Noble Gold
NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com
Share this site:
Copyright 1987-2024
| United States National Debt | |
| United States National Debt Per Person | |
| United States National Debt Per Household | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities | |
| Social Security Unfunded Liability | |
| Medicare Unfunded Liability | |
| Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability | |
| National Healthcare Unfunded Liability | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Person | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Household | |
| United States Population |
Copyright 1987-2024
(last updated 2024-08-09/Close of previous day debt was $35123327978028.47 )
8/21/25
.webp)
.webp)
Are seed oils bad for you? Vegetable oil vs. olive oil vs. butter
Are seed oils bad for you? Vegetable oil vs. olive oil vs. butter
It’s time to sort the science from the pseudoscience.
.png)
The Great Fat Debate: Unpacking the Science on Seed Oils, Olive Oil, and Butter
In the modern quest for optimal health, few topics are as contentious and confusing as dietary fats. We’ve been through the low-fat craze, the keto revolution, and now find ourselves in a landscape where the very oils that were once promoted as heart-healthy alternatives are being vilified on social media. The central question has become: Are seed oils bad for you? And how do they stack up against traditional favorites like olive oil and butter?
To navigate this greasy polemic, we must move beyond soundbites and dive into the chemistry, history, and evidence behind these ubiquitous fats.
What Are Seed Oils, Really?
The term "seed oils" (often used interchangeably with "vegetable oils") refers to oils extracted from the seeds of plants. Common examples include:
Soybean oil: The most widely consumed oil in the U.S., found in countless processed foods.
Canola oil: Derived from rapeseed, developed to be low in erucic acid.
Corn oil: Extracted from the germ of corn kernels.
Sunflower oil & Safflower oil: Oils high in polyunsaturated fats.
Cottonseed oil: A byproduct of the cotton industry.
The controversy around them stems not from their plant origin, but from three key factors: their fatty acid profile, their processing method, and their sheer ubiquity in the modern diet.
The Case Against Seed Oils: The Omega-6 Problem
The primary scientific argument against excessive seed oil consumption revolves around omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), specifically linoleic acid.
1. The Omega-6 to Omega-3 Ratio: Both omega-6 and omega-3 fats are essential, meaning our bodies cannot produce them and we must get them from food. They play crucial but competing roles in inflammation. Omega-6s are generally pro-inflammatory (a necessary function for healing and immune response), while omega-3s are anti-inflammatory. Humans evolved eating a diet with a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 roughly between 4:1 and 1:1. The modern Western diet, bursting with seed oils, has skewed this ratio to an astounding 20:1 or even higher.
2. Chronic Inflammation: The concern is that this massive imbalance promotes a state of chronic, low-grade systemic inflammation, which is a known driver of virtually every modern disease, including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and autoimmune conditions.
3. Instability and Oxidation: PUFAs are chemically unstable. Their multiple double bonds make them highly susceptible to oxidation when exposed to heat, light, and oxygen. The industrial processing of seed oils often involves high heat, chemical solvents (like hexane), and bleaching, which can oxidize the fats before they even hit the bottle. Furthermore, when you cook with these oils at high temperatures (e.g., frying), they can further oxidize, forming harmful compounds like aldehydes, which are linked to cellular damage and disease.
This combination of inflammatory potential and oxidative fragility forms the core of the anti-seed oil argument. Critics posit that the rise in chronic diseases parallels the introduction of these oils into the food supply via processed foods, margarine, and fried foods.
The Other Side of the Coin: Not All Seed Oils Are Created Equal
It’s crucial to avoid blanket statements. The category "seed oils" is diverse.
The Context of Consumption: The biggest issue may be that these oils are the hidden engine of the ultra-processed food industry. They are in snacks, dressings, frozen meals, and desserts. Therefore, high seed oil intake is a marker for a generally poor diet. Is it the seed oil itself causing harm, or the sugary, refined-carbohydrate-laden food it’s packaged with? It’s likely both.
