Serious liberal&nbsp;legal scholars have been willing to admit that Roe v. Wade was indefensible on legal and constitutional grounds. The only reason that it, like a number of past and present Supreme Court decisions existed, was to safeguard a cultural lifestyle of a politically influential minority.


	Justice Alito's strong medicine draft dismantling the constitutional legitimacy Roe v. Wade was already widely distributed. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," he blasts.


	He's right, of course.


	And despite the harassment, threats, and intimidation, and even an assassination plot, Justice Roberts joined the conservative majority to abort Roe v. Wade.


	&nbsp;"The nine Members of this Court will no longer decide the basic legality of pre-viability abortion for all 330 million Americans. That issue will be resolved by the people and their representatives in the democratic process in the States or Congress," Justice Kavanaugh notes in his concurrence.


	The Democrats keep talking about "democracy" (it's in their name after all) and castigating any opposition to them as a "threat to democracy" or even more militantly, an "attack on democracy", and yet they violently resist the idea that the abortion question should be decided by the voters.


	The Supreme Court didn't take away abortion from anyone. It didn't mandate anything on abortion. It correctly ruled that was an ideological invention and that there's no special basis for federal protections for abortion.


	If, as lefties insist, abortion is enormously popular, they should be able to ride to victory in the midterms on a populist tide, increase their hold on the Senate and House, and easily win the White House again in 2024 while holding sufficient numbers to rig the Supreme Court, add abortion to the Constitution, and anything else they like.


	Except that the polls show no such tide and the midterms are the Republicans to lose (and in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Georgia, they're trying very hard to lose the Senate all over again thanks to political consultants and celebrity candidates that make RINOs look conservative). Despite the Days of Rage and pink hat brigade hysteria, Americans are not on board with abortion until birth or especially enthusiastic about abortion. Despite making a great deal of inroads on social issues, so that Republicans have largely abandoned them for generic culture wars, abortion does abide because there is very clearly a life being snuffed out.


	The Democrats need a federal mandate for abortion precisely because they know how unpopular it is. They're the ones who have been waging a war on democracy over it. And that's why they're hysterical over losing the ability to use central judicial control to force abortion on states and communities.


	Who hates democracy more than Planned Parenthood?

Supreme Court Turns Over Abortion Question to the People. Democrats Rage Against Democracy.

Serious liberal&nbsp;legal scholars have been willing to admit that Roe v. Wade was indefensible on legal and constitutional grounds. The only reason that it,

Supreme Court Turns Over Abortion Question to the People. Democrats Rage Against Democracy.

A crisis requires a perpetual atmosphere of fear and the insistence that things are getting worse and worse all the time.


	"We have already poisoned the atmosphere, we have to repair and heal the Earth and the only way to do that is to remove carbon dioxide permanently," Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm&nbsp;bizarrely claimed as part of Biden's 'Earthshot" to destroy America's economy and turn the rest of it over to Communist China.


	Bud Bromley <a href="https://rclutz.com/2022/06/16/nature-erases-pulses-of-human-co2-emissions/">makes an important point</a> in his analysis of CO2 levels.


	As <a href="https://rclutz.com/2022/06/16/nature-erases-pulses-of-human-co2-emissions/">Ron Clutz summarizes</a>, "Those committed to blaming humans for rising atmospheric CO2 sometimes admit that emitted CO2 (from any source) only stays in the air about 5 years (20% removed each year)&nbsp; being absorbed into natural sinks.&nbsp; But they then save their belief by theorizing that human emissions are “pulses” of additional CO2 which persist even when particular molecules are removed, resulting in higher CO2 concentrations.&nbsp; The analogy would be a traffic jam on the freeway which persists long after the blockage is removed."


	"A <a href="https://budbromley.blog/2022/06/11/a-conservative-calculation-of-specific-impulse-for-co2/">recent study </a>by Bud Bromley puts the fork in this theory.&nbsp; His paper is&nbsp;A conservative calculation of specific impulse for CO2."


