Authored by Leslie Eastman via LegalInsurrection.com,

Asteroid Apophis, named after the Egyptian god of chaos and destruction, is a near-Earth asteroid that has garnered significant attention due to its close approach to our home planet.

Discovered in 2004, Apophis is classified as a potentially hazardous object. Due to swing close enough to the planet in 2029, the gravitational influence will be enough to cause tremors.

A recent study led by Ronald-Louis Ballouz from Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory suggests that the asteroid 99942 Apophis may experience tremors—similar to earthquakes—due to Earth’s gravitational pull during its close flyby on April 13, 2029, with simulations indicating significant surface changes.

Apophis, approximately 340 meters in size, will pass within about 32,000 kilometers of Earth, closer than many satellites in orbit.

When Apophis was discovered on June 19, 2004, by Roy Tucker, David Tholen, and Fabrizio Bernardi during the University of Hawaii Asteroid Survey (UHAS), initial calculations indicated that it could approach Earth with a risk of collision, especially during its pass in 2029. It didn’t help that it is named after the Egyptian god of darkness and chaos.

The original estimates for collision were as high as 2.7%, and Apophis achieved the highest rating ever on the ‘Torino scale’ – a method used to evaluate the threat that an asteroid poses to Earth.

However, new calculations and observations have led scientists to conclude that there will be no impact….for at least 100 years.

….Using the data available at the time, astronomers believed that there was a chance that the flyby could alter the trajectory of Apophis in a way that would line it up for a collision with Earth in 2068.

However, radar observations of Apophis made by NASA’s Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in California and the Green Bank Observatory, West Virginia, in March 2021 greatly improved our knowledge of the asteroid’s current orbit and allowed astronomers to finally rule out any chance of Earth impact for at least 100 years.

And while it won’t strike Earth, Apophis will be bright enough in the skies to be visible to the unaided eye. So, the viewing parties could be fun!

As I mentioned, the viewing parties of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are currently making their own plans for up-close-and-personal observations.

The OSIRIS-APEX mission is slated to visit the asteroid. It continues the OSIRIS-REx mission, which successfully collected and returned samples from asteroid Bennu (which I reported on in a 2023 post).

OSIRIS-APEX is a mission to study the physical changes to asteroid Apophis that will result from its rare close encounter with Earth in April 2029. That year, Apophis’ orbit will bring it within 20,000 miles (32,000 kilometers) of Earth’s surface — closer to Earth than our highest-altitude satellites. Our planet’s gravitational pull is expected to alter the asteroid’s orbit, change how fast it spins on its axis, and possibly cause quakes or landslides that will alter its surface.

OSIRIS-APEX will allow scientists on Earth to observe these changes. Additionally, the OSIRIS-APEX spacecraft will dip toward the surface of Apophis ­– a “stony” asteroid made of silicate (or rocky) material and a mixture of metallic nickel and iron ­ – and fire its engines to kick up loose rocks and dust. This maneuver will give scientists a peek at the composition of material just below the asteroid’s surface.

Other satellite projects, including those related to planetary defense, are also being planned.

Under the auspicious “NEAlight” project, a team from Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg (JMU) and led by space engineer Hakan Kayal has revealed three concepts for such spacecraft. Each of the suggested satellites will aim to exploit this asteroid passage because Earth experiences just once such event every millennium.

The goal? To collect data that could help scientists better understand the solar system, and perhaps even aid in the development of defense measures against dangerous asteroids.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Video streaming site Rumble has filed a lawsuit against the state of California in response to legislation forcing social media platforms to censor political speech.

Rumble is being represented by The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which filed suit against AB 2655, aka the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,” in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

The legislation is Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom’s response to a deepfake satire video of Kamala Harris that was shared on X by Elon Musk among others.

JUST IN: Elon Musk tells CA Governor Gavin Newsom to “Suggon Deeznutz” after Newsom threatened to change the law to make AI “ad” voices illegal.

Newsom was upset over a parody video (below) that Musk shared on X.

“Manipulating a voice in an “ad” like this one should be illegal.… pic.twitter.com/19MYrk21rr

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 29, 2024

ADF stated in a press release that the law “deputizes” Rumble to restrict its user’s free speech, while another law, AB 2839, “Protecting Democracy Against Election Disinformation and Deepfakes,” uses vague standards to punish individuals posting political content about elections.

“California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates,” said ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler.

“Rumble is one of the few online voices stepping up against this trend of censorship while other platforms and sites cave to totalitarian regimes censoring Americans,” Sechler further urged.

He added that “Rumble is standing for free speech even when it is hard. Other online platforms and media companies must see these laws for what they are — a threat to their existence.”