Some Can Be Healthy: Unrefined, cold-pressed versions of some seed oils can be part of a healthy diet. For example, high-oleic sunflower or safflower oil (bred to be high in monounsaturated fat, like olive oil) or expeller-pressed canola oil are more stable and less processed. They are not the same as their highly refined, mass-market counterparts.
The Heart Health Argument: Replacing saturated fats (like those in butter and lard) with polyunsaturated fats (like those in seed oils) has been shown in some large, controlled trials to lower LDL ("bad") cholesterol and reduce cardiovascular events. This is the traditional evidence that led to their promotion. However, this science is now hotly debated, with many modern researchers questioning the methodology and conclusions of these older studies.
The Golden Standard: Why Olive Oil Reigns Supreme
If there’s one fat that nearly every nutrition expert agrees on, it’s extra virgin olive oil (EVOO). Hailed as a cornerstone of the Mediterranean Diet—one of the most extensively studied and proven healthy eating patterns in the world—EVOO’s benefits are robust.
Fatty Acid Profile: It is predominantly composed of monounsaturated fats (MUFAs), specifically oleic acid. MUFAs are much more stable than PUFAs and are consistently associated with reduced heart disease risk and improved cholesterol levels.
Packed with Polyphenols: The "extra virgin" designation means the oil is from the first cold pressing of the olives, without high heat or chemicals. This preserves a treasure trove of antioxidant and anti-inflammatory compounds called polyphenols. These bioactive compounds fight oxidative stress, protect blood vessels, and may even boost brain health.
Thermal Stability: While its smoke point is moderate, the high MUFA content makes EVOO reasonably stable for cooking at low to medium heats. (For very high-heat searing or frying, avocado oil or stable saturated fats are better choices).
The evidence for olive oil is not about replacing "bad" fats; it's about adding a uniquely beneficial whole food that actively promotes health.
The Comeback Kid: Butter in a Modern Context
Butter, once public enemy number one for cardiologists, has undergone a dramatic rehabilitation in the eyes of many—though not without caveats.
What It Is: Butter is a dairy fat, primarily composed of saturated fats (about 60-65%), with the rest being monounsaturated fat and a small amount of polyunsaturated fat. It contains cholesterol and is a source of fat-soluble vitamins like A, E, and K2.
The Saturated Fat Debate: The fear of butter stemmed from the diet-heart hypothesis, which proposed that saturated fat raised LDL cholesterol, which in turn clogged arteries. However, modern science has complicated this story.
Not a Simple Villain: Research now suggests that the link between saturated fat and heart disease is less clear-cut. Some studies show no significant association, and the type of food matrix matters (e.g., butter in a processed croissant vs. butter on steamed vegetables).
The LDL nuance: Saturated fat can raise LDL cholesterol, but it often raises the large, buoyant LDL particles (considered less harmful) rather than the small, dense, oxidized LDL particles (considered very harmful). The overall impact on heart disease risk may be neutral for most people when consumed in the context of a whole-foods diet.
The Verdict on Butter: Butter is a natural, minimally processed fat. For those without specific cholesterol issues or health conditions, using butter in moderation is likely fine. It adds flavor and satisfaction to food. However, it doesn’t offer the same proven, active health-promoting properties as extra virgin olive oil. It’s a neutral player, not a superfood.
The Final Verdict: Context is Everything
So, who wins the fat fight? The answer is nuanced and depends entirely on the bigger picture of your diet.
1. Minimize Highly Processed Seed Oils: The strongest advice is to drastically reduce your intake of refined seed oils (soybean, corn, standard sunflower oil) because they are most prevalent in ultra-processed foods. Avoid using them for high-heat cooking. This single step will improve your omega-6 to omega-3 ratio and reduce your intake of potentially oxidized fats.
2. Make Extra Virgin Olive Oil Your Daily Driver: EVOO should be your default fat for dressings, drizzling, and low-to-medium-heat cooking. Its proven benefits for heart and metabolic health are undeniable.
3. Enjoy Butter in Moderation: Don’t fear butter. Use it for its unparalleled flavor in baking, on toast, or to finish a steak. View it as a natural whole food to be enjoyed consciously, not a health food to be consumed in large quantities.
