Category: Reprints from others.

Categories
Biden Pandemic Government Overreach Lies Reprints from others. Tony the Fauch

Four Medications the Government Tried to Restrict During COVID and How to Legally Get Them

Shawn Thew - Pool/Getty Images

Four Medications the Government Tried to Restrict During COVID and How to Legally Get Them

The following content was sponsored by The Wellness Company on the original site, BREITBART.

Just a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable that our government would ever try to restrict access to certain drugs. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, opened our eyes to just how far our government would go to line the pockets of Big Pharma.

Here are four critical medications that might have been hard to get during the pandemic due to pressure from the government and big medicine:

1. IVERMECTIN

Nobel-prize winning medicine demonized as “horse medicine” by the mainstream media and the FDA, Ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines.

Depositphotos

2. HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE

An antiviral that has been used for 50 years for the treatment of various diseases, Hydroxychloroquine was smeared by the left and medical establishment after President Donald Trump advocated for it.

Depositphotos

3. GENERIC Z-PAK

One of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in history, Z-Pak is also a key component in early treatment protocols and thus came under fire by some in our crooked medical establishment.

Depositphotos

4. BUDESONIDE

Budesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid breathing treatment used to reduce inflammation in the airways and lungs.

Depositphotos

Access to all of these critical prescription medications were limited or restricted, making them difficult for suffering Americans to get.

2024 is the year to be prepared.

We know what the globalists did in 2020, and we know they will do whatever they can to maintain power, which makes 2024 a potentially very dangerous year for Americans.

Warning: The following is their advertisement if not interested, stop here.

Unlike 2020, you don’t have to be caught unprepared, and that’s where the Wellness Company comes in.

The Wellness Company and its great doctors – like Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Drew, Dr. Harvey Risch, and Dr. Jim Thorp – are regularly in the media fighting against the broken medical establishment.

Dr. Thorp, one of the nation’s leading critics of corrupt Big Pharma, believes that now – more than ever – people should be prepared for the next pandemic:

I’ve strongly recommended “stockpiling” critical medications including antibiotics since the turn of the century. This has been an incredible investment as many friends, family, and patients have benefited. Now, in the winter of 2024, this recommendation is even more crucial.

The ultimate safeguard for your health.

Be ready for the next crisis. This Contagion Kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications – including ivermectin, and hydroxychloroquine. The Contagion Kit also includes a guidebook to aid in the safe use of these life-saving medications.

This kit is prescription-only – you can’t find it in any store or pharmacy. Simply fill out a short questionnaire after purchase and a trusted Wellness Company doctor will confirm your suitability and issue your prescription, Contagion Kit.

The Wellness Company Contagion Kit contains:

  • Azithromycin (generic Z-Pak) 250 mg – 12 tablets
  • Budesonide 0.5 mg/2 mL – 10 vials (plus nebulizer included)
  • Hydroxychloroquine 200 mg -20 tablets
  • Ivermectin 12mg – 25 tablets
  • 1 Contagion Kit Guidebook written by the Chief Medical Board for safe use.

What people are saying about the Contagion Kit:

This is the perfect emergency kit at the perfect price. Every home should have this for peace of mind. – Rebecca B.

This is absolutely great! I encourage everyone to buy one of these for emergencies!! – Melody H.

Peace of mind. It is an amazing peace of mind to have this kit in case of emergencies and shortages. The Wellness Company did an excellent job of getting this to me in a timely manner and I and thankful to have it. – Phyllis T.

Don’t be caught unprepared for whatever 2024 sends your way!

Never be without these critical drugs. Get the Wellness Company’s Contagion Kit – which contains all four of these drugs – TODAY!

Order the Wellness Company’s Contagion Kit today!

Categories
Biden Cartel California. Commentary Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

State Farm, California’s largest insurer, announced that it will discontinue coverage for 72,000 homes.

A firefighter works to protect homes surrounding residences engulfed in flames by the CZU Lightning Complex fire in Boulder Creek, Calif., on Friday, August 22, 2020. (Dylan Bouscher/Bay Area News Group)

 

State Farm, California’s largest insurer, announced that it will discontinue coverage for 72,000 homes and apartments starting this summer, a move likely to sharply inflate housing costs for affected residents in a state that’s reeling from a series of destructive recent wildfires.

The Illinois-based insurance giant, which accounts for a fifth of the California home insurance market and is the largest property and auto insurer in the U.S., cited rising costs, increasing catastrophe risk and outdated regulations in declaring it won’t renew California policies for 30,000 homes and 42,000 apartments.

“This decision was not made lightly and only after careful analysis of State Farm General’s financial health,” the company said in a March 20 statement. “State Farm General takes seriously our responsibility to maintain adequate claims-paying capacity for our customers and to comply with applicable financial solvency laws. It is necessary to take these actions now.”

The announcement comes less than a year after State Farm announced it would not issue new policies in California, citing similar concerns. And it comes as the state’s elected insurance commissioner embarks on a yearlong overhaul of home insurance regulations aimed at calming California’s imploding market by giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums while extracting commitments from them to extend coverage in fire-risk areas.

“One of our roles as the insurance regulator is to hold insurance companies accountable for their words and deeds,” said Deputy Insurance Commissioner Michael Soller. “State Farm General’s decision today raises serious questions about its financial situation — questions the company must answer to regulators. … We need to be confident in State Farm’s strategy moving forward to live up to its obligations to its California customers.” But it was unclear whether the department would launch an investigation into State Farm’s move.