Chris Pavlovski, Chairman and CEO of Rumble, further urged that “The very thought of the government judging the content of political speech, and then deciding whether it should be permitted, censored, or eliminated altogether is about the most chilling thing you could imagine.”

“Rumble
will always celebrate freedom and support creative independence, so we’re delighted to work with ADF to help protect lawful online expression,” Pavlovski asserted.

The Democratic Party is pushing hard to enact laws that force censorship.

As both Hillary and Bill Clinton have noted, its a response to them losing ‘total control’ over the free flow of information.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Fears of counterfeit $50 and $100 bills have disrupted foreign-exchange trade at Istanbul’s Grand Bazaar, the nation’s largest currency trading gray market.

According to the state-run Anadolu Agency, some bureaus at the bazaar, a hub for currency trading, stopped purchasing the bills, saying the counting machines they use can’t identify the fake notes.

“The number of counterfeit dollars isn’t clear,” Anadolu cited Resat Yilmaz, a tradesman at the Bazaar, as saying. “These bills have to be collected, which can take two weeks.” Money-counting machines also have to be updated, he added.

A representative for currency traders said the disruption has no basis and “there’s no fake currency” in circulation. He blamed banks for what he said was a “clogging” of trading.

“Banks should accept old dollar bills. Currently, no bank is doing that,” Mehti Seren, head of the Association of All Authorized Institutions and Foreign Exchange Offices, said in a press conference. “Clients are then returning the dollars to us. That’s what’s clogging the system.”

The central bank said it’s sent warnings and expert opinions about the fake bills to banking associations.

“The necessary guidance on precautions to be taken regarding the technological infrastructure has been made,” the bank said in a statement. Bill counters, bill checkers and teller machines are being controlled and updated, the Turkish Banks Association said in a separate statement.

The prosecutor’s office in Istanbul launched an investigation, Anadolu said. The counterfeit bills entered Turkey from abroad, Haberturk reported, citing sources it didn’t identify.

Authored by Lawrence Reed From the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

Editor’s note: Marianna Davidovich, head of external relations at FEE, recently published a booklet titled “The Buried Stories of Communism & Socialism.” The following essay by FEE’s president emeritus, Lawrence W. Reed, appears in it as the Afterword.

In this volume, Marianna Davidovich vividly recounts the world’s horrific experiences with the evil of communism. It’s a ghastly record, littered with the bodies of a hundred million victims and the lost liberties of hundreds of millions more. No one should have ever expected otherwise; even the founder of modern communist ideology, Karl Marx, advocated extreme violence as a necessary ingredient in the communist formula.

What the world refers to as “communist” countries—such as the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, and others Marianna discusses—would not be labeled as such by Karl Marx himself. He postulated that communism would be the end game of all history and would be characterized by government “withering away” after a period of socialism and its brutal “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

So, what we widely refer to as communist countries are, according to both Marx and the governments of those very countries themselves, socialist. None of them called themselves communist; all of them proudly adopted the socialist label. The full name of the old Soviet Union, for example, was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Marx’s prediction that socialist dictatorships would eventually dissolve into government-less, communist utopias was embraced by pseudo-intellectuals as some sort of messianic prophecy. But how could Marx know the future of his own country, let alone that of others? Was he a palm reader? Did he use tarot cards, a crystal ball, or a Ouija board? Or did God (in whom he didn’t believe) generously gift him with visionary powers that no one else has?

Of course, none of those things apply here. Marx was no fortune-teller. He was a charlatan, an angry and nasty scribbler with vile, racist, and anti-Semitic tendencies. He mooched off others all his life. As British historian Paul Johnson explained in his book, “Intellectuals,” Marx was cruel to his own family. He yearned for the violence his predicted socialist dictatorships would produce. Hardly anyone showed up for his funeral.

Marx’s notion that under communism, government would “wither away” was always a nonsensical non-starter. He never explained how or why that would occur. What would possibly prompt dictators with absolute power to one day just walk away from it? That’s more like a dumb fairy tale than a prophecy.

Now that Marianna has provided the awful details of death and destruction in the countries influenced by Marx’s teaching, the big remaining question is WHY? Why does socialism so naturally produce mayhem on an industrial scale?

Wait a minute, you ask.

What about the peaceful “democratic socialism” of Scandinavia

Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They have no minimum wage laws, almost no interference with prices and the market forces of supply and demand. They have lower taxes on business and more school choice than the United States. They boast trade-based, globalized economies, and few if any nationalized industries.

The prime minister of Denmark recently declared, “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” The Index of Economic Freedom ranks Denmark, Norway, and Sweden as among the freest (most capitalist) in the world.