4. Embrace Fat Diversity: No single fat has a monopoly on health. A healthy kitchen likely contains EVOO, avocado oil for high-heat cooking, a little butter for flavor, and perhaps even a cold-pressed, high-oleic seed oil for variety.
The true villain in the modern diet isn’t necessarily one specific category of fat, but the overconsumption of hyper-palatable, processed foods where these fats are often found. By focusing on whole foods, cooking at home, and using traditional fats like olive oil wisely, you can navigate the fat debate with confidence and, most importantly, enjoy your food without fear.
#Cooking #VegetableOil #Butter #OliveOil #Food #Health #HeartHealth
Trump Gets A Win In Mortgage Fraud Case
8/20/25
The Unraveling of Trust: JFK, Allen Dulles, and the Fatal Rift That Shook a Nation
Did The Kennedy Rift With The CIA Cause An Assassination?
The Unraveling of Trust: JFK, Allen Dulles, and the Fatal Rift That Shook a Nation
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, remains the primordial American conspiracy, a wound in the national psyche that has never fully healed. In the six decades since, a cottage industry of theories has emerged, pointing fingers in myriad directions. Among the most persistent and compelling narratives is one that connects the murder in Dealey Plaza directly to the highest echelons of American power. It is a story that begins not with a lone gunman, but in the hallowed, secretive halls of the Central Intelligence Agency. At its heart is a profound and dangerous question: Did President Kennedy’s determination to rein in and dismantle the very intelligence apparatus he commanded—including his very public firing of its legendary chief, Allen Dulles—create a motive for his removal?
To understand the gravity of this clash, one must first appreciate the titan Kennedy sought to topple. Allen Welsh Dulles was not merely a government employee; he was the embodiment of the nascent Cold War national security state. As the CIA’s first civilian Director and its longest-serving director, Dulles was a Washington institution. His career stretched back to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in World War II, and his social and professional networks were woven into the fabric of the Eastern Establishment. He operated with an autonomy that often bypassed presidential oversight, believing that in the existential struggle against communism, the ends unequivocally justified the means.
This philosophy found its ultimate expression in the CIA’s covert action wing. Under Dulles, the Agency didn’t just gather intelligence; it shaped the world. It orchestrated coups, such as the 1953 ouster of Iran's Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and the 1954 overthrow of Guatemala's democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz. These successes, celebrated in the corridors of power, cemented a culture of unaccountable action. The CIA became a state within a state, answerable more to its own internal logic and the doctrine of "plausible deniability" than to the elected officials it nominally served.
When the young, idealistic John F. Kennedy entered the Oval Office in 1961, he inherited this powerful and headstrong institution. The collision course was set almost immediately with the Bay of Pigs invasion in April of that year. Conceived and planned under Eisenhower and fervently championed by Dulles and his deputy, Richard Bissell, the operation was a blueprint for toppling Fidel Castro using a proxy force of CIA-trained Cuban exiles.
Kennedy, wary of overt American military involvement, insisted on a covert operation. However, he was given a deeply flawed plan, one that relied on a popular uprising in Cuba that CIA intelligence knew was unlikely to materialize. More alarmingly, the military and CIA planners presented the operation as a fait accompli, believing that once the exiles were engaged, the President would have no choice but to commit full U.S. military force to ensure victory. They were attempting to box in a new and inexperienced president.
The invasion was a catastrophic failure. The exiles were slaughtered or captured on the beaches, and the United States was humiliated on the world stage. A furious and betrayed Kennedy was left to publicly shoulder the blame. Privately, he was seething. He famously said he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." He felt he had been manipulated by the "grey, dull, faceless" men in Langley who had given him overly optimistic and dishonest assessments.
His response was swift and decisive. While he did not shatter the Agency, he did break its leadership. Within months, he forced the resignations of both Deputy Director Bissell and, most symbolically, Director Allen Dulles. Firing Dulles was not just a personnel change; it was a seismic event. It was the new president, the outsider from a political dynasty, firing the untouchable godfather of the Cold War. To the old guard within the CIA and the national security establishment, it was an unforgivable act of humiliation and a declaration of war on their methods and their authority.
