MONTERREY, Nuevo Leon – Mexican federal authorities raided a large warehouse outfitted by cartel members to allegedly manufacture industrial quantities of fentanyl in closer proximity to Texas.
The raid was announced on Sunday afternoon by Mexico’s Attorney General’s Office (FGR). The operation was coordinated with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Following an investigation, federal authorities obtained a search warrant from a judge in Nuevo Leon and raided a warehouse in the Ciudad Mitras Industrial Park and a home in the Pedregal La Silla neighborhood.
During the warehouse raid, authorities found a full-scale production laboratory and series of notebooks with formulas allegedly describing the manufacture of fentanyl. Police arrested a chemist identified as Guadalupe “A” on drug production charges.
The fentanyl laboratory is the first of its kind in Nuevo Leon. Authorities have not revealed which criminal organization they believe is linked to the plant.
Editor’s Note: Breitbart News traveled to the Mexican States of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and Nuevo León to recruit citizen journalists willing to risk their lives and expose the cartels silencing their communities. The writers would face certain death at the hands of the various cartels that operate in those areas including the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas if a pseudonym were not used. Breitbart Texas’ Cartel Chronicles are published in both English and in their original Spanish. This article was written by Tony Aranda from Nuevo Leon.
A pro-Trump political group is eyeing a big investment in four 2020 battleground states.
The Committee to Defend the President told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview it would invest $1 million each in Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, and North Carolina ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Its efforts will be primarily focused on mobilizing and registering one million new voters from those jurisdictions.
Ted Harvey, the group’s chairman, told Breitbart News it was “crucial” for President Donald Trump to be reelected so he could continue to move the country forward for all Americans.
“You look at what the president has done without even having Congress on his side,” Harvey said. “He has has some significant successes, if he didn’t have the Mueller investigation over his head as a distraction I think he would have far greater successes.”
Now that Mueller investigation was over, Harvey expressed the political battle was just starting.
“Some of these states no one thought we were going to win in 2016, but we did,” Harvey said. “If we can continue to hold them it sends a strong message to the rest of the country.”
He said that Trump is reelected and Republicans take control of Congress it would make it more difficult for Democrats to continue obstructing the president’s agenda and push for impeachment. Such a result, however, won’t come easy.
“It’s going to take a concerted effort to mobilize Trump supporters and that’s what we’re trying to do,” he added.
The Committee to Defend the President, formerly known as Stop Hillary PAC, spent more than $6 million during the 2016 presidential election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Most of the money went to targeted advertising to highlight former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s handling of the Benghazi attacks.
Now the group has turned its attention to defending Trump from what it sees as an organized attempt by the left to derail his presidency.
“When we saw Democrats throwing a national temper tantrum after the election—literally the very next day having organized uprisings all across the country to discredit the election and the incoming administration—we’ve decided to dedicate ourselves 100 percent to defending the president and his agenda from the left-wing media and Democrats.”
The group’s efforts have been multifaceted since Trump took office. It’s touted the president’s achievements during his first 100 days in office, run ads pressuring senators to back judicial nominations, and vigorously countered Democrat’s calls for impeachment.
In 2018, the committee heavily intervened in congressional races to ensure the president’s allies were elected. One of the most successful efforts took place in Tennessee, where the committee invested $1 million to see Marsha Blackburn elected to the U.S. Senate.
Instead of just blanketing the state with advertising like some other groups, the committee invested time and resources in expanding Tennessee’s midterm electorate.
“We spent over a million dollars going after identified Trump supporters who voted for the president in 2016, but typically do not vote in off-year elections,” Harvey said. “Through our sophisticated social media an tracking system, we were able to identify 350,000 such voters.”
Once they were identified, the committee worked ensure these voters showed up on election day. Starting in February 2018, the group spent more $680,000 on television and social media ads targeted specifically targeting such voters. Knowing that ads weren’t enough, the committee spent more than $160,000 on grassroots outreach—knocking on more than 70,000 doors across the state. Money was also spent on get the out vote and direct mail, among other initiatives.