It’s true that after World War II, Scandinavian countries stumbled into generous welfare states, but being no more than a welfare state is not by itself dictionary socialism. More to the point, those nations eventually turned away from even that—cutting taxes and spending and reviving private sector entrepreneurship. Margaret Thatcher forced the same changes in Britain when, by the late 1970s, her country’s welfare state turned Britain into “the sick man of Europe.”

When countries adopt a blend of socialism and capitalism—a formula once termed “the middle way”—socialists claim credit for progress real or imagined. But repeatedly, such situations reveal that most if not all the “progress” such places achieve is not because of the socialism they’ve adopted, but because of the capitalism they haven’t yet destroyed. Capitalism produces wealth (even Marx admitted to that), whereas socialism and socialists simply confiscate and redistribute it.

Back to the central question: Why does socialism so naturally produce mayhem on an industrial scale?

One very big reason is its accumulation and centralization of power, the most toxic motivation in human history. The desire to dominate and control, to plan other people’s lives, to push others around and take their stuff, to monopolize one corner of society after another—all these elements of a “power trip” are part and parcel of the socialist vision.

But socialism promises to help the poor and the needy, you say! Well, of course, it promises such things. How far would it get if its advocates told the truth? Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. all proclaimed “solidarity with the people,” especially the poor. They never honestly declared, “Give us power, and we will crush dissent and throw you to the dogs for opposing our plans!”

Socialism is rightly and widely perceived as diametrically opposed to capitalism. So, it can’t possibly be defined as acts of caring, sharing, giving, and being compassionate toward the needy. There is demonstrably more caring, sharing, giving, and compassion toward the needy under capitalism!

Even when it comes to most foreign aid, capitalist countries are the donors and socialist countries are the recipients. You can’t give it away or share it with anybody if you don’t create it in the first place, and socialism offers utterly no theory of wealth creation, only wealth confiscation and consumption.

Note that socialists do not propose to accomplish their objectives by mutual consent. They do not advocate raising the money for their plans by way of bake sales or charitable solicitations. Your participation is not voluntary. From start to finish, socialism’s defining characteristic is not so much the promises meant to beguile but rather, the method by which it implements its agenda—FORCE. If it’s voluntary, it’s not socialism. It’s that simple.

In theory, practice, and outcome, socialism is profoundly anti-social. Here’s why:

1. The plans of socialists are more important than yours. Why? Because they say so. Isn’t that reason enough? “The more the State plans,” wrote Austrian economist F. A. Hayek, “the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.” But socialists don’t care about that because what they have in mind is surely more noble than anything us peasants are thinking. Socialism is profoundly anti-individual because it seeks to homogenize people in a giant, collectivist blender.

2. Socialists are know-it-alls and know-nothings, simultaneously. This is a remarkable achievement, perhaps socialism’s singular contribution to sociology. Even if a socialist’s own life is a mess, he still knows how to run everybody else’s. Even if he doesn’t believe there’s a God, he thinks the State can be one. F. A. Hayek nailed it when he wrote, “The curious task of economics is to convince men of how little they know about what they imagine they can design.”

3. Socialism rejects biological science. No climate-change denier denies that climate exists. But socialists claim that if there’s such a thing as human nature, they can abolish and reinvent it. Humans are individuals, with no two alike in every way, but socialists believe they can homogenize and collectivize us into an obedient blob. It doesn’t bother them to punish individual success and achievement even if the result is equal impoverishment. They believe that human beings will work harder and smarter for the State than they will for themselves or their families. This is much closer to witchcraft than science.

4. Socialists call the cops for everything. Have you ever noticed that the socialist agenda is not a page of helpful suggestions, or a list of tips for better living? When they’re in charge, you don’t get to say, “No, thanks.” Freedom of choice? No, sir! Socialist ideas are so good, the old saying goes, that they must be mandatory and opposing views must be censored. Deep inside every socialist, even the naïve but well-meaning ones, a totalitarian demon is struggling to get out. This is what socialists eventually do with such monotonous regularity that you can absolutely count on it.

5. Socialism is more than anti-capitalism. It’s anti-capital. In his remarkable book, “Intellectuals,” British historian Paul Johnson penned a blistering chapter about Karl Marx. Johnson quotes Marx’s own mother as famously remarking that she wished her son Karl “would accumulate some capital instead of just writing about it.” Mrs. Marx was on to something. Karl and his acolytes, to one degree or another, make war on the single most powerful generator of the material wealth that improves the lives of people—namely, private property and its accumulation by private, profit-seeking individuals who invest and create and employ. Wherever such lunacy gains power, it marches its subjects backward towards the Stone Age.