But Kennedy’s housecleaning did not stop there. He passed over Dulles’s deputy, the expected successor, and installed John McCone, an outsider he believed he could control. More importantly, he handed primary responsibility for Cuban affairs—and the ongoing obsession with eliminating Castro—to his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. The CIA, which had considered anti-Castro operations its exclusive domain, was now being micromanaged and second-guessed by the President’s brother, a man they viewed with intense suspicion and resentment.
The rift deepened with the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. While the peaceful resolution is rightly remembered as Kennedy’s finest hour, it was viewed very differently by hardliners in the military and intelligence communities. To men like Air Force Chief Curtis LeMay, who labeled the peaceful outcome a "defeat" and compared it to the appeasement at Munich, Kennedy’s refusal to launch airstrikes and invade Cuba was a profound failure of will. He had chosen diplomacy over decisive force, and in the eyes of this faction, he had left a mortal enemy in place. This perception of weakness and indecision created a dangerous schism between the Commander-in-Chief and the national security apparatus he led.
In the aftermath, Kennedy’s intentions became even more alarming to the warhawks. He began pursuing back-channel communications with both Castro and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. He gave a transformative speech at American University in June 1963, calling for an end to the Cold War and a re-evaluation of the Soviet Union, stating, "Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal." He was working toward a nuclear test ban treaty. To a CIA and military-industrial complex built on the premise of a perpetual, Manichean struggle, this was not statesmanship; it was heresy. It threatened their budgets, their influence, and their very reason for being.
Most dangerously, Kennedy was winning. His popularity was soaring, and he was poised to easily win re-election in 1964. This meant another four years of his perceived weakness, another four years of his brother’s oversight, and another four years of his moves toward détente. For those who believed his policies were an existential threat to the nation’s security, the constitutional path to removing him was closed. The only way to stop him was an unconstitutional one.
This is the fertile ground from which conspiracy theories grow. The motive is clear and powerful: A president, seen as a traitor to the hardline Cold War cause, was moving to dismantle the secret government and make peace with its enemies. He had already fired its revered leader and humiliated the institution. He was a clear and present danger to its existence. The means were also present: The CIA had, through its Operation Mongoose and other anti-Castro ventures, extensive ties to the Mafia (for assassination plots) and to Cuban exile groups brimming with fanatical, vengeful men who felt betrayed by Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs. The Agency had the operational expertise, the assets, and the tradecraft to orchestrate a complex event and, crucially, the power to obscure its own involvement afterward.
The official investigatory bodies, the Warren Commission and later the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), were heavily influenced by the very establishment figures under suspicion. Most notably, Allen Dulles himself was appointed by President Johnson to serve on the Warren Commission. The man fired by Kennedy was now in a position to help direct the investigation into his murder—a fact so staggering it seems ripped from a political thriller. It is impossible to imagine this did not have a chilling effect on the investigation’s pursuit of certain leads.
While the HSCA ultimately concluded in 1979 that Kennedy was "probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy," it did not name the CIA. It left the door open to Mafia or anti-Castro Cuban involvement, both groups the CIA had connections with. The destruction of key evidence and the failure of the early investigations to pursue possible conspiracy angles have forever clouded the case.
The question "Is this why he was killed?" can never be answered with legal certainty without a definitive, unimpeachable evidence. What history can tell us is that John F. Kennedy’s relationship with the CIA was one of the most toxic and dysfunctional in American history. He had given the "state within a state" a powerful motive to despise him, to fear his continued leadership, and to work actively against his policies. He had demonstrated that he was willing to break them.
Whether this animosity translated into active participation in his assassination remains the subject of fierce debate. But it is undeniable that the climate of hostility and mistrust between the President and his own intelligence agency created a set of conditions where such an event became, if not inevitable, then tragically conceivable. The firing of Allen Dulles was not a single cause, but a central act in a high-stakes drama of power, ideology, and betrayal. It was a declaration that the president was in charge, a message that was received, resented, and, some believe, returned with fatal finality in Dallas. The true legacy of that rift is a haunting and enduring question mark over American history, a permanent reminder of the dangers when the instruments of state power slip their democratic leash.