Harvey Rosenfield, the Consumer Watchdog founder who authored the state’s insurance regulation system approved by voters in 1988’s Proposition 103, said the company’s announcement comes just after the state Department of Insurance approved a 20% premium increase for the company. That approval was based on State Farm’s existing number of policy holders, and he said the state should take another look at the rate hike considering the new cancellations.

Whole article is here.

 

 

 

Categories
Back Door Power Grab Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Articles we missed. California Exit Tax & Wealth Tax: What Is it & How it Applies to You.

Taxing you as you leave.

 

California is known for having some of the most significant in-state taxes in the country with a 13.3% annual income tax rate. You can checkout anytime you want, but you can never leave.

However, did you know that you might still be taxed even after you leave the state?

Yep! Thanks to the California exit tax legislation, depending on how much money you get from in-state activities, such as investments in real estate or business operations, you could still be treated like a Californian on your next tax return!

Join us as we walk you through the California wealth and exit tax questions, such as “what is the exit tax in california,” how much it is, who it applies to, and a deeper dive into the CA wealth tax proposal and the Assembly Bill 2088.

 

So, what is the California exit tax? The California exit tax explained:

The California exit tax is a one-time tax that must be paid by businesses and individuals who relocate outside of California. The tax is based on the value of the business or individual’s assets, including property, stocks, and other investments.

It forms part of the larger California wealth tax, whereby the state imposes a tax based on its residents’ wealth.

Those who have lived in the state at any point in time in the past and who earn an annual income greater than $30 million are affected by the wealth tax and would have to pay an annual tax on their wealth for as long as 10 years after they have left the state.

How much is the California exit tax?

The amount of the California exit tax is 0.4% of an individuals’ net worth over $30,000,000 in a tax year, no matter where it’s located—within CA, other states within the US, or overseas. This amount is halved to $15,000,000 if a married taxpayer files a separate return to their spouse.

The one caveat is that there is no California exit tax on real estate (but if the real estate is within state lines, it would still be taxed under California Revenue and Tax Code § 17591).

Who has to pay California exit tax?

The exit tax applies to both businesses and individuals who leave California. This includes businesses that move their operations out of state as well as individuals who relocate to another state. It should be noted that the exit tax only applies if you’re moving to another state, not within California.

Why was the California exit tax of 2020 created?

The exit tax is intended to recoup some of the money that California has invested in these businesses and individuals.

For example, if a business owner has received tax breaks or other financial incentives from the state, the exit tax ensures that they will still contribute some money to California‘s economy even after they leave.

The primary reason for the enactment of the exit tax was to close a loophole that allowed people to avoid paying taxes on their capital gains.

Under federal law, capital gains are only taxed when they are realized. This means that if someone buys a stock for $1,000 and it goes up to $10,000, they don’t have to pay taxes on that $9,000 until they sell the stock.

If that person lived in California and then moved to another state before selling the stock, they would never have to pay taxes on that $9,000 in capital gains.

To close this loophole, the Golden State enacted the California wealth and exit tax. Now, anyone who leaves the state is required to pay taxes on their unrealized capital gains.

It’s been criticized by many people, who argue that it is unfair and punitive. They point out that many people who are leaving California are doing so because they can no longer afford to live there.

By California taxing people who leave even more, they say the state is effectively pushing them out.

What’s more, they argue that the exit tax will make it even harder for these businesses and individuals to get back on their feet financially once they’re in their new location.

The California Wealth Tax Proposal in a Nutshell

California is in the midst of a major overhaul of its tax code, which could expand the state’s ability to tax non-residents, even if they sever their connections with the state.

The bill that is causing quite a stir among business and property owners is called the Assembly Bill 2088 (AB 2088), which is, effectively, the California wealth tax proposal.

AB 2088 was introduced in Sacramento in August of 2020, and it proposes a California wealth tax for the first time in the state, affecting individuals who have lived in the state and who make an annual income greater than $30 million.

However, before we delve into the loopholes and exceptions to this ambitious, but potentially consequential, new bill, we must first understand how California’s tax code could impact you, even as a non-resident.

Whether you are a landowner or an entrepreneur with connections to the state, understanding the tax implications is crucial to mitigating the possibility of having to pay some pretty significant taxes.

Starting point: Residency & the California exit tax proposal 2020

First, California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is in charge of setting the requirements for California citizenship, and plays a pivotal part in a California residency audit.

Factors that affect its determination include:

  • your largest residential property’s location
  • Residence of your spouse and children
  • School districts where your children attend
  • Whether your account statements from your credit cards show your residence in California
  • Exemptions you may claim as a homeowner in California
  • Approximately how many days you spend in California each year
  • Whether your California residence is listed on a federal and local tax return
  • Where you vote
  • Where your vehicles are registered

Looking at these factors, you might think that removing yourself physically from the state would result in them no longer applying and saving you a fair amount of money.

There is some truth to this assumption, as the Franchise Tax Board actually cannot base your residence in California if you do not physically reside within your home in California for most of the year.

This is especially convenient for people who frequently travel or, perhaps, own other residential property outside of California.

Still, even if you change addresses, remove California on your tax returns, and move across the country, you could still be impacted by the California tax code when it comes to taxes.

The above factors listed by the FTB are to be used as a guideline; they are certainly not the only things to consider.

A common fallacy: people frequently believe that moving out of California will make them exempt from paying individual income taxes. This is not necessarily the case, and it would be wrong to assume relocation is a blanket solution.

