Lessons from the Left Coast Primaries

On the minds of Left Coast voters are some major concerns, which happened to be revealed in California’s recent primary elections.

It’s been said, “As California goes, so goes the nation,” so it may be that California’s primaries are also a foreshadowing of things to come in November’s general midterm elections.

Democratic Party turnout in the Golden State was dismal this time around. It may be an indication that liberal and even moderate Dems are experiencing a lack of enthusiasm.

At the same time, the primary election results showed that Republicans and Independents are deeply concerned over rising crime rates, exorbitant gas prices, and soaring food and housing costs.

Two of the Left Coast’s largest cities let their electoral voices be heard loud and clear.

In San Francisco, a far-left prosecutor was actually recalled. The electoral earthquake occurred when voters overwhelmingly chose to terminate District Attorney Chesa Boudin’s job right in the middle of his first term.

Boudin, a public defender-turned-district attorney was fired via a recall election, primarily for his policies of non-prosecution of criminal activity, lenient sentencing of criminals, and abolishment of cash bail, all of which resulted in a horrific spike in violent crime.

The ousting of Boudin should serve as a warning signal for politicians and government officials, apart from political affiliations. Those who promote, pursue, and implement policies that de-fund law enforcement agencies, reduce sentences of convicted felons, release back into society those who have not yet completed their prison time, eliminate cash bail, and abuse prosecutorial discretion may be in for a day of reckoning.

Boudin’s removal may also be a predictor for another elected official, one in Los Angeles County. A campaign is underway to recall District Attorney George Gascón, who appears to be cut from the same left-leaning political cloth as the aforementioned San Francisco prosecutor.

Before Gascón set his sights on destroying the criminal justice system in Los Angeles, he was Boudin’s predecessor as the district attorney of San Francisco.

The primary elections in Los Angeles were illuminating, particularly when it came to the mayoral race. Real estate developer Rick Caruso, a former Republican, came in first, with Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass finishing second. The two are set to face one another in November, and right now Caruso appears to have an edge in the upcoming race.

Caruso left the Republican Party in 2019 and registered as a Democrat in 2022. He ran a campaign that emphasized a tough on crime position and a determination to address the homeless crisis.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who survived a recall vote in 2021, was able to avoid any serious competition in the recent primary election, partially due to the unusual manner in which the state currently conducts its primaries. This November, Newsom will face the second-place primary election finisher, GOP state lawmaker Brian Dahle.

A whole lot of voters who participated in the Golden State’s primary were understandably confused by the ballot. What they saw, in addition to the incumbent Newsom’s name, was a dizzying array of 27 gubernatorial candidates, 14 of which were labeled as Republicans. Those who, prior to casting their votes, researched the candidates’ qualifications and positions on issues had quite a difficult and time-consuming challenge.

It wasn’t always like this. Years ago, via a ballot initiative, voters eliminated conventional closed primaries and replaced them with a so-called blanket primary system. Consequently, all candidates appeared on the same ballot in the form of a list. The top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election.

The Supreme Court actually struck down this system, saying that it violated a political party’s First Amendment right of association. However, with a push from then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California voters passed a new electoral initiative for something called the “top-two” open primary system.

In this system, all candidates on the list from all political parties, along with non-affiliated candidates, appear on the same ballot, with the top two finishers, regardless of party, advancing to the November general election.

This system and other types of open primaries frequently have unintended consequences that seriously undermine the main purpose of primary elections – to afford political parties the opportunity to pick their own candidates.

The conventional closed primary limits participation strictly to those who are designated party members. This concept relates to the previously mentioned right of free association contained in the Constitution.

Open primary laws violate the freedom of association of a political party, because they force a party to allow outsiders to select its candidates, a patently unfair and non-representative construct. Such primaries enable members of opposing political parties to subvert the nominating process.

Additionally, the California top-two primary system and similar designs oftentimes create circumstances that are disturbingly disenfranchising to voters.

In 2016, listed on the primary ballot in a run for U.S. Senate were 34 candidates. The top two finishers ended up being members of the same Democratic Party.