6. Conflict is their God. From Marx to socialists of the present day, conflict is everything.If it’s not present, they will invent it. After all, everyone is either a victim or a villain, an oppressor or part of the oppressed. Conflict is the way history unfolds, so they tell us. And like palm readers and tarot card practitioners, they declare the future to be on their side. This always-angry perspective rules out a spirit of gratitude, especially toward capitalists. Socialists never show up at a business of any size with signs exclaiming “Thank you for taking risks, providing products and employing people.”

One of the greatest economists ever, Ludwig von Mises, wrote this eloquent summation:

A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.

Communism as envisioned by its intellectual father Karl Marx is an unachievable and undesirable fantasy. In the real world, efforts to realize Marx’s delusions are simply full-blown, unadulterated socialism. And that’s the cyanide that both Mises and Marianna are warning us about.

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must–at that moment–become the center of the universe.”

– Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize Speech

Once again we find ourselves approaching that time of year when, as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln proclaimed, we’re supposed to give thanks as a nation and as individuals for our safety and our freedoms.

But how do you give thanks for freedoms that are constantly being eroded?

How do you express gratitude for one’s safety when the perils posed by the American police state grow more treacherous by the day?

How do you come together as a nation in thanksgiving when the powers-that-be continue to polarize and divide us into warring factions?

You can see this struggle—to reconcile the hope for a better, freer, more just world with the soul-sucking reality of a world in which greed, meanness and war continue to triumph—in John Lennon’s two songs, “Imagine” (which exhorted us to “Imagine all the people livin’ life in peace”) and “Happy Xmas (War Is Over)” (which was part of a major anti-war campaign, which were released within months of each other in 1971.

Lennon—a musical genius, anti-war activist, and a high-profile example of the lengths to which the Deep State will go to persecute those who dare to challenge its authority—made clear that the only way to achieve an end to hunger, violence, war, and tyranny is to want it badly enough and work towards it.

All these years later, we still don’t seem to want those things badly enough.

Peace remains out of reach. Activists and whistleblowers continue to be prosecuted for challenging the government’s authority. Militarism is on the rise, all the while the governmental war machine continues to wreak havoc on innocent lives.

For those of us who joined with Lennon to imagine a world of peace, it’s getting harder to reconcile that dream with the reality of the American police state.

Those who do dare to speak up about government corruption are labeled dissidents, troublemakers, terrorists, lunatics, or mentally ill and tagged for surveillance, censorship or involuntary detention.

And then there are those who remain silent while the world falls apart.

By doing nothing, the onlookers become as guilty as the perpetrator.

It works the same whether you’re talking about kids watching bullies torment a fellow student on a playground, passersby watching someone dying on a sidewalk, or citizens remaining silent in the face of government atrocities.

There’s a term for this phenomenon where people stand by, watch and do nothing—even when there is no risk to their safety—while some horrific act takes place: it’s called the bystander effect.

Historically, this bystander syndrome in which people remain silent and disengaged—mere onlookers—in the face of abject horrors and injustice has resulted in whole populations being conditioned to tolerate unspoken cruelty toward their fellow human beings: the crucifixion and slaughter of innocents by the Romans, the torture of the Inquisition, the atrocities of the Nazis, the butchery of the Fascists, the bloodshed by the Communists, and the cold-blooded war machines run by the military industrial complex.

Psychological researchers John Darley and Bibb Latane mounted a series of experiments to discover why people respond with apathy or indifference instead of intervening.

According to Darley and Latane, there are two critical factors that contribute to this moral lassitude. First, there’s the problem of pluralistic ignorance in which individuals in a group look to others to determine how to respond. Second, there’s the problem of “diffusion of responsibility,” which is compounded by pluralistic ignorance. Basically, this means that no one acts to intervene or help because each person is waiting for someone else to do so.

Their findings underscore the fact that evil prevails when good people do nothing.

We see it all the time: when people are vocal about politics but silent in the face of human suffering and injustice, tyranny triumphs.

For instance, psychologist Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment studied the impact of perceived power and authority on middleclass students who were assigned to act as prisoners and prison guards. The experiment revealed that power does indeed corrupt (the appointed guards became increasingly abusive), and those who were relegated to being prisoners acted increasingly “submissive and depersonalized, taking the abuse and saying little in protest.”

This is how imperial presidents preside over police states.

So, what can we do? Be modern-day Good Samaritans and do your part to push back against the darkness. Recognize injustice. Don’t turn away from suffering. Refuse to remain silent. Take a stand. Speak up. Speak out.