Check Out Our Complete Residency Audit Guide for More Help

Requirements for the CA exit tax 2020: do they apply to you?

California looks at two major factors when determining whether an individual’s income is taxable and how that then applies to the California exit tax proposal 2020:

  1. Do you generate income from sources within the state? (e.g. real estate investments, business investments in California);
  2. Does your business operate within state lines? (e.g. facilities, employees, etc.)

Let’s look at these two in more detail and how they apply to the “leaving California tax”, as it’s sometimes known…

1. Income-generating sources from within the state

According to the California Revenue and Tax Code § 17591, any financial ties you have to California follow you to your new state of residence.

In other words, if you have invested in or own real estate within California, you still need to pay in-state tax on that real estate, even if you technically reside in another state.

This tax code applies even at the time of sale of that real estate, because it falls under the category of “California-source income”—income derived from sources within California state lines. 

FTB Publication 1031 elaborates further on the types of real estate and property investments that are subject to California nonresident taxes:

Community property income

For individuals with spouses who are California residents, the spouse’s income is considered community property and is, therefore, split equally by the couple.

The community property share of that income is taxable to each spouse, even if one of the spouses lives outside of California and has never lived in the state before.

Real estate sales

Any gain (or loss) from selling real estate located in the state of California is taxable under California’s tax code.

This applies even if the owner is a non-resident who has never lived within the state. The location of the property controls whether the tax applies.

2. Business Operations and Activities in California as a Non-resident

Another situation to be wary of is owning or operating a business within California state lines as a non-resident.

Many business owners falsely believe that because they live outside of California or conduct part of their business operations out-of-state that this exempts them from California taxes.

Under the Constitution, a business’s income may be taxed by the percentage of business activity conducted within a given state.

As applied to California, if a business’s manufacturing facilities are located in Nevada but its workforce, such as remote and/or in-person workers, and corporate offices are in Los Angeles, then that business has demonstrated a sufficient “nexus” or connection with California.

Thus, it is subject to the state’s taxes, and the exit tax in California applies.

If a business demonstrates a sufficient connection or “nexus” to the state of California, it may be subject to the state’s taxes, regardless of whether some of its operations or employees live out of state.

Still, this does not necessarily mean that the California taxes will apply to that business’s total income, especially if only a fraction of the business’s total revenue is derived from California sources.

Say, for example, a business earns $10 million in annual income with 40% from California consumers and 60% from Nevada consumers. California will only be able to tax $4 million of the total $10 million income, because that is the proportion of California-sourced income.

Types of non-resident businesses and the exit tax in California

FTB Publication 1031 elaborates further on the types of business activities that are subject to California non-resident taxes:

  • Salary and wages: To non-residents, wages and salaries for services performed in California are taxable, regardless of the location of the employer or employee.
  • Income from business: Income from a business, trade, or profession conducted in the state may be taxed on non-residents.

Unsure How This Applies To You? Give Us A Call

Foreseeable Developments to the California Exit Tax 2020 Proposal—Assembly Bill 2088

In terms of whether the California exit tax 2020 proposal bill will actually stand the test of litigation, the likelihood of courts nullifying the law, should it be enacted, is high.

The exit tax clearly violates the constitutional right to travel, because it burdens individuals from:

  1. Moving to the state of California in fear that the state tax will follow them even after they leave the state, and
  2. Moving out of the state for the similar reason of having to continue to pay California taxes while also navigating the state and local taxes of their new residence.

To provide some context to why courts will likely find the tax unconstitutional, it is important to first understand the levels of “scrutiny” or critical inspection of the law that will be applied.

Since the law affects a fundamental constitutional right—the right to travel—strict scrutiny will apply here.

Strict scrutiny of the “leaving California tax”

Under strict scrutiny, the burden is on the legislature to show that the law was enacted to further a “compelling government interest” and the law is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.

In other words, the question revolves around whether the law is essential or necessary and whether there are alternative, less-intrusive methods of attaining the same result.

The state of California will likely argue that the “compelling” interest is to mitigate economic inequality and the disparity between classes. This is certainly an important and necessary issue to address.

However, coming up with an argument to show that the exit tax is “narrowly tailored” in that no other alternatives for achieving the purpose are available will be an uphill battle.

Overall, because the bill will impact a fundamental constitutional right and there are likely many other ways to go about addressing the compelling interest it aims to address, the likelihood of the exit tax withstanding strict scrutiny is slim.

Nevertheless, litigating the issue will take time, and it’s important to prepare for any impact the bill may have upon being enacted.

Avoiding the California exodus tax: what can you do?

The first step to approaching this California tax for leaving state is to consult a licensed tax attorney and explore your options.

Depending on your situation, taxes may apply to you in ways you might never anticipate.

Further, having a professional explain to you what parts of your income, business operations and activities, and wealth are taxable under California law will help to ensure that you do not suffer from unfortunate surprises on your next tax statement.

Still Need Assistance? Give Us A Call

Key takeaways on the California wealth and exit tax

The AB 2088 Bill is responsible for the California wealth tax over 10 years ruling, whereby if you leave California, the State can tax you for up to 10 years.

As part of this California 10 year tax, the exit tax is 0.4% of an individuals’ net worth over $30,000,000 in a tax year, which is halved if you have a spouse filing a separate tax return.

However, this all depends on your residency status, which can be a complicated matter. Get in touch with our team if you need help with residency or anything to do with the California exit tax.

 

Categories
Biden Cartel Biden Pandemic COVID Daily Hits. Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

10 stories last week that should have been major news.