The top two vote-getters happened to be Loretta Sanchez and the now-Vice President Kamala Harris. Both emerged from the Senate primary as the lone candidates listed on the general election ballot. Their political parties, ideological positions, and policy proposals were, for the most part, identical.

This left voters with no real choice. However, Harris had the party backing, and she ended up winning the senate seat in a low turnout election.

The top-two primary system hasn’t delivered the increase in voter turnout that its proponents promised either. Since 2012, when the top-two rules took effect, turnout in primaries has averaged just 37.6% of registered voters.

In the recent primary, only 16% of the roughly 22 million mail-in ballots sent to voters were cast, and based on the count thus far experts believe the final turnout will be a record low.

Conversely, in a conventional closed primary system the top vote-getter from each partymoves on to the general election, thereby giving voters a bona fide choice.

This is what a functioning republic looks like.

Maybe it’s time for another visit to the Supreme Court.

A Convenient Scapegoat for the Surging Crime Rate

The recent spate of mass shootings is serving an unseemly purpose for those who wish to strip each individual within our nation of a fundamental constitutionally secured right – the right to defend life itself.

Those with this ill-intent are attempting to shift public attention away from the crime wave that has been plaguing cities and towns across our land.

Look over here at this inanimate weapon is the current rallying cry being used to turn heads in another direction, understanding that the minds contained within, particularly those under duress, will frequently follow.

Due to the exponential rise of violent crime, especially in so-called progressive-leaning cities, the fast-approaching midterm elections seem to be creating a high degree of discomfort in a sizable segment of the current ruling class.

With voters increasingly concerned about their personal safety and that of their families, political elites and their media allies are seeking to change the subject in hopes of saving their electoral skins.

The same people who embraced the de-funding of our police officers and have been serving as cheerleaders for the George Soros-funded assault on the criminal justice system are now using the wretched results of their destructive policies to propose even more devastating “solutions.”

Those inclined to exploit the tragic occurrences of mass shootings are simultaneously seizing a concurrent opportunity to duck responsibility for the massive rise in crime.

How are they accomplishing such a feat? By conditioning the public to jump onboard the “gun reform” bandwagon, which at its core is just more gun-grabbing by the government.

Those who live in urban areas of the country have already experienced the lack of law enforcement presence and decline of justice in the form of criminal prosecution.

Images of lawlessness resulting in the dreadful loss of life, limb, and property have left scars on many a mind and body as a result of an Orwellian “re-imagining” of law enforcement by far-left radicals, a previously fringe portion of the population that somehow managed to consolidate power in the past few years.

Adding to the insidious mix are the numerous jurisdictions across the country that are now saddled with partisan prosecutors who refuse to pursue cases involving egregious crimes.

Then there are the district attorneys across the nation who secured their offices via the political and financial support of Soros, the one-sided left-wing donor who altered the criminal justice landscape in heretofore unimaginable ways.

Currently, there are about two dozen local prosecutors who are running for re-election. They were initially placed into office via financing from Soros-connected entities.

Policies that these seemingly sham prosecutors have employed include the crime-inducing practices of extinguishing cash bail, de-criminalizing violations, reducing sentences, and frequently abusing prosecutorial discretion, all of which have resulted in dangerous criminals winding up back on the streets. Such policies directly correlate with the spike in crime rates experienced across our great land.

Elites of all economic and political persuasions are not immune to the devastating fallout.

For instance, in Los Angeles, California, a category of misdeeds has emerged that specifically targets wealthy individuals. Law enforcement has given the label of “follow-home” robberies to the crimes. Perpetrators seek out finely attired folks at upscale restaurants, hotels, and various other exclusive venues, people who happen to be wearing pricier jewelry and driving more luxurious vehicles.

In a malevolent calculated ambush, carloads of multiple armed suspects pursue victims to their homes and proceed to engage in brutal attacks. Social media users have posted descriptions, photos, videos, and the like, providing graphic examples of these and other cold-blooded criminal activities.

Back to the effort on the part of those who are practiced at the art of deception, i.e., those who in this case are trying to frame the crime rise problem as a public safety issue in need of gun regulation attention.

