to the riot on Capitol Hill, the second attempt to impeach Donald Trump, and the inauguration of the Biden administration. A reporter asked about a letter that was sent to her and the Majority leader asking for funds for more security at the Capitol and in the Representatives home districts. Pelosi responded by touching on the states using MRA funds for security then went on to call some members “the enemy within”.

Who is the Enemy Within?

Pelosi started out by explaining the Representatives should be using their MRA funds for extra security. Then she said “we want to have a scientific approach to how we protect members. I do believe, and I have said this all along, we will probably need a supplemental for more security for members when the enemy is within the House of Representatives. A threat that members are concerned about in addition to what is outside.” When pressed by a reporter on exactly what she meant she went on to say “we have members of congress who want to bring guns on the floor and have threatened violence on other members of congress.” While Pelosi did not directly name any members directly this comes days after metal detectors were installed in the capitol. This has sparked anger in many Republican lawmakers. A regulation from 1967 allows firearms to be carried by members of congress on Capitol grounds but not on the floor. Democrats are pushing this week to ban lawmakers from carrying firearms anywhere at the Capitol. 

Are they really the Enemy?

Republican lawmakers have expressed their concern for the added security. House Administration Ranking Member Rodney Davis was quoted by Fox News saying the security measures were “taking resources completely away from where it needs to be,” and that Democrats “did it without any consultation with the minority.” Barring lawmakers from bringing firearms to the capitol is something newly elected Republican Congress member Lauren Boebert has made it clear she will not stand for. “I will carry my firearm in D.C. and in congress.” she says in a campaign ad she posted to twitter. She goes on to say it’s lawmakers jobs to protect second amendment rights and that’s what she is in D.C. to do. Are Republican lawmakers “the enemy within” for wanting to defend themselves? Taking away the right to carry at the Capitol for lawmakers takes away their right to defend themselves in a city where violent crime averages more than twice the average rate. After the incident on January 6 it is understandable as to why lawmakers would want to go as far as to bring their firearms safely into the chamber. Republican lawmakers will continue to push for the right to bear arms at the Capitol in order to protect our second amendment rights as citizens. 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

The United Nations Secretary-General called January 28 for global rules to regulate social media companies like Twitter and Facebook. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that he believes it should not be a company that has the power to decide whether then-president Donald Trump’s Twitter account should be closed. Guterres stated, “I do not think that we can live in a world where too much power is given to a reduced number of companies.” He also said that he was “particularly worried” about the power of social media companies. Instead, he believes that a “mechanism” should be created “in which there is a regulatory framework with rules that allow [closures] to be done in line with law.”

Impact of Regulated Social Media

Earlier in January, Twitter ended Trump’s nearly twelve-year run and shuttered his account, severing an instant line of communication to his 89 million followers. His Twitter account was regarded by some as the hallmark of his presidency. Facebook and Instagram also suspended Trump. Twitter cited the January 6 insurrection of the US Capitol by his supporters to claim that his tweets could incite violence. People accused the companies of censorship and violating the First Amendment right to free speech. Numerous other people have been censored and removed from such platforms.

Guterres says, “Digital technology is shaping history, but there is also this sense that it is running away with us. Where will it take us? Will our dignity and rights be enhanced or diminished?… We have a collective responsibility to give direction to these technologies so that we maximize benefits and curtail unintended consequences or misuse.”

More people than ever before are on social media and get their information from online sources. False data and selective censorship present a very real threat to society and democracy as a whole. COVID-19 has also presented a unique circumstance. Many people are working from home or using technology to keep in touch as they socially distance. This puts Internet rights at an all time high as far as importance. 

Data Security and Political Control

Guterres pointed to “the volume of information being gathered about every one of us, the lack of control we have about… the data related to ourselves, the fact that data can be used not only for commercial purposes to sell to advertising companies… but also to change our behavior, and the risks of that to be used also from a political point of view for the control of citizens in countries.” Guterres said this “requires a serious discussion” and that is one of the objectives of his “Roadmap for Digital Cooperation” launched last June.

Roadmap for Digital Cooperation

The Roadmap’s aim is to promote a “safer, more equitable digital world.” It calls for action in eight areas including achieving universal connectivity by 2030; ensuring digital connection for all, including the most vulnerable; ensuring the protection of human rights on the internet; promoting trust and security in the digital environment; and building a more effective architecture for digital cooperation. The UN claims that “digital technology issues are often low on political agendas. Among the Roadmap’s provisions is a call for strengthening the Internet Governance Forum, which brings people from various groups in the public and private sectors together to discuss public policy issues related to the Internet, “in order to make it more responsive and relevant to current digital issues.”

The key parts of concern on media censorship are digital rights. Digital technologies provide new ways to exercise rights such as the freedom of speech, but rights are often violated online. The UN website states that “Data protection, digital ID, the use of surveillance technologies, online harassment and content governance are of particular concern.” The UN advocates for regulatory frameworks and legislation on the development and use of digital technologies. These regulatory frameworks and legislation should have human rights at their center. 

One of these rights is of course the freedom of speech. The UN is against repression and censorship. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to… impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” 

There is also the concept of digital inclusion. The UN is working to lower the access gap to digital technology, so that people of all ages, political affiliations, and nationalities may use technology.