Articles that gomostly ignored. Vigalant Fox.

10 stories last week that should have been major news. Vigilant Fox does this weekly special. I just changed the title.

#10 – Secret recording catches Pfizer saying the quiet part out loud.

#9 – Boeing whistleblower John Barnett said before his death: “If anything happens to me, it’s not suicide.”

#8 – Dr. Phil GOES OFF on the CDC and Department of Education.

#7 – Joe Rogan warns we are empowering ‘evil’ with terms like ‘minor-attracted person.’

#6 – New study unearths alarming findings for people who got vaccinated after COVID infection.

#5 – Judge who refused to remove Fani Willis from her junk RICO case against Trump donated to Fani Willis’s campaign.

#4 – 16 Female Athletes Sue NCAA for Allowing Men to Compete in Women’s Sports

#3 – Trudeau’s Canada threatens life sentences for “hate.”

#2 – Dr. Pierre Kory reveals why Big Pharma is ‘terrified’ of Vitamin D.

#1 – Australian government introduces frightening legislation to parents resisting the New World Order.

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

What say you? Income-based electric bills.

Run while you still can.

What say you? Income-based electric bills. California average is $.35 cents per kilowatt. National average is $.18. I’m paying $.05.

LOS ANGELES – California residents might find their electric bills looking a little different in the new year.

Typically, electricity bills reflect the amount of electricity a specific household uses. But, after Assembly Bill 205 passed last year, California could see electricity charges based off of income level instead.

The state’s three largest electric utility companies, Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company, all proposed the plan, saying that low-income customers could save approximately $300 a year under this new law.

Alternatively, California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE: California electric bills may soon be income-based

Here’s a breakdown of the proposed rate restructuring for SoCal Edison customers, based on income:

  • Above $180,000: $85/month
  • $69,000 – $180,000: $51/month
  • $28,000 – $69,000: $20/month
  • Less than $28,000: $15/month

The plan will break down monthly bills into a fixed rate, plus a reduced usage charge based on consumption, according to officials.

Supporters of the bill believe it to be a possible solution to many moderate and low-income families getting priced out of California by rising housing costs. Opponents worry the law could weaken incentives to conserve electricity or raise costs for customers using solar energy.

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024, although officials said implementing it will still take some time before California residents see any changes to their electricity bills.

Categories
Biden Cartel Government Overreach Gun Control Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Another California gun law struck down.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom talks to reporters in the spin room at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., on Sept. 27, 2023. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Another California gun law struck down.

A California law barring people from buying more than one gun a month has been struck down.

In his March 11 ruling, a federal judge said that the one-gun-a-month (OGM) law does not adhere to requirements for gun restrictions outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in a pivotal 2022 decision.

“Defendants have not met their burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the OGM law,” U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes wrote in the decision.

“The court therefore concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the OGM law under the Second Amendment.”

The U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen says that if a law regulates conduct covered by the Second Amendment, officials defending the law must show it is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Defendants must provide “historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding [that] evinces a comparable tradition of regulation,” the high court stated.

Justices instructed lower courts not to “uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue” but that “analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.”

They also issued guidance for judges to consider “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense” and to examine “whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified are central considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.”

The law, signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019, barred people who bought a handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle from a dealer from applying to buy another handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle for at least 30 days.

“Gun violence is an epidemic in this country, one that’s been enflamed by the inaction of politicians in Washington,” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said at the time.

“While Washington has refused to act on even the most basic gun safety reforms, California is once again leading the nation in passing meaningful gun safety reforms.”

Gun owners and groups sued in 2020, saying the law violated their constitutional rights.

After the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, defendants were ordered to provide historical examples of similar laws.

California officials offered four categories of historical restrictions, including regulations on selling guns to Native Americans and regulations on gunpowder.

Those regulations are not relevant to the law in question, Judge Hayes said.

Differing Objectives

The restrictions on Native Americans, for instance, “do not impose a comparable burden” to the California law, he wrote.

“The identified historical laws targeted only a narrow subset of the population perceived as dangerous, while the OGM law, with limited exceptions, affects all people acquiring handguns and semiautomatic centerfire rifles in California.

“Further, laws restricting the sale of arms to Native Americans impose neither a quantity nor time limitation similar to that of the OGM law.”

The gunpowder regulations were comparable because they “placed limits on the ownership and storage of gunpowder,” but “did not completely prevent people from purchasing gunpowder,” the state argued.

The regulations and the 2019 California law are “comparably justified” because both were imposed to “promote public safety,” the state said.

Judge Hayes, though, noted that officials have said previously that the California law was aimed at reducing firearms trafficking and disarming criminals, while the gunpowder regulations were put in place to prevent fires and explosions.

“Put simply, gunpowder regulations addressed fire-related risks, while the OGM law addresses risks associated with illegal gun trafficking and gun violence. Gunpowder restrictions and the OGM law are therefore not comparably justified,” he said.

Judge Hayes, a George W. Bush appointee, entered a stay of the order for 30 days to enable California officials to appeal.

“We are currently evaluating the decision, but it is important to acknowledge that the law limiting firearm purchases to one every thirty days remains in effect at this time,” a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, told The Epoch Times via email.

“Another week, another California gun control law declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” Cody J. Wisniewski, vice president and general counsel of the Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement. Some of the group’s members are among the plaintiffs.

“California’s one-gun-a-month law directly violates California residents’ right to acquire arms and has no basis in history,” Mr. Wisniewski said. “Given it seems certain California will refuse to learn its lesson, we look forward to continuing to strike down its gun control regime and to defending this victory.”