The right to defend oneself through means of gun ownership is an inherent natural right – popularly, historically, and religiously designated as a God-given right.

God-given rights are a substantive building block of America’s foundation. The Declaration of Independence unequivocally states the following:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These words are based on a belief that every individual is under a protective umbrella of “natural law,” which supersedes any conceptual legal design of human origin.

Another way of saying this?

The State is not allowed to mess around in these sacrosanct areas.

WHO’s In Charge?

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently requested that governments from around the globe send in their input on what should be included in a new international agreement, which is currently being drafted.

The new document is being referred to as “the pandemic treaty.” By obtaining political commitments from potential signer-nations, the WHO is evidently seeking to bolster support for the latest addition to an already sizable body of existing global law.

Concerns are being raised by organizations and informed citizens about the sovereignty of established nations, as well as the public health care systems located within their purviews.

In a simultaneous unfolding of events, another international agreement is undergoing a substantial revision. It’s called the International Health Regulations (IHR), and it has been around for more than five decades. However, the United States didn’t sign on to it until 2005.

The purported role of the IHR is to provide public health guidance to the governments of nations throughout the world.

This past January the Biden administration submitted new amendments to the IHR, which will likely be subsumed within the proposed pandemic treaty. This would result in a global governance apparatus that would be tailor-made for the WHO.

Back in December 2021something called an “intergovernmental negotiating body” was established, the purpose of which was to draft and negotiate the pandemic treaty that is currently being designed.

The WHO’s primary funder is Bill Gates. Gates is reportedly forming a pandemic response team made up of thousands of disease experts who would work with the WHO.

The United States had withdrawn from the WHO under the Trump administration, due to the organization’s failed leadership and loss of trust in parts of the world, especially with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Biden administration rejoined the WHO and is now looking to strengthen the organization’s ability to direct health-related decisions internationally.

Despite the fact that the final text of the treaty has not yet been completed, documents from groups that are working on the international agreement indicate a significant expansion of the term “pandemic.” The WHO had already transformed the word’s definition to an “epidemic of a disease” that affects the world population, without requirements of high morbidity.

The treaty’s drafters are seeking to broaden the categorization of what would constitute a “pandemic.” If they succeed, it would allow the WHO to classify just about any potential malady as a “pandemic,” in effect granting the organization the power to direct the administration of health care responses worldwide.

Proposed amendments from the United States to the IHR would allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency of international concern, without having to obtain agreement from the government of an affected country.

Former WHO legal consultant Silvia Behrendt, along with University College Dublin law lecturer Amrei Müller, criticized the Biden administration’s proposals.

“The proposed US amendments to Article 12 IHR will both considerably extend the executive powers of the WHO Director-General to declare global emergency-like situations and centralize this power further by removing the need to consult and find agreement with the respective state party,” the authors wrote.

The World Health Assembly (WHA) is meeting to vote on the IHR amendments, with the apparent hopes of making them an established part of international law.

The authors of the above referenced article call upon the members of the WHA to carefully consider the implications of the U.S.’s proposed amendments before endorsing and adopting them.

The following rhetorical question was posed by Behrendt and Müller:

“Have technocratic, biomedical approaches, developed and implemented from the top down primarily through executive action, worked well in response to Covid-19, justifying a further extension and centralization of global emergency powers at WHO?”

The authors also asked whether mechanisms need to be set up to ensure that the WHO complies with its “responsibilities for human rights that derive from international human rights law.”

The ultimate goal of the WHO and WHA appears to be a desire to make the proposed pandemic treaty enforceable in the United States and throughout the entire planet.

The Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, spells out the process by which a treaty becomes domestic law. The primary negotiator of agreements between the United States and other nations is the president. The agreements become binding federal laws after they have been ratified by a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate.

Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2, grants to ratified treaties the status of being the equivalent of duly passed statutes, i.e., the “supreme law of the land.”

The most compelling issue for the American people right now can be summed up in two questions:

Do you want an alphabet of international agencies controlling your personal health care destiny? Or do you want to control your own?