It is impossible to tell the extent of the committee’s impact in Tennessee, but the results seem to indicate some measure of success. Turnout was significantly higher than during the state’s last Senate race in 2014. Blackburn defeated Phil Bredesen, a popular former Democrat governor, by more than 242,000 votes. Although the victory was not totally surprising given Tennessee’s shift toward Republicans, Blackburn won even after being outspent by nearly three million dollars.
Harvey said his group will build off the tactics formed in Tennessee when registering and mobilizing voters in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florid ahead of the presidential election. This time, though, the individuals being targeted will be different.
“We’re going after people that have been disenfranchised in the political process for one reason or another,” Harvey said. “Whether they are veterans that have come back from their service and have yet to register to vote or just don’t think they’re vote matters anymore.”
The committee plans to “identify a million people” that “believe in securing our border, believe in the Second Amendment, are pro-life, and pro-military.” Harvey said these will not necessarily be individuals conventionally drawn to politics, but rather those who feel left behind by the status quo.
“I think there is a huge groundswell of people that have been disenfranchised by the political process of the last few decades,” he said. “They don’t think their vote counts because most Republican and Democrat presidents have ignored them and their problems.”
Despite the years of neglect, Harvey expressed Trump’s standing as an outsider and his willingness to push partisan orthodoxy has created an opening among such voters.
“I think because Trump has been pursuing policies that are actually benefiting them and their families, we can get these people registered and involved” he said.
The committee believes states in the rust belt, like Michigan and Pennsylvania, are especially fertile territory.
“Pennsylvania was essentially the forgotten America that Trump campaigned about in 2016,” Harvey said. “The state was significantly impacted by trade agreements, whether it was NAFTA or the trade arrangements with China, Pennsylvania was losing manufacturing jobs and other industries heavily.”
“If you look what has occurred since Trump took office and started implementing his policies,” Harvey said, citing the president tax cuts and tariffs on steel. “Pennsylvania has had more than 5,000 new manufacturing jobs come back, they have had 120,000 overall jobs come back.”
“So we should be able to tell that story in Pennsylvania and other states across the country,” Harvey said. “There is a powerful message here to reach Americans that feel disenfranchised.”
The committee’s focus is also strategic. Trump only carried the two states marginally—Pennsylvania by less than 45,000 votes and Michigan by less than 11,000 votes—in 2016. Victories there, along with North Carolina, Florida and Wisconsin, made Trump’s electoral college victory possible, despite a three million popular vote deficit.
Harvey expressed the political realities presented by 2020 and helping Americans who feel left behind are connected.
“If we don’t hold the White House and take back the U.S. House of Representatives, we’re never going to be able to secure the border or stop the stream of drug and human traffickers coming across,” he said. “If Trump is not president and Republicans don’t control congress, than many of the issues important to those that feel disenfranchised can’t be addressed.”
Harvey citied the Trump’s stance on trade with China as proof.
“This president is the only one in the last 30-t0-40 years to take China seriously, not only as threat to our economy, but also as a threat to stability around the world,” he said. “This president is finally pointing out the ways China is breaking the rules, he’s holding them to task by changing these trade agreement to ensure they’re enforceable and fair.”
“That’s good for America,” Harvey added. “That’s good for American workers and it will be good for consumers as well.”
During an appearance on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox News Channel, senior White House trade adviser Peter Navarro praised the tariffs used by President Donald Trump.
According to Navarro, the tariffs achieved more in two days on immigration than Congress was able to accomplish in 20 years.
“Polls show that about 80 percent of Americans believe there’s a crisis at the border. If you ask Americans in a poll, what do you think about 100,000 illegal aliens moving every day on a conveyor belt from Guatemala up to San Diego and El Paso, I’d say about 90% of them would object to that. And the tariffs that President Trump used, he got in two days more than Congress did in 20 years on this. We have got troops down at the southern border that Mexico has deployed. We have got Mexico committing to take the phony asylum seekers onto Mexican soil, which will deter further immigration from the Northern Triangle down at the southern border with Mexico. And we have a very strong commitment to break up that conveyor belt, which is this Rube Goldberg machine of narco-traffickers and human traffickers making billions of dollars off these poor immigrants coming up, and off the American people who have to take their drugs, and the illegal immigrants, which hurt us in terms of jobs.