“This is a win for gun rights and California gun owners,” Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, another plaintiff, said in a statement. “There is no historical justification for limiting law-abiding citizens to a single handgun or rifle purchase during a one-month period, and Judge Hayes’ ruling clearly points that out.”

Categories
Commentary Journalism. Life Links from other news sources. Opinion Reprints from others. Uncategorized

The downside to diversity.

We knew this back in 2007.

The downside to diversity.

This is an old article, and I remember when this came out the left lost it. Long read, but a good read.

IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

“The extent of the effect is shocking,” says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools, and it poses challenges to advocates on all sides of the issues. The study is already being cited by some conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to the nation’s social fabric. But with demographic trends already pushing the nation inexorably toward greater diversity, the real question may yet lie ahead: how to handle the unsettling social changes that Putnam’s research predicts.

 

“We can’t ignore the findings,” says Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. “The big question we have to ask ourselves is, what do we do about it; what are the next steps?”

The study is part of a fascinating new portrait of diversity emerging from recent scholarship. Diversity, it shows, makes us uncomfortable — but discomfort, it turns out, isn’t always a bad thing. Unease with differences helps explain why teams of engineers from different cultures may be ideally suited to solve a vexing problem. Culture clashes can produce a dynamic give-and-take, generating a solution that may have eluded a group of people with more similar backgrounds and approaches. At the same time, though, Putnam’s work adds to a growing body of research indicating that more diverse populations seem to extend themselves less on behalf of collective needs and goals.

His findings on the downsides of diversity have also posed a challenge for Putnam, a liberal academic whose own values put him squarely in the pro-diversity camp. Suddenly finding himself the bearer of bad news, Putnam has struggled with how to present his work. He gathered the initial raw data in 2000 and issued a press release the following year outlining the results. He then spent several years testing other possible explanations

When he finally published a detailed scholarly analysis in June in the journal Scandinavian Political Studies, he faced criticism for straying from data into advocacy. His paper argues strongly that the negative effects of diversity can be remedied, and says history suggests that ethnic diversity may eventually fade as a sharp line of social demarcation.

“Having aligned himself with the central planners intent on sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the facts with a stern pep talk,” wrote conservative commentator Ilana Mercer, in a recent Orange County Register op-ed titled “Greater diversity equals more misery.”

Putnam has long staked out ground as both a researcher and a civic player, someone willing to describe social problems and then have a hand in addressing them. He says social science should be “simultaneously rigorous and relevant,” meeting high research standards while also “speaking to concerns of our fellow citizens.” But on a topic as charged as ethnicity and race, Putnam worries that many people hear only what they want to.

“It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity,” he writes in the new report. “It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable.”

Putnam is the nation’s premier guru of civic engagement. After studying civic life in Italy in the 1970s and 1980s, Putnam turned his attention to the US, publishing an influential journal article on civic engagement in 1995 that he expanded five years later into the best-selling “Bowling Alone.” The book sounded a national wake-up call on what Putnam called a sharp drop in civic connections among Americans. It won him audiences with presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and made him one of the country’s best known social scientists.

Putnam claims the US has experienced a pronounced decline in “social capital,” a term he helped popularize. Social capital refers to the social networks — whether friendships or religious congregations or neighborhood associations — that he says are key indicators of civic well-being. When social capital is high, says Putnam, communities are better places to live. Neighborhoods are safer; people are healthier; and more citizens vote.

 

The results of his new study come from a survey Putnam directed among residents in 41 US communities, including Boston. Residents were sorted into the four principal categories used by the US Census: black, white, Hispanic, and Asian. They were asked how much they trusted their neighbors and those of each racial category, and questioned about a long list of civic attitudes and practices, including their views on local government, their involvement in community projects, and their friendships. What emerged in more diverse communities was a bleak picture of civic desolation, affecting everything from political engagement to the state of social ties.

Putnam knew he had provocative findings on his hands. He worried about coming under some of the same liberal attacks that greeted Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s landmark 1965 report on the social costs associated with the breakdown of the black family. There is always the risk of being pilloried as the bearer of “an inconvenient truth,” says Putnam.

After releasing the initial results in 2001, Putnam says he spent time “kicking the tires really hard” to be sure the study had it right. Putnam realized, for instance, that more diverse communities tended to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents — all factors that could depress social capital independent of any impact ethnic diversity might have.

“People would say, ‘I bet you forgot about X,'” Putnam says of the string of suggestions from colleagues. “There were 20 or 30 X’s.”

But even after statistically taking them all into account, the connection remained strong: Higher diversity meant lower social capital. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to “distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”

“People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle,” Putnam writes.

In documenting that hunkering down, Putnam challenged the two dominant schools of thought on ethnic and racial diversity, the “contact” theory and the “conflict” theory. Under the contact theory, more time spent with those of other backgrounds leads to greater understanding and harmony between groups. Under the conflict theory, that proximity produces tension and discord.

Putnam’s findings reject both theories. In more diverse communities, he says, there were neither great bonds formed across group lines nor heightened ethnic tensions, but a general civic malaise. And in perhaps the most surprising result of all, levels of trust were not only lower between groups in more diverse settings, but even among members of the same group.

“Diversity, at least in the short run,” he writes, “seems to bring out the turtle in all of us.”

The overall findings may be jarring during a time when it’s become commonplace to sing the praises of diverse communities, but researchers in the field say they shouldn’t be.