“If you think there is even a possibility that someone needs help, act on it,” advises Zimbardo.  “You may save a life. You are the modern version of the Good Samaritan that makes the world a better place for all of us.”

This is what Zimbardo refers to as “the power of one.” All it takes is one person breaking away from the fold to change the dynamics of a situation.

Here’s what I suggest: this holiday season, do yourselves a favor and turn off the talking heads, shut down the screen devices, tune out the politicians, take a deep breath, then do something to pay your blessings forward.

Find something to be thankful for about the things and people in your community for which you might have the least tolerance or appreciation. Instead of just rattling off a list of things you’re thankful for that sound good, dig a little deeper and acknowledge the good in those you may have underappreciated or feared.

When it comes time to giving thanks for your good fortune, put your gratitude into action: pay your blessings forward with deeds that spread a little kindness, lighten someone’s burden, and brighten some dark corner.

Engage in acts of kindness. Smile more. Fight less. Build bridges. Refuse to let toxic politics define your relationships. Focus on the things that unite instead of that which divides.

Do your part to push back against the meanness of our culture with conscious compassion and humanity. Moods are contagious, the good and the bad. They can be passed from person to person. So can the actions associated with those moods, the good and the bad.

Acts of benevolence, no matter how inconsequential they might seem, can spark a movement.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, all it takes is one person to start a chain reaction.

For instance, a few years ago in Florida, a family of six—four adults and two young boys—were swept out to sea by a powerful rip current in Panama City Beach. There was no lifeguard on duty. The police were standing by, waiting for a rescue boat. And the few people who had tried to help ended up stranded, as well.

Those on shore grouped together and formed a human chain. What started with five volunteers grew to 15, then 80 people, some of whom couldn’t swim.

One by one, they linked hands and stretched as far as their chain would go. The strongest of the volunteers swam out beyond the chain and began passing the stranded victims of the rip current down the chain.

One by one, they rescued those in trouble and pulled each other in.

There’s a moral here for what needs to happen in this country if we only can band together and prevail against the riptides that threaten to overwhelm us.

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

On Oct. 31, Brittany Patterson, a 41-year-old Georgia mother, was arrested and accused of endangering her son – all because the unsupervised 10-year-old walked less than a mile away from home. Patterson told NBC News in an interview, “It’s not a super dangerous or even dangerous-at-all stretch of road. I wasn’t terrified for him or scared for his safety.”

Nevertheless, the sheriff’s department went to the family’s home, where Patterson was handcuffed, arrested, booked on suspicion of reckless conduct, and forced to post $500 bail.

Parenting expert Dawn Friedman responded to the arrest by declaring, “We used to allow children some freedoms that we no longer allow them. And I don’t think that’s to their benefit or to ours.”

Lenore Skenazy, the founder of Free-Range Kids, weighed in. “The crime was that she didn’t know where her kid was for a little while because she’d left them at home. And to her surprise, he didn’t stay home. It’s just so normal. And to make that into a crime is insane.”

Sadly, this case of a government body superseding parents is anything but unique.

Government-run schools have way overstepped their bounds all too often, becoming a child’s co-parent. A good example is California, where AB 1955 was voted into law in July. This outrageous legislation bars school districts from requiring staff to notify parents if their child decides to change their gender.

In a similar vein, the San Francisco school district has determined that teachers don’t have to notify parents before teaching intimate gender identity lessons.

The Turner School District in Kansas City let a 4-year-old preschooler take home Jacobs New Dress, a picture book in which “a little boy wears girls’ clothes and even competes with his friend Emily to be a princess.” (It’s no secret that there is an effort by LGBTQ groups to push gender identity dogma on schoolchildren nationwide, and all too often, the government is a willing ally.)

“Satan Clubs” are popping up all over the country. In Bakersfield, CA—a fairly conservative part of the state—the leader of the after-school club asserted that devil worship shouldn’t be a problem, explaining that he felt the need to counter “Christian-based clubs.”

What can parents do about this?

School choice is one way to escape public schools, and indeed, parental freedom continues to expand. While there were setbacks in Colorado, Nebraska, and Kentucky this past Election Day—mostly due to poorly written laws and being outspent—Florida, Arizona, Utah, and Ohio either created universal or near-universal private school choice programs or expanded existing programs to be universal or near-universal during this past legislative session.

As Michael McShane, director of national research at EdChoice, noted after the election, “Voters had a chance to make their voices heard on what they thought about that (school choice) last week. In every case, the legislative majorities that voted these programs into existence were returned.”