	&nbsp;"In the 2 years following the June 15, 1991 eruption of the Pinatubo volcano, the natural environment removed more CO2&nbsp;than the entire increase in CO2&nbsp;concentration due to all sources, human and natural, during the entire measured daily record of the Global Monitoring Laboratory of NOAA/Scripps Oceanographic Institute (MLO)&nbsp;May 17, 1974 to June 15, 1991.&nbsp; Then, in the 2 years after that, that CO2&nbsp;was replaced plus an additional increment of CO2," Bromley notes.


	Bromley's paper<a href="https://budbromley.blog/2022/06/11/a-conservative-calculation-of-specific-impulse-for-co2/"> points out that</a>, "In this conservative calculation, based entirely on measurements (not theory, not models, and not estimates), Earth’s environment demonstrated the capacity to absorb more than 25 times the not-to-exceed amount of human CO2&nbsp;emissions at that time.&nbsp; The units drop out of the comparative calculation to yield a dimensionless 25 times ratio. (The units for J and F are not precisely correct in this novel use of the specific impulse calculation which would usually include a distance. It is important to keep the units the same in the comparison, as is done here.)"

<blockquote>
	
		"During the global cooling event in the 2 years following the Pinatubo eruption, CO2&nbsp;concentration decelerated rapidly.&nbsp; Following that 2 year period, in the next 2 years CO2&nbsp;accelerated more rapidly than it had declined, reaching an average CO2&nbsp;slope which exceeded MLO-measured slope for the period prior to the June 1991 Pinatubo eruption.&nbsp; The maximum force of the environment to both absorb and emit CO2&nbsp;could be much larger than the 25 times human emission and could occur much faster.&nbsp; We do not know the maximum force or specific impulse.&nbsp; But it is very safe to infer from this result that human CO2&nbsp;emissions are not an environmental crisis."

	
		"If a reason exists that the natural environment responds to human CO2&nbsp;in a significantly different way, e.g., the commonly asserted belief that the environment absorbs half of human CO2, then the reader is invited to put forth that theory.&nbsp; The calculations and data presented here disprove that theory."
</blockquote>


	It's a good point that isn't likely to met with any kind of coherent response. Bromley's argument is important and a reminder that this is a manufactured crisis that is being used to massively enrich some investors while impoverishing millions, and that is being used as a vehicle to radically transform society, that claims to have science on its side, when it actually does not.

Demolishing the Infinite CO2 Argument

A crisis requires a perpetual atmosphere of fear and the insistence that things are getting worse and worse all the time.


	"We have already poisoned the

Demolishing the Infinite CO2 Argument

Stacey Abrams Was For Defunding Police Before She Was Against It

What a difference a few years and a massive crime wave make.


	
		CAMEROTA: And so that leads us to the larger conversation that we've been having for

Stacey Abrams Was For Defunding Police Before She Was Against It

Another day, or these days an hour and there's another freakout over a Supreme Court ruling. Now it's&nbsp;Vega v. Tekoh. The case involved a paramedic accused of assaulting a patient. According to the&nbsp;deputy, Vega, the paramedic, Tekoh, came forward to admit his guilt, according to the paramedic, he was intimidated into doing so. The confession was not preceded by a Miranda warning. Since Vega's name is up there, the case, as you can guess, involved the deputy being sued.


	The case then became a proxy for a debate over Miranda and the decision into a freakout about the Supreme Court "taking away a constitutional right."


	Miranda was no more of a constitutional right than Roe v. Wade. It had a slightly better basis as an invented right, but <a href="https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/premature-mirandizing-terrorist-daniel-greenfield/">not by that much</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		In 1963, the year that Lois Ann Jameson was walking home, there had been 222 rapes. Ten years later, that number would stand at 637. Today there are over 2,000 rapes a year in Phoenix; ten times as many. But one of those rapes would be hers. And it would lead to a new standard of protection for murderers and rapists.