“It’s an important addition to a growing body of evidence on the challenges created by diversity,” says Harvard economist Edward Glaeser

In a recent study, Glaeser and colleague Alberto Alesina demonstrated that roughly half the difference in social welfare spending between the US and Europe — Europe spends far more — can be attributed to the greater ethnic diversity of the US population. Glaeser says lower national social welfare spending in the US is a “macro” version of the decreased civic engagement Putnam found in more diverse communities within the country.

Economists Matthew Kahn of UCLA and Dora Costa of MIT reviewed 15 recent studies in a 2003 paper, all of which linked diversity with lower levels of social capital. Greater ethnic diversity was linked, for example, to lower school funding, census response rates, and trust in others. Kahn and Costa’s own research documented higher desertion rates in the Civil War among Union Army soldiers serving in companies whose soldiers varied more by age, occupation, and birthplace.

Birds of different feathers may sometimes flock together, but they are also less likely to look out for one another. “Everyone is a little self-conscious that this is not politically correct stuff,” says Kahn.

So how to explain New York, London, Rio de Janiero, Los Angeles — the great melting-pot cities that drive the world’s creative and financial economies?

The image of civic lassitude dragging down more diverse communities is at odds with the vigor often associated with urban centers, where ethnic diversity is greatest. It turns out there is a flip side to the discomfort diversity can cause. If ethnic diversity, at least in the short run, is a liability for social connectedness, a parallel line of emerging research suggests it can be a big asset when it comes to driving productivity and innovation. In high-skill workplace settings, says Scott Page, the University of Michigan political scientist, the different ways of thinking among people from different cultures can be a boon.

“Because they see the world and think about the world differently than you, that’s challenging,” says Page, author of “The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies.” “But by hanging out with people different than you, you’re likely to get more insights. Diverse teams tend to be more productive.”

In other words, those in more diverse communities may do more bowling alone, but the creative tensions unleashed by those differences in the workplace may vault those same places to the cutting edge of the economy and of creative culture.

Page calls it the “diversity paradox.” He thinks the contrasting positive and negative effects of diversity can coexist in communities, but “there’s got to be a limit.” If civic engagement falls off too far, he says, it’s easy to imagine the positive effects of diversity beginning to wane as well. “That’s what’s unsettling about his findings,” Page says of Putnam’s new work.

Meanwhile, by drawing a portrait of civic engagement in which more homogeneous communities seem much healthier, some of Putnam’s worst fears about how his results could be used have been realized. A stream of conservative commentary has begun — from places like the Manhattan Institute and “The American Conservative” — highlighting the harm the study suggests will come from large-scale immigration. But Putnam says he’s also received hundreds of complimentary emails laced with bigoted language. “It certainly is not pleasant when David Duke’s website hails me as the guy who found out racism is good,” he says.

In the final quarter of his paper, Putnam puts the diversity challenge in a broader context by describing how social identity can change over time. Experience shows that social divisions can eventually give way to “more encompassing identities” that create a “new, more capacious sense of ‘we,'” he writes.

Growing up in the 1950s in small Midwestern town, Putnam knew the religion of virtually every member of his high school graduating class because, he says, such information was crucial to the question of “who was a possible mate or date.” The importance of marrying within one’s faith, he says, has largely faded since then, at least among many mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.

While acknowledging that racial and ethnic divisions may prove more stubborn, Putnam argues that such examples bode well for the long-term prospects for social capital in a multiethnic America.

In his paper, Putnam cites the work done by Page and others, and uses it to help frame his conclusion that increasing diversity in America is not only inevitable, but ultimately valuable and enriching. As for smoothing over the divisions that hinder civic engagement, Putnam argues that Americans can help that process along through targeted efforts. He suggests expanding support for English-language instruction and investing in community centers and other places that allow for “meaningful interaction across ethnic lines.”

Some critics have found his prescriptions underwhelming. And in offering ideas for mitigating his findings, Putnam has drawn scorn for stepping out of the role of dispassionate researcher. “You’re just supposed to tell your peers what you found,” says John Leo, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. “I don’t expect academics to fret about these matters.”

But fretting about the state of American civic health is exactly what Putnam has spent more than a decade doing. While continuing to research questions involving social capital, he has directed the Saguaro Seminar, a project he started at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government that promotes efforts throughout the country to increase civic connections in communities.

“Social scientists are both scientists and citizens,” says Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, who sees nothing wrong in Putnam’s efforts to affect some of the phenomena he studies.

Wolfe says what is unusual is that Putnam has published findings as a social scientist that are not the ones he would have wished for as a civic leader. There are plenty of social scientists, says Wolfe, who never produce research results at odds with their own worldview.

“The problem too often,” says Wolfe, “is people are never uncomfortable about their findings.”

Michael Jonas is acting editor of CommonWealth magazine, published by MassINC, a nonpartisan public-policy think tank in Boston.

Categories
Censorship Corruption Education Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Reprints from others. The Law

Embattled Ivy League Professor Amy Wax Alleges School Attempting To ‘Punish’ Her For Conservative Speech

UPenn main campus

Embattled Ivy League Professor Amy Wax Alleges School Attempting To ‘Punish’ Her For Conservative Speech

Prof Amy Wax

Brandon Poulter for the Daily Caller   
  • University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax alleges that the school is not adhering to free speech standards and is targeting her due to her conservative beliefs.
  • Wax has made controversial statements over the years, which the university has claimed have created a “hostile campus environment,” and the administration is attempting to sanction her.
  • “[U]Penn has zero interest in developing and adhering to principles of a consistent position on free expression, zero interest,” Wax told the DCNF.