In Texas, several GOP wins in the state’s House of Representatives on Election Day will expand Republicans’ existing majority, giving Gov. Greg Abbott an estimated 87 of 150 seats in the lower chamber. When lawmakers reconvene in January, that should give him the votes needed to put forth legislation offering a universal voucher or education savings account—a proposal many Democrats and rural Republican lawmakers have rejected in past legislative sessions.

Additionally, beginning in the 2025-26 school year, the Georgia Promise Scholarship will provide $6,500 per eligible student. Students can qualify if they live in an area with a low-performing school, as determined by the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, and meet certain other conditions.

Many Hispanic voters favor school choice. NBC political commentator Chuck Todd specifically credited school choice for record Republican gains among Latino voters. In fact, choice policies garner support from more than two-thirds of Hispanic parents.

Homeschooling is another option for parents. Brian Ray, president of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), declares that there are about 3.2 million students educated at home in the U.S.

Barbie Rivera, author of Enough Is Enough!, is a case in point. Her journey began in 1991 when her six-year-old son was erroneously labeled as “mentally handicapped” by his public school. Knowing this diagnosis was erroneous, Rivera started homeschooling her son and eventually established her own school.

But what if a family cannot homeschool?

One scenario would be a single mom who must work to support herself and her child and can’t afford a private school.

The choice for her, if available, would be a microschool, which is much more affordable than a traditional public or private school, because it doesn’t require expensive buildings and a large staff.

These tiny schools, with a median student body size of 15-30, have been described as a modern version of the one-room schoolhouse, where children of varying ages receive personalized instruction from a teacher in the same room. At this time, about 1.5 million children attend one of the country’s roughly 95,000 microschools, roughly the same number who study at Catholic schools, according to National Microschooling Center CEO Dan Soifer.

Prenda, a microschool support outfit, has helped over 1,000 inspiring adults start microschools, which house nearly 10,000 students.

Florida is the national leader in microschooling. State lawmakers backed looser rules for establishing them as part of a sweeping education law that went into effect in July. The policy change allows private schools to use existing space at places like movie theaters and churches without having to go through local governments for approval. The shift gives these private schools access to thousands of buildings, opening the door for new education options to emerge without them having to endure potentially heavy rezoning costs. This provision could become a blueprint for other states that are looking to expand private school options.

Ryan Delk, CEO and founder of Primer, a microschooling company with 23 schools in Florida and Arizona that pushed for the law, states, “This is the silent friction point that has existed for years that no one could figure out how to solve.”

Whether it is arresting parents for letting their kids roam around the neighborhood unescorted by an adult or teaching a 4-year-old boy that it’s okay for him to wear a dress, we must minimize the role of the state in our lives. Not sending children to government-run schools is an excellent place to start, and microschools are a worthy option.

Authored by Ed Goeas & Celinda Lake via RealClearPolitics,

Discussing politics on Thanksgiving is a tradition that many of us could live without, but can’t seem to get away from. It’s especially poignant every four years after the tidal shifts accompanying presidential elections. This year, we saw remarkable outcomes, most notably that voters prioritized bringing down the cost of their Thanksgiving meal over bringing the family together for a civil conversation. 

Ok, that is an oversimplification, but let’s take a look at the numbers. 

The two of us, a Republican and a Democrat, have been conducting polling together around civility in our political discourse for decades. For the last five years, we’ve partnered with the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service to dive into just what this means for the state of our politics. We conducted our most recent poll of 800 likely voters right after the outcomes of the 2024 elections. We asked voters which candidate they believed ran a more divisive campaign, who messaged their ability to get things done more effectively, which candidate they thought represented their shared values the best, and much more. 

We learned that many voters found Vice President Harris to be someone who is a unifier and ran a less negative campaign as opposed to President Trump, but President Trump had advantages in key areas that propelled him over the top. He was able to effectively message himself as the candidate who addressed the kitchen table issues that most stood out to voters. We’ve seen in exit poll after exit poll that the economy was the issue most on people’s minds on Election Day, and when you look at our findings, you see a pattern that reflects President Trump’s win. 

When asked, “Which candidate is talking to you about this issue,” we see some of the dynamics in the race represented. Vice President Harris outperformed President Trump in addressing abortion, protecting Democracy, sharing my values, and caring about people like me. Fifty-two percent found that Vice President Harris was the candidate who better messaged bringing the country together. Conversely, voters found that President Trump more effectively talked about the economy, inflation, and immigration, and a majority thought he would be better at getting things done, but most do not expect him to be a unifier in the White House.