#JFK #Assassination #CIA #AllenDulles #JohnFKennedy
The Unbreakable Will: Ukraine’s Centuries-Long Journey to Sovereignty and the Final Break from Russia
The Unbreakable Will: Ukraine’s Centuries-Long Journey to Sovereignty and the Final Break from Russia
The image of a war-torn Ukraine, defiantly resisting a larger invader, has become a defining narrative of the 21st century. To many observers, the conflict that exploded in 2014 and escalated dramatically in 2022 appeared as a sudden "breakaway" of Ukraine from Russia. However, this framing is a profound oversimplification. Ukraine’s path to independence is not a recent schism but a centuries-long struggle for national identity, sovereignty, and self-determination against imperial domination, primarily from Moscow. The events of the last decade are not the cause of the break but the violent, tragic culmination of a long and unresolved historical process.
This article will trace the deep historical roots of Ukrainian nationhood, the period of Soviet control, the pivotal moment of independence in 1991, and the complex post-Soviet relationship that ultimately led to the point of rupture, fueled by the aspirations of the Ukrainian people and the aggression of a revanchist Kremlin.
I. The Historical Roots of a Distinct Nation
The foundational element often missed in the Kremlin’s narrative is that Ukraine is not a mere historical offshoot of Russia. Its journey to statehood began long before the rise of Muscovy.
Kyivan Rus': The Common Ancestor: The first major East Slavic state was Kyivan Rus' (9th to 13th centuries), with its capital in Kyiv. This medieval federation, which adopted Orthodox Christianity in 988, is a cornerstone of history for Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians. Moscow, founded in the 12th century, was a peripheral settlement at the time. When modern Russia claims Kyivan Rus' as its exclusive inheritance, it is effectively appropriating the cradle of Ukrainian civilization and denying Ukraine’s historical primacy in the region.
Divergent Paths: After the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, the lands of Kyivan Rus' were fractured. The north-eastern principalities, including Moscow, fell under Mongol rule (the "Tatar Yoke"), which heavily influenced its autocratic and centralized political culture. Meanwhile, the western and southern territories of Rus' (modern-day Ukraine) were incorporated into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and later the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This centuries-long separation meant that Ukrainian lands developed under a European legal and political system, fostering a distinct language, culture, and a tradition of Cossack self-governance that was fiercely resistant to external control, whether Polish or Russian.
Imperial Subjugation: The Cossack Hetmanate, a Ukrainian Cossack state, emerged in the 17th century. In 1654, seeking military support against Poland, Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky signed the Pereiaslav Agreement with the Tsardom of Moscow. This was intended as a military alliance between two partners, but Moscow increasingly interpreted it as an act of perpetual subjugation. Over the next centuries, the Russian Empire systematically dismantled Ukrainian autonomy, banning the Ukrainian language in print and public life (Ems Ukaz of 1876) and enforcing a policy of Russification, branding Ukraine as "Little Russia."
II. The Soviet Era: Formal Unity, Forced Assimilation
The 20th century brought new forms of control under the Soviet Union. Ukraine became a founding republic of the USSR in 1922, but this was a fig leaf of sovereignty.
The Holodomor: In 1932-33, Joseph Stalin’s policy of forced collectivization led to a man-made famine that killed millions of Ukrainians. This was not merely a tragic oversight but a deliberate act of terror to crush Ukrainian peasant resistance and nationalist spirit. The Holodomor is widely regarded by Ukraine and numerous countries as a genocide, a brutal attempt to break the backbone of the nation.
Political and Cultural Repression: The Soviet era was characterized by the relentless suppression of Ukrainian intellectuals, artists, and political dissidents. While the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic had a seat at the UN, all real power resided in Moscow. The Russian language was promoted as the language of state, progress, and the "Soviet people," while Ukrainian was often marginalized to a rural, folkloric status.
The Weight of History: Despite this oppression, a distinct Ukrainian identity persisted underground and in diaspora communities. The Chornobyl disaster of 1986, which occurred on Ukrainian soil and was catastrophically mishandled by the Soviet government, became a powerful symbol of Moscow’s disregard for its subjects and further galvanized national sentiment.