The government of Hong Kong issued a statement Sunday apologizing to its people for triggering widespread protests with a proposed extradition bill many fear could result in the mass incarceration of pro-democracy Hong Kongers to communist China. The apology appeared to do little to quell calls for chief executive Carrie Lam to resign.
“The chief executive admits that large-scale confrontation and conflict took place in Hong Kong society due to the inadequacy of the government’s work, causing many residents to be disappointed and saddened,” the government said in a statement, according to the Hong Kong Free Press (HKFP), adding:
Having regard to the strong and different views in society, the government has suspended the legislative amendment exercise at the full Legislative Council with a view to restoring calmness in society as soon as possible and avoiding any injuries to any person. The government reiterated that there is no timetable for restarting the process.
“The chief executive apologises to the public, and promises that [she] will accept criticism in the most sincere and humble way,” the government statement added. Lam herself made remarks on Saturday, urging Hong Kong to “give [her] another chance,” but she did not offer an apology as contrite as the one the government issued in the statement on her behalf.
The response to Lam’s call for the people to give her another chance Saturday was a protest the next day that attracted nearly two million people, almost double the number that came out to protest against her last week. The Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF), the group organizing the protests, put out the estimate on Monday, which the HKFP noted would amount to nearly 30 percent of the entire population of Hong Kong. The group explicitly rejected Lam’s apology in their statement.
“Facing such public rage, Carrie Lam simply makes apology through a press release, for ‘the inadequate work of the government’ but not for pushing to pass the bill or police’s crackdown on protesters,” the statement read. “She even stressed that she would continue to serve the citizens. This is a total insult to and fooling the people who took to the street! Hong Konger will not accept this!”
Protesters also rejected the move to merely table the bill, rather than eradicate it from the legislature permanently; demanded that the government apologize for repeatedly referring to the peaceful protests as “riots;” and demanded an apology for using rubber bullets, tear gas, and batons to attack protesters, then accusing the protesters of being violent.
While apologizing for the extradition bill, the government did not apologize for calling the protests “riots”; instead, an adviser to Lam denied that they had.
“I don’t want people to think that the chief executive and the government are saying the students are rioters … The government did not categorise the events on a particular date as a riot,” Lam Ching-choi, a member of the Executive Council, said following the apology statement.
Lam, personally, lost significant goodwill with her attitude against the protesters.
“(An) apology is not enough,” a teenaged protester identified as Victor Li told Reuters. On the other end of the age spectrum, an 80-year-old protester told the Morning Post, “Carrie Lam should really reflect on herself and apologise. She should also think about whether she has the capacity to be the city’s leader.”
Lee Wai-po said he had never been to a protest until last week.
As the South China Morning Post‘s Luisa Tam noted on Monday, Lam compared protesters to ungrateful and undisciplined children and described herself as the mother of Hong Kong.
“In a recent television interview, Lam said that if she gives in to every demand from her son, he would be spoiled, end up regretting getting everything he wanted, and he would blame her for not teaching him how to distinguish right from the wrong,” Tam relayed, an analogy that she noted outraged many protesters given its patronizing language and one that many mothers of protesters rejected. One group of mothers wrote in a petition to oppose the extradition bill, “We would definitely not use tear gas, potentially lethal rubber bullets and beanbag rounds on our children, and we would not remain unmoved on seeing young people covered with blood after being bashed by police batons.”
Lam appears to also have lost some support within her political faction. Speaking anonymously, a “pro-establishment lawmaker” told the South China Morning Post that he considered Lam’s response to the protests “not ideal” and that she “sounded too tough,” inspiring more protests rather than calming the political climate. “While she could not accept people’s calls for her to resign, she also suggested that the people were wrong,” the lawmaker said. “I don’t know what was she trying to tell Hong Kong people in her press conference.”
Another anonymous lawmaker said that even supporters of the extradition bill have soured on Lam because of her “attitude” and “that she feels she’s always right.”
Joining the chorus of disapproval Monday was former Secretary for transport and Housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung, who urged Lam in an interview to fully withdraw the extradition bill instead of merely tabling it.