University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) law professor Amy Wax alleged that the school does not adhere to free speech standards and is targeting the scholar because of her conservative beliefs.

Wax, who spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation, has made several controversial statements outside of the classroom, and the university has claimed that her speech created “a hostile campus environment.” Former UPenn President Liz Magill signed off on sanctions against Wax, which Wax said was an attempt to sanction her for extramural speech, which is speech outside the classroom, and said that the school is “flagrantly in violation of the principles of academic freedom.”

“Penn has zero interest in developing and adhering to principles of a consistent position on free expression, zero interest. They can protect the people they basically agree with or favor, like the pro-Palestinians, anti-Israeli, antisemitic, and they can punish people like me. They have never articulated a consistent position,” Wax told the DCNF.

“Everybody says after October 7, universities are on the run, they’re going to change the way they do things or after the affirmative action case, they’re going to change the way they do things. I don’t see any evidence of that. I hear people doubling down on their conviction that everything they’re doing is right and good,” Wax continued.

Universities are dominated by left-wing professors, with one 2018 review of over 60 top colleges in the U.S. revealing that the professoriate is over ten to one Democratic to Republican. Wax pointed to the left-wing dominance of the universities as a reason she was being targeted for her more conservative speech, while radical left-wing speech had largely gone unquestioned.

As recently as 2015, UPenn awarded Wax with the school’s top teaching prize, the Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching, according to a UPenn news article. “Cancel culture really started accelerating around, I think, around 2015, 2016,” Wax told the DCNF.

The Penn Law Council of Student Representatives held a student body meeting with then-UPenn Law School Dean Theodore Ruger in September 2019 to discuss “issues regarding Professor Amy Wax,” according to an email obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free speech legal organization.

“The objections to me had nothing really to do with the quality of my teaching. It had to do with my openly expressing views and opinions and discussing facts that were forbidden and deviated from this very narrow catechism,” Wax told the DCNF. Wax said that many of the ideas and thoughts she had expressed were discussed in mainstream conservative circles but are forbidden at universities.

Wax previously made controversial statements, including saying that America should let fewer Asians immigrate to the country due to their “indifference to liberty,” and that different racial “groups have different levels of ability” and that unequal outcomes are “not due to racism,” according to a June 2023 UPenn memo obtained by The Washington Free Beacon. She also said that diversity, equity and inclusion officers “couldn’t be scholars if their life depended on it,” and that they are “true believer bureaucrats.”

“People are afraid now to express a lot of this stuff in public because they will be censured or even lose their job or their livelihood,” Wax told the DCNF. “There is a myth, a fairy tale in the universities that all people are equal in their latent ability, whatever that means, and their achievement, and that is just completely contrary to fact.”

Wax said allegations that she made students uncomfortable in the classroom were unfounded and that Ruger targeted her for extramural speech. She pointed out that the recently leaked memo of the faculty senate didn’t list any speech in the classroom.

The memo recommends that Wax receive a public reprimand from university leadership, a loss of her named chair and a requirement to note when she publicly speaks, she is not speaking for the university. It also recommends a one-year suspension at half pay and a loss of summer pay in perpetuity. The memo claims that Wax’s speech should be treated as “major infractions of University behavioral standards.”

Magill, who signed off on the recommendation to sanction Wax in the leaked memo, argued at a Dec. 5 congressional hearing that the university had been lenient on antisemitic speech due to the school’s adherence to free speech principles. Magill also defended the Palestine Writes Festival at the school, which involved one speaker who likened Zionism to Nazism and one who said “most Jews” are “evil.”

“Liz Magill lied to Congress because it has never adhered to First Amendment standards,” Wax told the DCNF. “But the fact that they’re bringing this case against me is directly contrary to First Amendment standards.”

Free speech issues on college campuses have been a source of fierce debate since the Oct.7 terrorist attacks against Israel. Former Harvard President Claudine Gay wrote that students “had a right to speak” after over 30 student groups signed a letter blaming the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks on Israel and also alluded to free speech at the Dec. 5 congressional hearing on antisemitism.

Harvard University previously rescinded an offer to a student in 2019 for alleged racist comments made when he was 16 years old, and disinvited feminist philosopher Devin Buckley from campus in 2022 because of her views on trans issues.

MIT President Sally Kornbluth allegedly told MIT Israel Alliance President Talia Khan that the university could not evenly apply the code of conduct due to fear of possibly “losing faculty support.” MIT previously disinvited speaker Dorian Abbot, a geophysicist at the University of Chicago, due to his criticism of affirmative action. 

“The far left holds power in the universities, and they are not about to relinquish it,” Wax told the DCNF.

UPenn did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comments.

Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Government Overreach January 6 Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others. The Law

Liz Cheney, Jan. 6 Committee Hid Trump Evidence.

In a press release on Friday, Chairman Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., of the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight unveiled a previously suppressed interview conducted by the Jan. 6 Select Committee with Anthony Ornato, former White House Deputy Chief of Staff.

Liz Cheney, Jan. 6 Committee Hid Trump Evidence. This came out Friday. Newsmax covered this.

By Jim Thomas    |  

In a press release on Friday, Chairman Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., of the Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight unveiled a previously suppressed interview conducted by the Jan. 6 Select Committee with Anthony Ornato, former White House Deputy Chief of Staff.