	
		Ernesto Miranda wasn’t famous yet. The days when he would be selling autographed Miranda warning cards were still ahead of him. For now he was only another son of Mexican immigrants, a tattooed felon working temporary jobs and a rapist on the prowl.

	
		Miranda abducted the girl, drove her out to the desert and raped her. He was arrested, questioned and confessed to the crime. The rest should have been straightforward except that no one had told him that he was entitled to a lawyer. The head of the Phoenix office of the ACLU stepped in and the Miranda warning was born.

	
		Miranda v. Arizona&nbsp;was part of a string of decisions by the Warren Court that had begun the year of Lois Ann Jameson’s rape. The decisions invented rights which not only obligated taxpayers to provide accused criminals with lawyers, but also made it impossible to question a suspect without his lawyer.

	
		In the case of Lois Ann’s rapist, Justice Earl Warren went beyond inventing the right to a government lawyer, to invent the rapist’s right to be told of a right to a government lawyer.

	
		Warren inverted the Fifth Amendment to claim that the confession of a criminal who had not been told that he did not have to incriminate himself was a violation of the ban on self-incrimination. And he held that it should be assumed that all criminals did not know that they did not have to confess.
</blockquote>


	Miranda's premise, that criminals don't know they have a right not to incriminate themselves unless they're told about it ahead of time (or watch cop shows) and that therefore their confessions somehow violate the Fifth Amendment is absurd nonsense. If Tekoh were actually intimidated into confessing, that can be a case of being "compelled", but the presence or lack of a Miranda warning is a meaningless fetish.


	Justice Alito's ruling correctly notes that a Miranda warning is not the same thing as the Fifth Amendment.


	"Miranda did not hold that a violation of the rules it established necessarily constitute a Fifth Amendment violation, and it is difficult to see how it could have held otherwise," the ruling notes. "At no point in the opinion did the Court state that a violation of its new rules constituted a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.&nbsp; Instead, it claimed only that those rules were needed to safeguard that right during custodial interrogation."


	"In accordance with this understanding of the nature of the rules it imposed, the Miranda Court stated quite clearly that the Constitution did not itself require “adherence to any particular solution for the inherent compulsions of the interrogation process” and that its decision “in no way create[d] a constitutional straitjacket.”&nbsp; Ibid. The opinion added that its new rules might not be needed if Congress or the States adopted “other procedures which are at least as effective.”


	Compare this to the freakout over&nbsp;Vega v.&nbsp;Tekoh&nbsp;from the <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/miranda-warnings-supreme-court-alito-kagan.html">usual sources</a>.


	"The Supreme Court took the first steps toward overruling&nbsp;Miranda v. Arizona&nbsp;on Thursday, declaring that suspects have no constitutional right to receive the famed Miranda warnings when they’re taken into custody. Its 6–3 decision in&nbsp;Vega v. Tekoh&nbsp;ensures that many suspects who are denied these warnings will have no legal recourse, even if they are wrongly convicted. Justice Sam Alito’s opinion for the court lays the groundwork for a more direct assault on&nbsp;Miranda&nbsp;itself, barely concealing the conservative majority’s contempt for the decision," Mark Joseph Stern fulminates at Slate.


	An assault on what? Miranda is informational. Alito establishes that it was never a constitutional right, nor was it meant to be treated as one. Mistaking the paper for the principles is supposed to be an originalist fallacy, yet with Miranda, it's lefties who are guilty of it.

The Supreme Court is Right. Miranda is Not a Constitutional Right.

Another day, or these days an hour and there's another freakout over a Supreme Court ruling. Now it's&nbsp;Vega v. Tekoh. The case involved a paramedic accused

The Supreme Court is Right. Miranda is Not a Constitutional Right. 

Ever since the Washington Post decided to give Qatari agent Jamal Khasoggi a forum, they've been riding that train. And the Amazon Post is determined not to stop advocating the Islamist cause in D.C.