“The crisis underscores the complete failure of our political system. The central government can no longer expect the problems in Hong Kong to be resolved by focusing on economic and livelihood issues, while avoiding political reform,” Cheung said, suggesting Lam owed the public an apology in person.
Hong Kongers have for years expressed fears that the Chinese communist government would violate their “one country, two systems” agreement that grants China sovereignty over Hong Kong but not political control to erode its capitalist freedoms. Thousands of Hong Kongers marched on New Year’s Day against growing Chinese influence in the city, as China revealed a plan to connect Hong Kong and Macau into one large “Bay Area” and more than 100,000 organized to honor those killed in the Tiananmen Square massacre early this month.
The extradition bill has alarmed many, as it would allow Hong Kong to extradite its citizens to China for violating Chinese law. The Communist Party routinely disregards many basic international human rights conventions and considers exercises of free speech and religion crimes. Protesters in Hong Kong expressed concerns that the government could extradite them for publicly criticizing communism or worshipping in private.
NRA social media manager William McLaughlin is a pro-gun, gay American expressing bewilderment over his observation the gay community does not see the value of gun rights.
McLaughlin attended a PRIDE parade in Washington DC, then used a Washington Post opinion piece to explain what he encountered.
He began by noting: “The District, where I live, is a liberal city. Gay people are embraced; guns are not. You don’t have to see how the District votes to know that. You can tell by the signs in people’s yards and the bumper stickers on their cars. The gay community is largely anti-gun, too.”
McLaughlin then focused on his PRIDE parade experience:
At the parade, these worlds collided. I found myself at an event where I should have felt at home but, instead, I felt hated. It wasn’t all in my head. People chanted an obscenity about the NRA as they marched down P Street NW.
I don’t understand why the LGBTQ community is so hostile toward the Second Amendment. I’d like to ask my fellow gays to take a moment and consider this issue through a different lens. I long for the day when the gay community will galvanize its significant political might and work toward making practical changes that would let gays better protect themselves when laws don’t.
He quoted hate crime statistics–particularly crimes toward members of the gay community–and asked:
If we in the gay community know we are frequent targets, why do we overwhelmingly oppose laws that protect our right to defend ourselves? Why do I find myself, at party after party, defending my decision to work for the NRA? Why does my wanting to own a firearm make some gay people I meet accuse me of being self-hating? Why is a community that prides itself on inclusion and tolerance so intolerant toward the Second Amendment, the NRA and those who believe in the right to self-defense?
In the wake of the June 12, 2016, Orlando Pulse shooting the Pink Pistols confronted issues similar to those McLaughlin is raising, and they, too, emphasized that the gay community should be pro-Second Amendment to the core.
Following the Pulse shooting, Pink Pistols speaker Gwendolyn Patton urged gay Americans to avoid the knee-jerk reaction of blaming the guns for attack. Patton said: “GUNS did not do this. A human being did this, a dead human being. Our job now is not to demonize the man’s tools, but to condemn his acts and work to prevent such acts in the future.”
On June 30, 2106, Breitbart News reported Patton stressing that the gay community needs to arm itself for self-defense.
The Washington Blade, quoted Patton saying, “We teach queers to shoot and we teach the world we did it.”
Patton added: “The idea is that if the general public becomes aware that there is a portion of the [LGBT] community that may be armed with a lawfully owned firearm and have the training and the skills necessary to use it effectively, this is a deterrent to make those that would attack us think twice.”
Hollywood actor Jim Carrey has been a big-screen celebrity for decades, releasing some of the best comedy in cinema history. But ever since President Donald Trump took office, it seems as if Carrey’s all but flushed his remarkable career down the drain trying to be the biggest liberal bully on the internet. On Friday, Carrey…
Del Rio used to be a quiet town of 40,000 residents bordering Mexico in central Texas. Even as the Rio Grande Valley to its southeast has seen constant waves of Central American migrants since 2014, Del Rio was untouched by the border crisis. Now, this part of Texas is one of the fastest-growing smuggling routes and is also the primary route of African migrants coming from countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Our federal government is so concerned about the desires of bogus asylum-seekers, and now even masses of illegal aliens who aren’t even seeking asylum, that they are failing to take into account the needs of local American communities. It’s not just right-wing cowboys upset about it. Liberal Democrat border town officials have had enough as well and are demanding federal action.