Ornato’s testimony reveals that former President Donald Trump advocated deploying 10,000 National Guard troops to safeguard the nation’s capital on January 6, 2021.The Select Committee conducted Ornato’s interview in Jan. 2022.

“This is just one example of important information the former Select Committee hid from the public because it contradicted what they wanted the American people to believe. And this is exactly why my investigation is committed to uncovering all the facts, no matter the outcome,” Loudermilk said.

The chairman added, “The former J6 Select Committee apparently withheld Mr. Ornato’s critical witness testimony from the American people because it contradicted their pre-determined narrative.”

The released interview highlights the White House’s frustration over the delayed assistance deployment. It contradicts the previous narrative presented by the Jan. 6 Select Committee that Trump incited the U.S. Capitol attack.

“Mr. Ornato’s testimony proves what Mr. [Mark] Meadows has said all along: President Trump did, in fact, offer 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol, which was turned down,” Loudermilk said.

Meadows “wanted to know if she [D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser] needed any more guardsmen,” Ornato testified. “And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, ‘The president wants to make sure that you have enough.’ You know, ‘He is willing to ask for 10,000.’ I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it. And that she was all set. She had, I think, it was like 350 or so for intersection control, and those types of things not in the law enforcement capacity at the time.”

The distinction between the Select Committee’s findings and Ornato’s testimony turns on the word “ordered” instead of “offered.” While the Select Committee said that Trump did not “order” 10,000 troops to be deployed, reported NBC News, according to Ornato’s testimony, he did “offer” them.

The Federalist uncovered further details, revealing that the Jan. 6 Committee had suppressed exonerating evidence regarding Trump’s push for National Guard deployment.

When the D.C. mayor declined Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops, Ornato said the White House still requested a “quick reaction force” out of the Defense Department if needed.

As events unfolded on Jan. 6, Ornato recounted the Trump administration’s urgent appeals for the force’s deployment from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller.

“So, then I remember the chief saying, ‘Hey, I’m calling the secretary of defense to get that [quick reaction force] in here,” Ornato testified. Later, he said, “And then I remember the chief telling Miller, ‘Get them in here, get them in here to secure the Capitol now.'”

The testimony contradicts claims made by Committee member Liz Cheney, the former Republican representative of Wyoming, who asserted there was “no evidence” supporting the White House’s desire for National Guard troops on Jan. 6.

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Elections Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others.

California’s Huntington Beach stays on MAGA path after divisive campaign.

California’s Huntington Beach stays on MAGA path after divisive campaign © Rick Loomis/For The Washington Post

California’s Huntington Beach stays on MAGA path after divisive campaign. I just love articles from the left when they’re crying.

The Washington Post Story by Reis Thebault

Southern California’s oceanside Republican stronghold continued its rightward march this week, as voters appeared likely to approve two controversial ballot measures that are sure to draw ire and, in one case, legal action from the state’s liberal leaders.

Huntington Beach, a city of about 200,000 south of Los Angeles, was poised to pass a pair of charter amendments that effectively ban Pride flags from flying on municipal property and require voter identification for local elections — despite warnings from California’s attorney general and secretary of state that such an ID law runs afoul of state law and would lead to a court battle.

As of Thursday, with most ballots counted, the initiatives led by wide margins, and their chief opponents had conceded.

A third measure, which was also backed by Huntington Beach’s far-right council majority, would have modified the city’s budget cycle and given its mayor the power to unilaterally cancel council meetings. That initiative appeared on track to fail as of late Thursday, showing that voters may have embraced the council’s culture-war priorities but were not as willing to go along with everything the elected officials suggested.

The run-up to Tuesday’s election roiled Huntington Beach, which has long cherished its reputation as a laid-back surf town, and deeply divided its residents. Even as demographics have driven much of surrounding Orange County to the left, Huntington Beach has retained its historically conservative bent, and registered Republicans still outnumber Democrats there.

 Huntington Beach voters pass ban on Pride, other flags (KTLA-TV Los Angeles)

View on WatchView on Watch

But the current council majority, elected in 2022, has pushed the city further right, with Tuesday’s ballot measures just the latest in a growing list of MAGA priorities that conservatives have championed.

And while the council’s majority did not appear to pull off a clean sweep, members say the results further validate their approach to local governance, which has included weighing in on polarizing subjects more often found in national political debates, including immigration policies and LGBTQ rights.

“The results show that our voters believe in the direction our city is headed — one of unity, patriotism and the restoration of election integrity,” Gracey Van Der Mark, Huntington Beach’s mayor and one of the council’s four conservatives, said in a statement. “As an elected representative, it is important to me that I advocate for the wants and needs of our community. The passing of these measures reassures me that I am on the right track.”

For opponents of the measures, who sought to convince their right-leaning hometown that its leadership had gone too far, the results were a bitter end to a discordant campaign that pitted neighbors against each other and had both sides harking back to a time when city politics wasn’t so acerbic.

Protect Huntington Beach, a community activist group that formed to protest the charter amendments, reported that dozens of its signs urging the public to vote “no” on the measures were vandalized with stickers and spray paint in the run-up to Election Day. In a statement, the group said its members were “deeply saddened at the outcome of the election.”

But the group, which is made up largely of retirees and includes several former city leaders, grew quickly in recent months. Organizers said they would look to build on their momentum ahead of the November contest, when the council’s three Democratic members are up for reelection and are facing a slate of Republicans looking to consolidate control of the body.

“Protect HB is not going anywhere,” the group’s statement said. “Our job is not done. We feel it has only just begun.”