Overall, the UN aims to protect Internet rights and establish a legal framework so that tech companies, governments, and individuals cannot deny the rights of others. 

Written by: Miranda Smith

Cloning in America has been an interest of science for hundreds of years. The first attempts in cloning were seen in 1885 on sea urchins. Cloning comes in many forms. Some instances of “clones” occur in nature. Is human cloning on the horizon?

Clones in Nature

Clones that occur naturally range from single cell organisms to identical twins. Organisms such as Planaria (flatworms) reproduce through a process called Binary Fission. The organism splits apart creating a clone-like copy of itself. Fragmentation, the process of growing a new organism from a separated fragment of the parent organism, occurs commonly in starfish. Identical twins are formed when a fertilized egg splits and develops into two organisms who are genetically the same. What happens when science interferes and attempts to create organisms who are genetically the same? 

Cloning Plants

Some plants can naturally reproduce through asexual reproduction. This process can occur for many reasons such as a stolon, or runner, rooting from a new bud. We have helped this process along for thousands of years. Plant cuttings can often be rooted and create clones of the mother pant. Some plants such as tomatoes create plenty of auxins, the hormone plants need to start rooting, other needs help from artificial rooting hormones. “Clones” rooted from cuttings often mature faster than their counterparts who start out as seeds. There are no laws against cloning plants. In a survey of 100 Americans 71 believed cloning plants was ethical. In 2016 the Michigan court of appeals deemed Marijuana “clones” as plants. Scientists are currently looking for a way to create clones of original plants through the seeds they create. This would be a major breakthrough in agriculture. Cloning crops with higher yields could help with the world hunger crisis if more food is able to be produced. What would happen if we applied the same idea to animals who are generally used for food?

Cloning Animals

Cloning animals started in 1855 when Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch discovered he could split a two-celled sea urchin embryo and both cells would develop into an individual organism. In 1996 Dolly the sheep became famous for being the first cloned mammal born at the Roslin Institute in Scotland. Since then animal cloning has been a commercial venture to improve the quality of herds. The FDA has deemed meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring to be safe to consume. The FDA says most cloned livestock are used for breeding then the offspring are used for processing. It is not required for food labels to specify if a product comes from a clone or their offspring. There is a huge controversy over the ethical side of cloning animals. In a survey out of 100 Americans 76 people said cloning animals was not ethical. After taking the survey some people reported back they would only be okay with cloning animals who were endangered in order to repopulate those species. Five people who originally said yes reported they confused the process of artificial insemination with cloning and said removing the genetic traces from an egg is not ethical. Let’s not get confused, what types of cloning are out there and how do we use them? 

Types of Clones

There are three different types of artificial cloning. Molecular cloning produces clones of genes or segments of DNA. Reproductive cloning produces clones of whole organisms. Therapeutic cloning produces stem cells for creating tissue to replace diseased or injured tissues. Could any of these types of cloning successfully clone humans?

Cloning Humans in America

Cloning humans has been an interest of science since Dolly the sheep was born; it was the next logical step after animal cloning. Clonaid claimed to have successfully cloned humans resulting in the birth of babies in various countries including the U.S. These babies were never independently verified through DNA and many in the scientific community are skeptical of their claims. Many people on Reddit and TikTok claim to be these babies but none of their claims have been proven. There are no Federal laws that outright ban cloning humans.  In a survey of 100 Americans 90 people said they believed cloning humans was not ethical. 20 reported after taking the survey they only agreed with cloning organs or tissues for people who need them. Nine states have legislature banning reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning, or using any funding to do human cloning.  There are currently no proven instances of human cloning but there are instances where therapeutic cloning could be used to benefit patients and the medical community in general. Therapeutic cloning could help cure diseases and is believed to have a lower probability for immune rejection in organ and tissue transplants. Some people believe using stem cells in anyway is “playing God”  and not ethical, others say it’s not until you create full human beings. Where is the line for you when cloning in America? 

Written by: Erinn Malloy

As this past election season heated up the cold winter days, former President Donald Trump has parted ways with some of his impeachment lawyers. According to house democrats, the reason for impeachment is due to the events that took place at the US Capitol building on January 6th. All but five Senate Republicans are in favor of dismissing the trial before it starts. Trump has had a very hard time finding attorneys who are willing to defend him after he became the only US president to be impeached twice. A lot of the attorneys who previously defended him declined to take on the current case. Former President Trump’s strongest argument will be that the trial is unconstitutional because he is no longer in office. House Democrats are accusing Trump of provoking the riots that took place at the US Capitol building on January 6th. Trump has since announced that he has hired a new legal team, it will be led by David Schoen who is a criminal defense attorney who works both in Alabama and New York, and Bruce Castor Jr. who is a former district attorney in Pennsylvania. Since President Joe Biden has taken office many of the same House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump now agree that it is unconstitutional to even have a trial. Many people have also attempted to forget about Trump’s conduct saying that it was just his way of dealing with frustration over the handling of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. According to U.S. Senator Rand Paul the vote for a trial is already dead on arrival. The trial is scheduled to start on February 8th.

What are your predications? Make sure to comment below!

Written by: Gary Taylor