On June 8, Del Rio Mayor Bruno Lozano laced into staffers of Sen. John Cornyn at special meeting of local officials for not touring the city and taking a more proactive role in protecting border towns from the effects of illegal immigration.
Mayor Lozano of Del Rio addresses represenitives of U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and U.S. Rep. Will Hurd at a joint session of the City Council, Val Verde County and School District.
Nai-post ni delriobuzz noong Miyerkules, Hunyo 12, 2019
“I asked that you go see firsthand and walk through what the Border Patrol is walking through, walk through the system of release, walk through the coalition [of nonprofits and churches], walk through the judicial process, because the senators aren’t here,” said Lozano, chewing out Jonathan Huhn, the director of Sen. Cornyn’s San Antonio office. He accused Texas’ two senators of not showing up. “They need to see firsthand what’s going on. They need to understand the frustrations that the commissioners, or that the city council, the school board, the hospital officials are managing [and] having to deal with.”
Last week, I interviewed Uvalde, Texas, Mayor Don McLaughlin, who is part of a group of south central Texas counties that have expressed the same frustration. “We’re trying to be so politically correct in everything we do now that it’s going to get somebody hurt, said McLaughlin on my podcast Friday. “We need to throw the skunk on the table and put it right out in the open where people can see. If most people knew what was happening at the border, you might see a change, a big change, in America. But our elected officials tend to want to keep it quiet. … The elected officials we have right now aint cuttin’ it.”
At the Del Rio meeting, Mayor Lozano was incredulous. “We do not have the funds to fund this project that has manifested and been dumped here in the city of Del Rio Texas, Val Verde County, and the entire border. And we’re frustrated. We’re extremely frustrated. Our priorities on the city council are our streets, are our parks, are the economy, are the drive of the community and the places of worship and the places to have leisure activities. It is not the priority to solve immigration. … I will not stand for having to be dumped and find a solution, as mayor … for immigration. It is not our purview; it is not our jurisdiction. It is your job to ensure that you convey the frustration that I share with you all to ensure that our representatives at the federal level are hearing it. It’s falling on deaf ears, and we are tired of it. We are sick and tired of the deaf ears. … It’s happening in real time.”
The meeting was attended by city council members, county commissioners, the Val Verde County judge, and school board officials. The mayor also complained that they lack interpreters who speak Portuguese and French to communicate specifically with the African migrants.
This statement is very telling because Lozano, a Democrat who has been known to wear high heels, is not exactly a right-winger. Tellingly, when he ran for mayor of the border town just a year ago, he suggested that he wanted to educate northerners that the border is not a “war zone.” That tells you just how rapidly things have changed, with Del Rio becoming a transit zone for migrants from all over the world coming and draining city transportation services as well as the town’s only hospital.
Watching this mayor’s reaction to the border crisis brings to mind similar reactions from officials in Broward and Palm Beach Counties in Florida last month, when they heard a rumor that 1,000 illegal aliens would be dumped into their counties. These are very Democrat jurisdictions, but even they had zero appetite for the strains of illegal immigrants.
I have already established that the president has the delegated and inherent authority to deny entry to anyone, and that overrides even real asylum requests. This was established in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. (1993) and Sesay v. Immigration and Naturalization Service INS (2003) and reiterated last year in Trump v. Hawaii. Trump can simply announce to the world that the charade is over and that anyone showing up at our land border without proper documents is inadmissible and will be turned back.
This is especially potent now because, by my calculation, close to 80 percent of family units are coming over parts of our border that are separated from Mexico by the Rio Grande River. Just like Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton kept Haitian asylum seekers off our shores in the early 1990s, Trump can do the same with those attempting to cross the Rio Grande.