Better look both ways before crossing this street.

The Targeting of Supreme Court Justices

The United States Supreme Court has just suffered an unprecedented attack on its fundamental integrity. A draft opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito and relating to the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health case, has been made public.

An investigation is currently underway to try and determine the individual or individuals who are responsible for the leaking of the document, which was intended to be held in confidentiality, as it historically has always been, until an official ruling has been reached.

What has taken place is so egregious that words seem to be an inadequate means of conveying the gravity involved. The breach of the High Court’s deliberations is unparalleled. So, too, will likely be the ramifications of the leak as well as the aftermath of violent protests that are being fomented.

The High Court’s ultimate ruling in the case, which is still presently unknown, is expected to be finalized shortly and will likely be released at the end of the Court’s term.

The past few days have seen even more vitriolic speech and vile behavior piled on top of the dung heap. A group called Ruth Sent Us published six Supreme Court justices’ home addresses, accompanied by a map that outlined the locations of personal residences.

The group scheduled protests in the form of a “walk-by” outside homes of Justices Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Protestors have already staged demonstrations in front of the homes of Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh.

Ruth Sent Us is named for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who actually took the position that Roe vs. Wade was ill-reasoned law.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki initially failed to condemn the targeting of Supreme Court justices and their families and homes. When asked specifically for the White House’s reaction to the release of justices’ addresses for the purposes of supposed protest events, Psaki failed to denounce the tactic and went as far as making statements to minimize the ploy.

When the press secretary finally made reference to the Oval Office, she said, “I think the president’s view is there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across the country about what they saw in that document.”

The fact of the matter is interference with the administration of justice in the manner in which it has recently been occurring is illegal.

Federal statute 18 U.S.C. 1507 states that whoever has the intent of “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice,” or “influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer” and “pickets or parades…in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer,” may be fined and/or may receive a prison sentence of up to one year.

Pro-abortion protests have already gotten violent. Protestors in front of the federal courthouse in Los Angeles, California recently clashed with the police, and at least one officer was injured.

A fire at a pro-life organization’s office in Madison, Wisconsin, is being investigated as an arson case. Found inside the building was an un-ignited Molotov cocktail.

For people of the Roman Catholic Christian faith, things have become more deeply disturbing. Ruth Sent Us has called for the desecration of the most sacred doctrine and personhood of the Catholic Church itself – the physical presence of Jesus Christ in the form of the transubstantiated Eucharist.

Over the weekend protestors descended upon the iconic Basilica of St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral in New York City. As reported by Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review, pro-abortion activists proceeded to block the front doors of the church, where Catholic believers had gathered together to celebrate Mass.

As they have for the past fourteen years, some of the attendees at the conclusion of the Mass make their way toward a Planned Parenthood clinic, where they engage in a separate sacred practice involving prayers recited with the use of Rosary sacramentals. On this day, however, police officers advised against the visit to the clinic for their own safety and protection. Despite the warning, a number of the devoted pro-lifers managed to keep the vigil.

Parishioners at Boulder, Colorado’s Sacred Heart of Mary Church arrived at morning Mass only to find that the church windows had been smashed, and the front entry doors had been spray-painted with the words “MY BODY, MY CHOICE.”

Ruth Sent Us states on its website that it is targeting “six extremist Catholics” who voted against Roe vs. Wade.

The organization spurred on disruptions of Catholic Church services with a posting of a video that depicts its own group members interfering with a Catholic Mass, while dressed in costumes worn on a fictional streaming series.

What the group is calling for is, in fact, criminal behavior.

Federal law, 18 U.S. Code § 247 states that anyone who “intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force…any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs” at a place devoted to religious worship, has committed a federal crime.

CatholicVote, a Catholic advocacy group, issued a statement demanding that elected Catholic leaders publicly condemn the group’s supposed protest methods and has asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to enforce the law and protect churches from threats.

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote, called the group’s plans “religious bigotry of the worst kind.”