III. 1991: The Legal Break—A Vote for Independence
The collapse of the Soviet Union provided the historic opportunity for a legal and peaceful break. In a referendum on December 1, 1991, an astounding 92.3% of Ukrainian voters voted for independence. This vote was not a narrow ethnic split; it was a landslide across all regions, including areas with large Russian-speaking populations like Crimea and the Donbas. This moment was crucial—it was the democratic expression of the Ukrainian people’s desire to be a sovereign state, free from Moscow’s control.
The subsequent dissolution of the USSR was, in legal terms, the formal and mutually recognized break. Ukraine was recognized internationally, including by the Russian Federation under Boris Yeltsin, which accepted its new borders.
IV. The Post-Soviet Drift: The Unresolved Relationship
For the next two decades, Ukraine’s path wavered between East and West, reflecting an internal struggle over its identity and future.
The Pull of Europe: Many Ukrainians, particularly in the western and central regions, looked towards European integration as a path to modernization, democracy, and a definitive break from a corrupt and authoritarian post-Soviet model, which Russia increasingly embodied.
Russian Leverage and Influence: Russia never fully accepted Ukrainian sovereignty. It maintained influence through economic levers (cheap gas), political manipulation (supporting pro-Russian political parties and presidents), and the constant promotion of a narrative of shared history, culture, and "fraternal peoples." The presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea, was a constant reminder of its lingering military presence.
The Orange Revolution (2004): A major turning point. When a fraudulent presidential election attempted to install the pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians protested for weeks, forcing a new vote that brought the pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko to power. This was a massive, peaceful popular revolt against Kremlin interference and a clear signal of Ukraine’s European aspirations.
V. The Point of Rupture: 2014 and the War for Europe’s Future
The final, violent break was triggered in late 2013 by President Yanukovych’s last-minute decision to abandon an Association Agreement with the European Union under intense pressure from Moscow. This sparked the Euromaidan Revolution (also known as the Revolution of Dignity).
For three months, Ukrainians from all walks of life protested in Kyiv’s Independence Square, demanding an end to corruption, closer ties with Europe, and Yanukovych’s resignation. The government’s violent crackdown, which killed over 100 protesters, only hardened their resolve. In February 2014, Yanukovych fled to Russia.
The Ukrainian people had once again decisively chosen a European future. For Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which views the loss of Ukraine as a catastrophic geopolitical defeat that invalidates its great-power status, this was a red line.
The Annexation of Crimea: In response, Russia launched a swift and covert military operation, seizing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula under the guise of "little green men" (soldiers without insignia). A sham referendum was held at gunpoint, and Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014. This was the first forcible redrawing of borders in Europe since WWII, a blatant violation of international law and countless treaties Russia had signed.
War in the Donbas: Almost immediately, Russia fomented and armed a separatist insurgency in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region. It provided not only weapons but also regular Russian troops, sophisticated military equipment, and command-and-control. This hybrid war, which claimed over 14,000 lives between 2014 and early 2022, was Russia’s tool to destabilize Ukraine, prevent its Western integration, and maintain a lever of control.
VI. 2022: The Full-Scale Invasion and the Finality of the Break
The eight years of simmering conflict were a prelude. Despite the Minsk agreements aimed at a ceasefire, Ukraine continued its pro-Western trajectory, and its military, hardened by war, grew more capable. For Putin, the prospect of a successful, democratic, and European Ukraine on Russia’s border was an existential threat to his regime’s model of autocratic rule.
The full-scale invasion launched on February 24, 2022, was the ultimate attempt to reverse the verdict of 1991 by force. Its goal was to eradicate the Ukrainian state and identity entirely. However, it has achieved the exact opposite. The invasion has inflicted horrific suffering, but it has also:
1. Annihilated any remaining cultural or fraternal ties: Russian bombs have destroyed Ukrainian cities, theaters, and museums, killing tens of thousands. Any notion of "brotherly peoples" is now a grotesque memory.