Border Patrol already has maritime assets, but the president could order a “hold the line” strategy on the river by marshalling every available boat from the military and placing the National Guard, the Coast Guard, and other active-duty troops on boats all along the river. Add to them all other federal agents who can been temporarily reassigned. They should refuse to allow anyone to cross and turn back anyone caught making the trip. It’s worth creating such a force for several weeks, because after just a few weeks of turnbacks, those thinking of making the trip will change their plans. This is exactly what happened with the Nicaraguans at the Texas border in 1989.
It is utterly stupefying why the president hasn’t been doing this for the past 8-12 months and certainly for the past several months of unprecedented crisis.
With both Republicans and independents listing immigration as the top issue of concern to America, and many Democrats who are actually affected directly by the crisis now crying foul, Trump needs to realize that he will get more blowback from people who actually vote by continuing catch-and-release than by announcing a complete shutoff of illegal immigration and asylum requests at our border for the foreseeable future.
As Mayor McLaughlin of Uvalde told me, “If most people knew what was happening at the border, you might see a change.” The president has the power to inform the American people both of the scope of the problem and his inherent authority to solve it. Current law and current executive authority over border entry are your friends, Mr. President.
Did the Supreme Court punt or pass on religious freedom, or did it deliver a kick in the pants to lower courts? It’s tough to tell from the competing media reports, but the owners of the now-defunct Oregon bakery Sweetcakes by Melissa are off the hook for $135,000 in fines — for now. The court vacated a lower-court ruling that upheld the fines against Melissa and Aaron Klein for refusing to work a same-sex wedding.
The Supreme Court declined Monday to decide whether an Oregon baker can refuse on religious grounds to design a cake for a same-sex wedding – a question it carefully sidestepped last year.
The case would have given the court’s conservative majority the chance to expand upon its narrow 2018 ruling in favor of a Colorado baker. That decision did not apply beyond the case of Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who the justices said was discriminated against by state regulators.
The new case involves Sweetcakes by Melissa, a custom cake business operated by Melissa and Aaron Klein outside Portland, Oregon. They were fined $135,000 for refusing to serve Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, who sought a wedding cake for their nuptials. As a result, the Kleins closed shop.
Rather than hear the case or deny it outright, the justices on Monday sent it back to a lower court to take its 2018 ruling into consideration. That represented a delaying tactic, saving the Kleins from the six-figure fine for now.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from the owners of an Oregon bakery who were fined for refusing to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. In a brief order, the justices instead returned the case to lower courts in Oregon “for further consideration” in light of a decision last year in which the court ducked a similar issue in a case concerning a baker from Colorado.
The court’s action on Monday left still unresolved the question of whether many kinds of businesses, including florists, photography studios, calligraphers and tattoo artists, may discriminate against same-sex couples on religious grounds.
NBC News thinks it’s a kick, aimed at the courts that ruled against the Kleins. In their order, the Supreme Court directed lower courts to consider their 2018 ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop, in which the court determined that laws and enforcement targeting people for their religious beliefs violate the First Amendment:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt a partial victory to the owners of an Oregon bakery who were fined for refusing to provide a cake for a lesbian commitment ceremony.
The justices wiped out lower court rulings against the bakers and sent the case back for another round of hearings.
The legal dispute raised the same issues that arose a year ago in the case of a Colorado baker who refused to provide a custom cake to celebrate the wedding of two men. That baker, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake, said it would require him to act against his religious views and violate his right of free speech.
The court failed then to resolve the central issues in his case, ruling instead on narrow grounds unique to him. Religiously affiliated groups were hoping the justices would use the Oregon case to answer the hard questions it avoided last year. But sending the case back to the lower courts, with instructions to reconsider their rulings in light of the Colorado case, gives the lower courts very little to go on.
Maaayyyybeeee. The act of kicking it back to the lower court sends its own signal, especially while vacating the fines against the Kleins. The court may have “failed to resolve the central issues” in the Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion, but they made it pretty clear which direction they were leaning. Subsequent decisions in NIFLA and Janus made it even more clear that they want to dismantle state-imposed forced-speech provisions.