In what many are saying is too little, too late, following the past turbulent weekend Psaki released a statement via Twitter that read as follows:

“@POTUS strongly believes in the Constitutional right to protest. But that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism. Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.”

The administration has yet to explicitly and directly address the attempts to influence the deliberative process, the doxxing of Supreme Court Justices, the targeting of houses of worship, the interference with the free exercise of religion, and the efforts to intimidate those with opposing viewpoints through the use of fear tactics.

All are an egregious affront to the Constitution.

And one more affirmation that liberty itself is in freefall.

Elon Musk Takes On Senator Warren

High-tech prodigy, recurring start-up success, and business visionary, that’s Elon Musk.

Time Magazine just crowned him 2021’s “Person of the Year.” One more accolade added to a list that appears to have no end.

Elon took an interest in computers at the age of ten. By the time two years had passed, he was self-schooled in computer language.

In a micro-foreshadowing of things to come, the code for a video game that he had created fetched five-hundred bucks.

Like other kids whose IQs are seemingly in the stratosphere, peer equals tend to be in short supply, which sometimes leads to major misunderstandings. This was the case for Elon.

An undeserved share of childhood time was spent warding off attacks by bullies. On one occasion, he had to be hospitalized after being thrown down a flight of stairs. It happens way too often. Guess it’s just the perpetual price that has to be paid for being different.

In 1995, Elon co-founded a web software company called Zip2, which in 1999 was sold to Compaq for over $300 million.

He racked up another fortune in 2002, when PayPal was sold to eBay. During the same year, he founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, where he now serves as CEO and CTO.

The year 2004 would turn out to be a big one. Elon joined a company that would eventually become electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla, Inc. He rose to CEO in 2008. The value of Tesla soared, as did Elon’s share. This would propel him past his billionaire rivals right to the top of the world’s richest list.

It’s no stretch to say that the media have had it out for him for a while now. One blaring example is an incident that occurred in 2018, when he appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast. He sampled a single puff from a cigar that Rogan described as consisting of tobacco laced with cannabis.

Many in the media conflated the whole thing into a story that questioned Elon’s stability as a business executive. The negative coverage caused Tesla shares to drop in value, which in turn created a crisis in confidence. No problem for the tech mogul, though.

He explained to CBS’s “60 Minutes,” “I do not smoke pot. As anybody who watched that podcast could tell, I have no idea how to smoke pot.”

Elon has been an adept Twitter user since 2009. His followers clock in at almost 68 million people.

It’s an understatement to say that he has mastered the medium. Over the years he used it to communicate business and tech ideas. But he has also jousted with debaters as well as detractors, one of the most recent being Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

After Time named him “Person of the Year,” Sen. Warren launched a social media attack. She kicked off the virtual war with the following tweet: “Let’s change the rigged tax code so The Person of the Year will actually pay taxes and stop freeloading off everyone else.”

She also took out Facebook ads that accused him of being a “freeloading billionaire.” Evidently seeking to impose a wealth tax on him, the ads asked for people who agreed with her to chip in $10.

Elon was not about to take all of it lying down. He responded with his own tweet.

“You remind me of when I was a kid and my friend’s angry Mom would just randomly yell at everyone for no reason,” he posted, adding, “Please don’t call the manager on me, Senator Karen.”

He noted the following in a separate tweet: “If you opened your eyes for 2 seconds, you would realize I will pay more taxes than any American in history this year.”

In an interview with the Babylon Bee website, he elaborated. “She struck first, obviously. She called me a freeloader and a grifter who doesn’t pay taxes, basically,” he noted.

“I’m literally paying the most tax than any individual in history has ever paid this year, ever, and she doesn’t pay taxes, basically. And her salary is paid for by the taxpayer like me. If you could die by irony, she would be dead,” he said.

Elon is reportedly set to pay an unprecedented tax bill of $11 billion, due to the sale of some Tesla stock. He has been critical of a tax on unrealized gains, which has been advocated by Sen. Warren and other Democrats.

He had previously commented on his Twitter account, “Eventually, they run out of other people’s money and then they come for you.”