2. Solidified Ukrainian National Identity: Resistance has become the unifying national project. The Ukrainian language and culture are now more assertive than at any point in modern history.
3. Made the Break Permanent and Irreversible: There is no scenario in which Ukraine, after such sacrifice, would ever voluntarily return to Russia’s sphere of influence. Its future is unambiguously tied to the West, with EU candidate status granted and NATO membership a stated goal.
Conclusion
Ukraine’s break from Russia is not a recent event but the final, violent chapter of a long historical process. It is the story of a nation that has fought for centuries to emerge from the shadow of its imperial neighbor. The democratic choice of the Ukrainian people in 1991 and again during the Euromaidan was met not with respect but with annexation, war, and ultimately a genocidal-scale invasion.
The rupture is now total and absolute. It is a break not just of political systems or alliances, but of civilizational choice. Ukraine has chosen the path of sovereignty, democracy, and Europe. Russia, through its brutal aggression, has chosen empire, autocracy, and isolation. The war today is not about causing the break; it is about Russia’s refusal to accept that the break, forged by Ukraine’s unbreakable will, happened long ago.
#Ukraine #Russia #USSR #SovietUnion
8/15/25
How Kamala Harris Helped Create a Crime Wave in CA
How Kamala Harris Helped Create a Crime Wave in CA
How California’s Proposition 47 Fueled Rising Crime and ‘Smash-and-Grab’ Robberies
Introduction
In 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47, the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act," a criminal justice reform measure that downgraded many nonviolent felonies—including thefts under $950—to misdemeanors. While the law was designed to reduce prison overcrowding and redirect funds to rehabilitation programs, critics argue it has had disastrous consequences, including a surge in smash-and-grab robberies, organized retail theft, and repeat offenders avoiding serious penalties.
Though then-Attorney General Kamala Harris did not draft Prop 47, she strongly supported it and defended it in court, aligning with her broader push for criminal justice reform. Over the years, however, the law has faced intense backlash from law enforcement, business owners, and even progressive district attorneys who say it has emboldened thieves and worsened crime.
This article examines how Prop 47 contributed to California’s crime wave, particularly through its $950 theft threshold, and why many now believe the law needs major revisions.
What Proposition 47 Changed
Prop 47 reclassified several felony offenses as misdemeanors, most notably:
1. Theft Under $950: Previously, stealing property worth more than $400 could be charged as a felony. Prop 47 raised the threshold to $950, meaning most shoplifting, grand theft, and even some burglaries became misdemeanors—punishable by little more than a citation.
2. Drug Possession: Hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors.
3. Sentence Reduction for Prior Offenses Inmates already serving time for these reclassified crimes could petition for early release.
Supporters, including Kamala Harris, argued that the law would:
- Reduce prison overcrowding
- Save taxpayer money by incarcerating fewer low-level offenders
- Fund rehabilitation programs with the savings
However, the unintended consequences soon became apparent.
How Prop 47 Fueled Smash-and-Grab Robberies
One of the most visible effects of Prop 47 has been the explosion of organized retail theft and smash-and-grab robberies—daring, often violent thefts where groups rush into stores, overwhelm employees, and steal thousands of dollars in merchandise before fleeing.
1. The $950 Loophole
Because theft under $950 is only a misdemeanor, criminals quickly learned they could steal with near impunity:
- Police often don’t respond to petty theft calls due to understaffing and low priority.
- Even if caught, thieves face minimal consequences—usually just a ticket.
- Repeat offenders exploit this by stealing just under $950 per incident to avoid felony charges.
A San Francisco Chronicle investigation found that after Prop 47, shoplifting arrests dropped by nearly 30%, not because theft decreased, but because police deprioritized these cases.
2. Organized Retail Crime Rings
Criminal networks have exploited Prop 47 by orchestrating mass thefts:
- Thieves target high-end stores (e.g., Louis Vuitton, Apple, Nordstrom) and pharmacies (stealing resalable cosmetics and medications).
- Stolen goods are often sold online or through black-market fencing operations.
- The California Retailers Association reported a 28% increase in organized retail theft since Prop 47 passed.