Plus, the court has to be aware of Colorado’s continuing persecution of Jack Phillips. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop has not gained any peace from the Supreme Court’s decision last year, and the conservative majority now on the court is likely to take an even dimmer view of the obvious state hostility towards Phillips’ and others similarly situated. This order at least appears to be a message that lower courts and states did not take the proper lessons from the top court’s trilogy of opinions on forced speech imposed by government. The Supreme Court, at least, believes Masterpiece Cakeshop has a very good chance of changing the outcome of Klein v Oregon BLI.
That’s good news for the Kleins in the short term, although they will have to go back to court again to defend themselves, even though their business has been destroyed. Or maybe they won’t have to appear in court again, if the state of Oregon reads what barely fits between the lines of this order. One can argue that it’s rude or impolitic or even hateful to decline to work same-sex marriages based on sincere religious belief — but in a free country and a free market with a First Amendment, it shouldn’t be a crime that allows government to destroy businesses. Let the consumers in the market make those choices.
Mexican authorities say they intercepted four tractor-trailers packed with nearly 800 migrants. https://t.co/3asa3g9uhs pic.twitter.com/ZBUXzAR6sy — ABC News (@ABC) June 17, 2019 Fear of the tariff is finally getting some real enforcement. Via ABC: Mexican authorities increased immigration enforcement along well-traveled routes for migrants in southern Mexico over the weekend, checking identifications, pulling migrants off public […]
Teen Vogue is facing backlash once again — this time for publishing an article advocating sex work to their young readers.
The op-ed, titled ‘Why Sex Work is Real Work‘ faced immediate criticism and backlash on social media from people across the political spectrum.
Written by Tlaleng Mofokeng, founder of an organization called Nalane for Reproductive Justice, the article calls prostitution to be decriminalized and for children to “fund public campaigns to decrease stigma.”
“The clients who seek sex workers vary, and they’re not just men. The idea of purchasing intimacy and paying for the services can be affirming for many people who need human connection, friendship, and emotional support. Some people may have fantasies and kink preferences that they are able to fulfill with the services of a sex worker,” the article, aimed at children as young as 13, states.
The author of the piece is clearly aware that they are targeting an extremely young audience, as the opinion piece begins by asking “So, what exactly is sex work?”
“Not all sex workers engage in penetrative sex, though, undeniably, that is a big part of sex work. Sex-worker services between consenting adults may include companionship, intimacy, nonsexual role playing, dancing, escorting, and stripping. These roles are often pre-determined, and all parties should be comfortable with them. Many workers take on multiple roles with their clients, and some may get more physical while other interactions that may have started off as sexual could evolve into emotional and psychological bonding,” the article explains.
Many critics accused Teen Vogue of getting into grooming territory.
Is this your follow up to instructing 13-year olds how to get abortions, @TeenVogue? You’ve crossed from ‘informing readers’ into child grooming.https://t.co/fA7uRDaa52
Teen Vogue. Teen. Vogue. Teenager. Teen. Promoting sex work? Are you grooming young kids now? Don’t you think you could have maybe published this in adult Vogue since your demographic is probably 15 year olds or is that too much to ask from you psychos?
This isn’t the first time that Teen Vogue has outraged parents.
The hyper-political and extremely far-left magazine published a lengthy article last year glorifying abortion and calling for colleges to offer the procedure on campuses. The article was titled “Teens Are Speaking Up About Their Abortions Through Youth Testify” and told the stories of young women who became abortion advocates after having their own. One of the women describes how she “wants the world to know how much relief and joy her ability to get an abortion has brought her.”
The magazine has also previously published an uncritical “Antifa explainer” which glorified the violent groups and explained to their young audience what they can also do “in their own lives to stop fascism.”
Teen Vogue also came under fire after they published a how-to explainer on having anal sex.
“This is anal 101, for teens, beginners and all inquisitive folk,” author Gigi Engle wrote in Teen Vogue’s “A Guide to Anal Sex.” The original version of the story included nothing about engaging in safe sex — but was later edited to urge their teenage readers to use condoms.
Teen Vogue defended the article by calling concerned parents “homophobic.”
“The backlash to this article is rooted in homophobia,”Phillip Picardi, the magazine’s digital editorial director, wrote on Twitter. “It’s also laced in arcane delusion about what it means to be a young person today.”