Interestingly, he does not receive a salary from Tesla, having agreed to a compensation plan that ties his personal earnings to Tesla’s valuation and revenue.

As a matter of fact, he has repeatedly described himself as “cash poor” and has “professed to have little interest in the material trappings of wealth.”

On a celebrity note, he has become an integral part of the global pop culture, having appeared in films such as “Iron Man 2,” “Men in Black: International,” and “Why Him?”

He has also been featured on television shows that include “The Simpsons,” “The Big Bang Theory,” “South Park,” and “Saturday Night Live,” where he served as host of the show.

In China, he has become a “trademark phenomenon,” according to the South China Morning Post, which reports that over 270 different companies have registered trademarks using his name.

Pretty good for a kid who taught himself how to speak computerese and then clicked his way to the top of the world.

Tim Tebow, The Christian Comeback Kid

Tim Tebow is heading back to his primary sport, returning once again to the days of being a professional player in the NFL, after a stint on another field.

Back in the day when his NFL career appeared to be over, rather than leave professional sports behind, the versatile Tebow turned to the game of baseball. In 2016 he signed a minor league contract with the New York Mets, handling the positions of left field and designated hitter until retiring in February of 2021.

Now the Jacksonville Jaguars have signed the former Heisman Trophy winner to a one-year contract, with the understanding that he will switch positions from quarterback to tight end. The same day the Jaguars made the announcement, Tebow was spotted on the practice field wearing a No. 85 Jacksonville jersey, a truly unexpected sight for a whole lot of folks.

The sports star had plenty of detractors in the past, and unfortunately the menacing trend continues to this day. As a bona fide celebrity phenom, his solid beliefs on religious, cultural, and moral issues have resulted in him becoming a target for those with opposing viewpoints.

Acknowledged for being outspoken regarding his Christian faith, Tebow has publicly expressed strong pro-life convictions and has also openly advocated for faith-based abstinence.

He has been fearless in stating that he has lived his life in a way that is almost unheard of in today’s celebrity vortex, exercising restraint and maintaining self-control when it comes to the ways of the world.

It turns out he became very well known for engaging in a unique prayer practice, which routinely takes place right out on the playing field. Kneeling on one knee, he bows his head and rests his arm on one bent leg. The form of prayer expression ultimately reached fame status as “Tebowing” and was even included as a feature in a Madden NFL video game.

In terms of prior regular NFL seasons, Tebow spent his first two with the Denver Broncos and additionally made two starts for the New York Jets. He primarily played one position, that being quarterback, during his entire professional football career.

As Tebow’s detractors like to point out, he hasn’t played a down of professional football since the 2015 pre-season with the Philadelphia Eagles.

In relation to his current newfound position, he already has a relationship with Jacksonville head coach Urban Meyer, who was his coach at the University of Florida, where he was the first college sophomore ever to win the Heisman.

Friends of Tebow say that he is enthusiastic about attempting to make it back on the field in a new position at the highest level of play for any football player. He said in a statement via a team release, “I want to thank the Jaguars for the opportunity to compete and earn the chance to be part of this team. I know it will be a challenge, but it is a challenge I embrace.”

So how can a guy who has not played in a regular season NFL game since 2012, had only one snap as a receiver, and is about to turn a relatively mature 34, still have the confidence to embrace the challenge in an NFL comeback as a tight end?

The answer is in Tebow’s heart. He appears to have a type of celestial advantage when it comes to his athletic pursuits, which is most likely attributed to his ironclad faith-based attitude and irrepressible work ethic.

Fans in Denver remember that back in 2011, when he became the Bronco’s full-time starting quarterback, an amazing metamorphosis of the team seemed to miraculously take place. Tebow was able to transform a 1-4 Broncos team into a genuine contender, with seven wins in eight starts.

Sports journalists were awed by the then-quarterback’s unexpected late-game turnarounds, where the Tebow-led team often came from behind late in the fourth quarter. The Broncos, with Tebow as the QB starter, won their first playoff game in years and managed to snag the AFC West title as well.