Clearly, voters were less concerned about civility than they were about costs. The overall outcome has surprisingly resulted in a drop in political tensions based on the measure we have used for the last five years – largely driven by Republicans who are feeling relief after Election Day. We measure tension by asking folks where they feel the country is on a scale of one to 100, with one being no division at all and 100 being civil war. We saw a four-point drop since our last poll in March from 70 to 66, the lowest mark in the last five years that we have done this poll. Division scores are highest among Democrats at 70, while independents are at about the total sample’s mean (66), and Republicans see the least division (61). These scores reflect a significant 14-point drop for Republicans, specifically from March, with independents remaining largely the same and Democrats seeing a small, two-point uptick.

Of particular note is the hope respondents share about a brighter future and the possibilities of collaboration between the parties. Despite President Trump’s “trifecta’ control, 95% of those polled agreed with the statement, “I want President Trump, Republicans in Congress, and Democrats in Congress to work together to solve the major problems facing this country.” Also, 82% of respondents agreed, “It will be good for the country if President Trump and Congress compromise to find solutions even if this means I will not always get everything I want.” In what could be a reflection of these hopes, when asked how much division they expect in the country a year from now, respondents predicted a 61 out of 100, a more than 12-point decrease led largely by Republicans in projected division from September 2023.

So, how does this impact your Thanksgiving meal this year? Prices are projected to drop this year, pretty significantly, dropping nearly $10 compared to this time last year when the average cost for a Thanksgiving meal was $67.84, all the way to $58.08. Your Republican relative might take a minute to brag that this is the market reacting to President Trump’s win, but your Democrat relative might say that it’s a sign that Bidenomics is working and the country went down the wrong path on Election Day. 

Either way, we know that politics will be debated this Thanksgiving in many homes across the country. We only hope that it’s a little more civil this time around.

Ed Goeas is president and CEO of The Tarrance Group, a Republican political survey research and strategy team.

Celinda Lake, president of Lake Strategies, is a political strategist serving as tactician and senior adviser.

Thanksgiving holiday travel is expected to reach a new record in 2024, as nearly 80 million Americans are forecast to hit the road or the skies to travel more than 50 miles for this year’s celebrations.

That’s according to projections from AAA who are predicting that 71.7 million Americans will take to the nation’s roads, while 5.8 million will fly domestically and 2.3 million will travel by train or other means to be with family or friends for the holidays.

You will find more infographics at Statista

As Statista’s Felix Richter reports, that represents an increase of 2.1 percent from last year and 2.7 percent from 2019, as lower gas prices compared to last year are fueling Americans’ appetite for travel.

“Thanksgiving is the busiest holiday for travel, and this year we’re expecting to set new records across the board, from driving to flying and cruising,” Stacey Barber, Vice President of AAA Travel, said.

“Americans reconnect with family and friends over Thanksgiving, and travel is a big part of that.”

All modes of transport are set to see a noticeable increase this year and road trips will continue to dominate Thanksgiving travel.

90 percent of travelers are expected to drive to their holiday destination, as gas prices are currently lower than they have been for the most part of the past three years. Even though air travel is far less common for Thanksgiving celebrations, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is bracing for the busiest Thanksgiving period on record, with airports expected to be especially crowded on Tuesday and Wednesday before Thanksgiving and the Sunday after.

Extending a prolonged trend of alleged misuse of funds by social justice warriors running leftist charities, an anti-police-brutality activist has been accused of spending $75,000 in charitable donations on himself, blowing the money on vacations, designer clothing and more. 

On Tuesday, Washington DC attorney general Brian L. Schwalb filed suit against Brandon Anderson and his nonprofit organization “Raheem AI,” which was launched in 2017 to provide “black, brown, and indigenous community crisis responders with the tools, training, connections, and funding they need to provide care.”

“Brandon Anderson misused charitable donations to fund lavish vacations and shopping sprees, and the Raheem AI board of directors let him get away with it,” said Schwalb in a statement. “Not only did their financial abuses violate fundamental principles of nonprofit governance, but Anderson and Raheem AI failed to pay their employee the wages they had earned.”

Schwalb’s statement provided spelled out the nature of Anderson’s alleged self-indulgent spending:

Since 2021, Anderson repeatedly used Raheem AI’s funds for personal use: spending over $40,000 on a luxury vacation rental service that allows members to stay in high-end mansions and penthouse apartments, $10,000 on hotels and Airbnb’s for personal travel – including to a Cancun resort, $10,000 on designer clothing brands, and $5,000 on emergency veterinary services. None of these expenses furthered Raheem AI’s stated nonprofit purpose.

Anderson’s alleged failure to pay an employee apparently lit the fuse that led to Tuesday’s move by the DC attorney general. The employee, Jasmine Banks, told the New York Times she contacted Schwalb’s office after her salary screeched to a halt. She says she was put on leave after she found credit card records of Anderson’s wild spending and raised her concerns. One of the firm’s board members told the Times that mansion rentals were associated with business travel. 