3. Police and Prosecutors Handcuffed
- Misdemeanors = No Real Deterrent: Without the threat of jail time, thieves have little reason to stop.
- No DNA Collection for Misdemeanors: Prop 47 barred police from collecting DNA for misdemeanor thefts, making it harder to track repeat offenders.
- Prosecutors Forced to Drop Cases: Many district attorneys don’t bother prosecuting sub-$950 thefts because penalties are so weak.
Crime Data Shows Prop 47’s Impact
While Prop 47 supporters claim it did not increase crime, multiple studies and law enforcement reports suggest otherwise:
1. Rising Theft Rates
- A 2018 study by the University of California, Irvine found a 9% increase in larceny thefts following Prop 47.
- The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) reported that auto break-ins and shoplifting rose in urban areas post-Prop 47.
- Los Angeles saw a 160% increase in follow-home robberies (2020-2022), many linked to organized theft rings.
2. Repeat Offenders Exploiting the System
- In San Francisco, a single thief was arrested over 100 times but continued stealing because penalties were so light.
- A Sacramento Bee investigation found that some thieves deliberately steal $949 worth of goods to stay under the felony threshold.
3. Businesses Fleeing California
- Major retailers like Walgreens, Target, and Walmart have closed stores in high-theft areas, citing "rampant shoplifting."
- Small businesses, especially Asian-owned liquor stores, have been hit hard, with some owners arming themselves in response.
Kamala Harris’s Role in Prop 47
While Kamala Harris did not write Prop 47, she actively supported it as Attorney General and later as a U.S. Senator. Her stance reflected her broader criminal justice reform agenda, which emphasized:
- Reducing mass incarceration
- Focusing on rehabilitation over punishment
- Addressing racial disparities in sentencing
However, as crime surged, even some progressive leaders—including San Francisco’s Democratic Mayor London Breed—admitted that Prop 47 went too far.
Growing Pushback: Calls to Reform Prop 47
Due to rising crime, there have been multiple efforts to amend or repeal Prop 47:
1. Proposition 20 (2020) – Failed Attempt to Roll Back Reforms
- Would have restored felony charges for serial theft and certain violent crimes.
- Voters rejected it, showing lingering support for criminal justice reform.
2. Recent Legislative Efforts
- AB 1592 (2023) proposed lowering the felony theft threshold back to $400.
- AB 1065 (2022) increased penalties for organized retail theft.
- Governor Newsom deployed CHP task forces to combat smash-and-grabs, but critics say this doesn’t fix the root issue.
3. Public Opinion Shifting
- A 2023 Berkeley IGS Poll found that 62% of Californians now support revising Prop 47.
- Even progressive cities like San Francisco and Oakland have seen a backlash, with voters recalling soft-on-crime DAs like Chesa Boudin.
Conclusion: Prop 47’s Legacy – Reform Gone Wrong?
Proposition 47 was well-intentioned—aimed at reducing incarceration for minor offenses—but its $950 theft rule has had disastrous unintended consequences:
- Explosion of smash-and-grab robberies
- Organized retail theft rings operating with impunity
- Police and prosecutors unable to effectively punish repeat offenders
- Businesses closing or fleeing high-crime areas
While criminal justice reform remains important, California may need to amend Prop 47 to restore felony penalties for serial thieves and organized retail crime. Until then, the state’s crime wave—fueled by a law that made theft a low-risk, high-reward endeavor—shows no signs of slowing down.
Would voters pass Prop 47 today? Given the surge in brazen thefts and urban decay, the answer seems increasingly clear: No.
Key Takeaways
✅ Prop 47 downgraded thefts under $950 to misdemeanors.
✅ Smash-and-grab robberies surged due to weak penalties.
✅ Organized crime rings exploit the $950 loophole.
✅ Even progressive cities now admit Prop 47 went too far.
✅ Growing support for reforming the law to curb retail theft.
#California #Proposition47 #Prop47 #KamalaHarris
8/14/25
.jpeg)
8/13/25
8/12/25
8/11/25
Trump says he will take control of DC police, deploy National Guard to capital
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)