Tebow has always had a knack for leadership, inspiring his teammates to work together to achieve. He also consistently remembers at post game interviews to thank his “Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” never seeming to flinch as the harsh backlash inevitably follows.

He continues to be a voice of encouragement for people of faith everywhere. One sterling example is a sort of mini-sermon that Tebow delivered in April of 2020, in which he used his Instagram account to touch upon the subject of player trades and compare the practice to what he referred to as “the greatest trade in the history of the world.”

What is the trade? The old you for the new.

And why does he consider the trade to be the ultimate one? He says it in a way that only a Christian who is running the race can.

Tebow muses aloud, “Why is this the greatest trade? You need to understand this, so you can understand the old versus the new. Do you know what the old is? Sin, dead, darkness, bondage, separation, lost, baggage. Do you know what the new is? Righteousness, alive, light, freedom, united in Christ, found, child of God, purpose, son, daughter, home in heaven, paid for. That’s what the new is.”

A trade worthy of anyone’s consideration.

Nineteen States Take the EPA to the Supreme Court

A recent appeals court ruling granted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to control energy consumption across the country.

As a result, nineteen states are now attempting to limit the EPA’s authority via court action.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is representing his own state as well as leading a group of attorneys general from the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, and the governor of Mississippi has also signed on.

The 19-state coalition is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse an appeals court ruling that gave the EPA the unprecedented authority.

Morrisey contends that if the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit were left in place, the EPA would have “virtually unlimited authority to regulate wide swaths of everyday life with rules that would devastate coal mining, increase energy costs and eliminate countless jobs.” (https://wvrecord.com/stories/593830432-morrisey-leads-19-state-petition-urging-supreme-court-to-limit-epa-authority)

More specifically, the documents filed by the coalition of states assert that the lower court misinterpreted Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, granting to the EPA the ability to exercise overly broad powers to radically transform the nation’s energy grid and force states to fundamentally alter their energy sources.

The transformation would be accomplished without any legislative input from Congress, allowing the federal agency to alter virtually any and all sectors of the economy, including factories, power plants, small businesses, and residential housing, with coal mining and natural gas production being placed in jeopardy.

The coalition argues that if the High Court were to delay a review, this would likely lead to even more significant and irreparable damage while simultaneously forcing states to invest time and resources into uncertain enterprises.

Back in 2015, Morrisey had filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over a policy that sought to severely cut carbon emissions, alleging that the implementation of such a policy exceeded the EPA’s mandate.

Morrisey’s legal actions resulted in the Supreme Court issuing a stay, which prevented the policy from being rolled out. However, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the ruling, thus opening the door for the incoming administration to implement even wider-reaching carbon reduction policies.

The petition of Morrisey and the other attorneys general alleges that the appeals court ignored the rationale for the Supreme Court stay.

The new petition comes as the current administration has announced the most excessive climate initiatives in history, with an intended goal of cutting U.S. carbon emissions in half by the year 2030 and ultimately reaching zero carbon emissions by 2035.

Morrisey spoke against the White House target goals, arguing that the change would have a negative economic impact that would be detrimental to our nation’s international energy standing and calling the emissions cut “a self-inflicted wound to our economy and our national security.” (https://ago.wv.gov/Documents/Statement%20of%20West%20Virginia%20Patrick%20Morrisey%20on%20President%20Biden’s%20Climate%20Plan.pdf)

Critics of the administration’s aggressive carbon reduction plans point out that China and other major polluters will continue to increase their emissions, which will presumably undercut any carbon reductions by the U.S., while at the same time increasing electricity and energy costs for all Americans.

Critics also voice concerns for the segments of our country that rely on fossil fuels and related industries, asserting that these areas would be disproportionately affected by such severe reductions.

If West Virginia’s top law enforcement official and the attorneys general from the coalition of states are successful in convincing the Supreme Court to accept the case, our nation’s people will witness the biggest legal battle involving climate change policy that has occurred in over a decade.

This is the kind of court proceeding that will potentially expose the judicial philosophy of each of the justices on the Supreme Court.

It will also likely define the judicial branch itself and, in the end, determine whether our nation takes the road not traveled.