Raheem AI initially worked to create an app to facilitate police misconduct complaints. The vision evolved to creating a police alternative, one that would let people dealing with nonviolent situations contact a network of aid workers. The group racked up more than $4.3 million in donations from leftist organizations, with much of that money pouring in after police killed George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020.  

Before his fall, Anderson’s press coverage frequently included his claim that his work was inspired by the death of his gay “life partner” Raheem, whom he said was shot to death by police during a traffic stop in Oklahoma City. Now, it appears Anderson may not only guilty of financial misconduct, but also of concocting that whole story. Per the Times:  

As the group foundered, former employees discovered something else that was troubling: They could not find proof that Raheem ever existed. Mr. Anderson did not previously respond to questions about the man whose purported life and death inspired the nonprofit. 

Schwalb said there were no checks and balances at Raheem AI, as the entity hasn’t had a treasurer since 2020, leaving Anderson with full control over the assets. His suit seeks a court order to dissolve the nonprofit, recover misused money, and bar Anderson from serving in the leadership of any other DC nonprofits. 

“My office will not allow people to masquerade behind noble causes while violating the law, cheating taxpayers, or stealing from their workers,” said Schwalb. 

Jasmine Banks, a former staffer, says she is owed tens of thousands in unpaid wages since April, when she flagged Anderson’s actions to the board. She also alleges she was forced to sign an illegal noncompete clause.

“It hurts my heart to say it, but I think it was a con from the beginning,” she said of the organization. 

To rattle off just two previous episodes, we’ve seen an Atlanta Black Lives Matter founder arrested for using $200,000 in BLM donations on food, dining, entertainment, clothing, furniture, a home security system, tailored suits and accessories, and the Stacey Abrams-founded voting group the New Georgia Project accused of financial mismanagement and misuse of donated funds. 

We’re guessing there’s more where all these came from. 

Did Trump solve the border crisis two months before even being sworn in as the 47th president?

Two days after surprising markets – and sending the peso plummeting – by announcing he would enact 25% import duties on Mexican goods if the country doesn’t stop the flow of drugs and migrants across the border.

tariffs on Mexican goods in response to the flood of drugs across the porous southern border, best known for allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter the US in the past four ears, Trump’s unexpected gambit may have already paid off.

In a post on Truth Social network, Trump announced that after a “wonderful” conversation with Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum, she “agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border.”

He added that the two also talked about “what can be done to stop the massive drug inflow into the United States” concluding that it was a “very productive” conversation which of course, it would be, if indeed Trump – who again is still two months away from inauguration – managed to solve the US border crisis just 48 hours after using targeted tariffs as a bargaining chip.

While it remains to be confirmed on the Mexican side if Trump’s recollection of the conversation is accurate, Trump’s announcement comes just hours after the legacy media reported that Mexico would take on a more aggressive posture, with the AP reporting that Sheinbaum had suggested that “Mexico could retaliate with tariffs of its own” and that while she was willing to engage in talks on the issues, drugs were a U.S. problem.

“One tariff would be followed by another in response, and so on until we put at risk common businesses,” Sheinbaum said, referring to U.S. automakers that have plants on both sides of the border.

She said Tuesday that Mexico had done a lot to stem the flow of migrants, noting “caravans of migrants no longer reach the border.” However, Mexico’s efforts to fight drugs like the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl – which is manufactured by Mexican cartels using chemicals imported from China – have weakened in the last year.

Amusingly, Sheinbaum also said Mexico suffered from an influx of weapons smuggled in from the United States, and said the flow of drugs “is a problem of public health and consumption in your country’s society” which judging by the libs ongoing reaction to Trump’s victory is pretty much spot on.

As noted, there is still no official confirmation or full context of the agreement from President Sheinbaum’s side, but the market certainly reacted with the peso surging, and almost wiping out all losses from the past 48 hours after Trump’s first unveiled his 25% tariff threat.

If confirmed, this would be the second time Trump has managed to convince Mexico to suspend migrants from crossing its territory to enter the US. Back in 2018, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador – a charismatic, old-school politician – developed a chummy relationship with Trump. The two were eventually able to strike a bargain in which Mexico helped keep migrants away from the border – and received other countries’ deported migrants – and Trump backed down on similar threats.

While Sheinbaum, who took office Oct. 1, has been seen as a stern leftist ideologue trained in radical student protest movements, and appeared less willing to pacify or mollify Trump, it seems she too has capitulated just 48 hours after Trump unveiled what was coming.