	Here is its latest bid.

<blockquote>
	
		Biden must not betray defenders of democracy in Saudi Arabia&nbsp; - Abdullah Alaoudh /&nbsp;Washington Post:
</blockquote>


	Who is Abdullah?

<blockquote>
	
		&nbsp;Abdullah Alaoudh is director of research for the gulf region at Democracy for the Arab World Now
</blockquote>


	Here's a refresher of what DAWN is courtesy of the <a href="https://www.meforum.org/61908/dc-acquires-yet-another-disinformation-thinktank">Middle East Forum</a>.

<blockquote>
	
		Among DAWN's inaugural&nbsp;publications&nbsp;is a presentation of the extremist Saudi cleric, Salman Al-Odah, as an innocent reformist, persecuted by the Saudi government for mere political dissent.&nbsp;According to DAWN, the charges brought by a Saudi court against Al-Odah in 2018 are an attempt to punish his "peaceful speech advocating reforms."

	
		Al-Odah was first jailed in the 1990s after he called on his followers to&nbsp;engage in jihad&nbsp;in Afghanistan and Iraq. Al-Odah even&nbsp;served&nbsp;at one point as a&nbsp;mentor&nbsp;to Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. He claimed to have moderated while in jail. But in 2005, he again&nbsp;issued a call for jihad&nbsp;in Iraq. Since then, in 2012, he insisted that the Holocaust was exaggerated and turned into a "myth"&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	Not surprising as Jamal Khashoggi had some of the same views and was a good friend of Osama bin Laden.

<blockquote>
	
		One&nbsp;board member&nbsp;is Asim Ghafoor. In filed corporation documents, DAWN is registered to his address.&nbsp;Presented&nbsp;as a leading attorney on "high-profile cases related to national security and terrorism," Ghafoor in fact worked for and represented several prominent Al Qaeda charities subsequently designated by the U.S. government.&nbsp;

	
		Ghafoor also&nbsp;represented&nbsp;the U.S. branch of the Saudi Al Haramain Foundation (AHF) charity, which&nbsp;was designated in 2004. An investigation run by the IRS, FBI and ICE found that the charity's U.S. branch had "direct links" to bin Laden.
</blockquote>


	Not surprising again considering Qatar's links to the Taliban, Hamas and Al Qaeda.


	This is what Jeff Bezos' paper is promoting in D.C. This is its idea of democracy in the middle east.

Washington Post Gives Al Qaeda Apologists a Platform to Call for "Democracy"

Ever since the Washington Post decided to give Qatari agent Jamal Khasoggi a forum, they've been riding that train. And the Amazon Post is determined not to

Washington Post Gives Al Qaeda Apologists a Platform to Call for "Democracy"

In a new experiment, media analyst and man-on-the-street interviewer Mark Dice took to the streets of San Diego, California to ask random Americans if they would sign a petition to evict anyone from their home who has refused to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Don't miss this short video below:

<div class="media_embed" height="315px" width="560px">
	<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/n-j2uc_C4RM" title="YouTube video player" width="560px" height="315px" frameborder="0"></iframe></div>


	&nbsp;

Video: They Want to EVICT All Unvaccinated People From Their Homes!

In a new experiment, media analyst and man-on-the-street interviewer Mark Dice took to the streets of San Diego, California to ask random Americans if they

Frontpage Mag

Video: They Want to EVICT All Unvaccinated People From Their Homes!

Wondering what happened to your Disqus comments?

FPM Series

Disloyal Military

Progressive Fascists

Racist Mayors

The Point

Supreme Court Turns Over Abortion Question to the People. Democrats Rage Against Democracy.

Demolishing the Infinite CO2 Argument

Stacey Abrams Was For Defunding Police Before She Was Against It

The Supreme Court is Right. Miranda is Not a Constitutional Right.

Washington Post Gives Al Qaeda Apologists a Platform to Call for "Democracy"

Events